HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSD-2025-169 - B 2025-013, A 2025-042 - 1100 Union StStaff Report
r
JR
Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca
REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment
DATE OF MEETING: April 15, 2025
SUBMITTED BY: Tina Malone -Wright, Manager, Development Approvals
519-783-8913
PREPARED BY: Eric Schneider, Senior Planner, 519-783-8918
WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 10
DATE OF REPORT: April 2, 2025
REPORT NO.: DSD -2025-169
SUBJECT: Minor Variance Application A2025-042 —1100 Union Street
Consent Application B2025-013 — 1100 Union Street
RECOMMENDATION:
A. Minor Variance Application A2025-042 - 1100 Union Street
That Minor Variance Application A2025-042 for 1100 Union Street requesting relief
from the following sections of Zoning By-law:
i) Section 4.6 a) to permit a new lot without frontage on a street whereas Zoning
By-law requires all lots, buildings and structures thereon to have frontage on a
street; and
ii) Section 7.3, Table 7-2, to permit a rear yard setback of 5 metres instead of the
minimum required 7.5 metres;
to facilitate the development of a new detached dwelling on a proposed severed
parcel of land from 1100 Union Street, BE REFUSED.
B. Consent Application B2025-013 — 1100 Union Street
That Consent Application B2025-013 for 1100 Union Street requesting consent to
sever a parcel of land having a lot width of 17.1 metres, a lot depth of 16.8 metres
and a lot area of 235 square metres, BE REFUSED.
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS:
• The purpose of this report is to evaluate the applications for minor variance and
consent to sever a parcel of land to permit construction of a new detached dwelling.
• The key finding of this report is that the requested minor variances and consent to
sever application do not meet criteria of the Planning Act and the City's policies.
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
Page 252 of 282
• 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
and this report was posted to the City'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 on the northwest corner of Union Street and Union Lane.
The subject property is identified as `Community Areas' on Map 2 — Urban Structure and is
designated `Low Rise Residential' on Map 3 — Land Use in the City's 2014 Official Plan.
The property is zoned `Low Rise Residential Four Zone (RES -4)' in Zoning By-law 2019-
051.
The purpose of the application is to sever a parcel of land to permit construction of a new
detached dwelling.
The Consent and Minor Variance Applications were originally submitted by the Applicant
by the January 31St, 2025, digital deadline with intent that they be scheduled and
considered on the March Committee of Adjustment Agenda.
The Minor Variance Application proposed variances for a reduced lot area, less than the
minimum 235 square metres, and rear yard setback from 7.5 metres to 5 metres, for a
severed parcel from 1100 Union Street. Upon an initial review by Planning Staff, it was
noted that the severed parcel would not have frontage on a street as required by Section
4.6 a) of the City's Zoning By-law.
Planning staff met with the Applicant and Owner on February 28th, 2025, to discuss the
applications. It was conveyed that Planning Staff could not support the applications for
Minor Variance and Consent. The lot would not have the required lot area and the required
frontage on a `Street as defined by the Zoning By-law and would not be support by policy.
"4.6 FRONTAGE ON A STREET
Unless otherwise provided for in this By-law, no person shall erect any building or
structure, or use any building, structure, or lot unless.-
a)
nless:
a) The lot has frontage on a street; or"
"Street — means a public highway greater than 12.19 metres in width, as defined
under the Highway Traffic Act or the Municipal Act, which provides access to an
abutting lot; and which is dedicated, assumed, and/or maintained by and under the
jurisdiction of the City, Region or Province. For the purposes of this By-law, a street
does not include a lane or any private street."
Page 253 of 282
The Applicant and Owner were also requested to demonstrate the functionality of the
Retained Parcel with the existing `Triplex' dwelling; that all zoning by-law regulations,
including parking, landscaping, unobstructed walkways, could be met. They were also
advised that the drawing did not represent the `as built' condition as an existing covered
stairway on the rear fascia was not shown.
"e) An unobstructed walkway that is a minimum 1.1 metres in width, shall be
provided from a street to the principal entrance of each new additional
dwelling unit (attached), where the principal entrance is not located on a
street line fagade.
h) The minimum front yard landscaped area shall consist of 20% soft
landscaping, and which shall exclude hard -surfaces such as surface
walkways, patios, decks or porches, (Amended; By-law 2024-204, S.7 —
December 2, 2024)
i) The minimum rear yard landscaped area shall be 30%."
For the April 2025 Committee of Adjustment Agenda, updated Minor Variance and
Consent Applications were received. The lot configuration of the proposed Severed Parcel
was revised to include a triangular shaped intersection with Union Lane rather than a
straight perpendicular line to the other interior side lot line, in order to comply with the
minimum lot area requirement and avoid the need for this variance request. The Minor
Variance Application was also revised to request a variance to Section 4.6 a) to permit a
lot to be created with no `Frontage on a Street'.
The Applicant continued to submit a drawing with the application that did not show the
existing covered stairway on the rear fascia of the existing triplex. The drawing also did not
demonstrate the functionality of the `Triplex' Dwelling on the Retained Parcel particularly
with respect to the location of required unobstructed walkways, their relationship with the
existing entrances and their intersection, if any, with driveways/parking spaces. The rear
landscaped area was noted as 30% but without the required walkways shown it is not
known whether this requirement is met. Also, it could not be confirmed that the minimum
front yard landscaped area would be 20%.
There is a loss of amenity area for the `Triplex' dwelling to create a lot that does not have
frontage on a street. The resultant amenity area for the `Triple' dwelling or use thereof, has
also not been clearly identified and justified.
On a site visit, it was noted that there are existing walkways at the front of the building and
at the side and to the rear were not reflected on the drawing that was submitted with the
application.
Since the applications were originally submitted, the drawing has been updated the to only
reflect the existing covered stairway on the rear fascia and it has been included in this
report as Figure 4.
Page 254 of 282
;oe[� tt1�01. s ,
r trnr r
Mr.
A
9 1
o%
T
MON 5T ev dw
-
1
z
-s rn UL
F-1 UIV 1. LVI.QIIVII IVIQI.J
Figure 2: View of Subject Lands from Union Street, Existing Triplex
(March 28, 2025)
Page 255 of 282
I
to I-
to
IW, Q
rIh�A1tU
;oe[� tt1�01. s ,
r trnr r
Mr.
A
9 1
o%
T
MON 5T ev dw
-
1
z
-s rn UL
F-1 UIV 1. LVI.QIIVII IVIQI.J
Figure 2: View of Subject Lands from Union Street, Existing Triplex
(March 28, 2025)
Page 255 of 282
Figure 3: View of Subject Lands from Union Lane
(approximate area of proposed new lot)
(March 28, 2025)
Page 256 of 282
1 1 2-6
PA,q T- I
PI -AN 58
LANDS TO
7
dfyvpM�11
,AREA--37B.0rT1,
j, -a378 HECTARES)
L
-EF 5.2
E(; drv:� 30%
q
')d' F
0
z
LANDS TO
7-7-
BE SEVERED
SfOrfS
1 1 2-6
UNION
STREET
LANDS TO
7
dfyvpM�11
,AREA--37B.0rT1,
j, -a378 HECTARES)
"52w
-EF 5.2
E(; drv:� 30%
q
0
z
D
7-7-
SfOrfS
f flop,
1 1 2-6
16-8
UNION
STREET
LANDS TO
7
dfyvpM�11
,AREA--37B.0rT1,
j, -a378 HECTARES)
"52w
-EF 5.2
16-8
UNION
STREET
m
C
Figure 4: Proposed Lot Fabric
(Severance Sketch prepared by Grit Engineering Inc.)
Page 257 of 282
REPORT:
Planning Comments Minor Variance Application A2025-042:
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:
Creation of a Lot without Frontage on a Street
General Intent of the Official Plan
The general intent of the Official Plan Consent Policies is to ensure proper and orderly
development. Section 17.E.20.3 of the City's Official Plan states that the Committee of
Adjustment will have regard to the provisions of the Planning Act, to the goals, objectives and
policies of the Official Plan, and to the provisions of the Zoning By-law.
Section 17.E.20.5 contains criteria for the creation of a new lot. Section 17.E.20.5 d) requires
that new lots have frontage on a public street. Frontage onto a public street ensures that the
lot and the future use(s) of the land are able to access municipal services and provide
adequate access to the lands. The proposed application is seeking to create a new lot with
frontage on Union Lane, which is not a public street and does not have a full range of
municipal services.
As the application for Consent application does not conform to the Official Plan Planning Staff
are of the opinion that the requested variance does not meet the general intent of the Official
Plan.
General Intent of the Zoning By-law
The intent of the zoning regulation in Section 4.6 a) that requires new lots be on a street is to
ensure that the future use of the lands can be adequately serviced with the full range of
municipal services including vehicular access, pedestrian access, emergency services
access, waste collection access, service from a municipal drinking water system, sanitary
service, stormwater management, snow removal, streetlights, on -street parking, street trees,
telecommunications utilities, hydro and gas utilities, etc.
The applicant is proposing to create a new lot with frontage on Union Lane. The Union Lane
right-of-way width of 9.1 metres is not wide enough to be considered a public street
(minimum of 12.1 metres) and does not have the full range of municipal services. A summary
is included below:
Vehicular Access: Union Lane is paved with a 6 metre wide asphalt road with a painted
centreline. The City's standard pavement width for a local street is 7.0 metres wide. While
vehicular access is possible, the width of the travelled portion of the road is undersized to
meet the City's standards for vehicular travel and turning movements.
Pedestrian Access: Union Lane does not contain sidewalks. Pedestrians would be required
to walk on the vehicular travelled portion of Union Lane.
Page 258 of 282
Emergency Services Access: The City's Emergency Service Policy speaks to emergency
access route design. Section 2.6 a) states that unless otherwise approved, a portion of a
roadway provided as a fire route shall have a clear width not less than 6 metres. The
travelled portion of the road is the minimum width of 6 metres. Section 2.6 f) states that the
roadway shall have turnaround facilities for any dead-end portion of the access route more
than 90 metres long. The dead end of Union Lane does not contain a turnaround facility and
is approximately 120 metres long.
Waste Collection Access: Municipal (Region of Waterloo) Waste collection does not
currently occur on Union Lane as all properties with lot lines on Union Lane have their
primary access from Oxford Street or Lancaster Street West. Or in the case of 20 Union
Lane, that site is a multiple dwelling of greater than 6 units which would require private waste
collection, with turnaround occurring on site. If a new lot were to be created with frontage on
Union Lane, it is not clear how a regional waste collection truck complete a turnaround
movement after collecting waste from the proposed new lot without entering onto private
lands.
Service from Municipal Drinking Water System: Union Lane does not have a municipal
water service installed. The applicant would be required to extend the municipal water
service from Union Street, should the application be approved.
Sanitary Service: Union Lane does not have a municipal sanitary service installed. The
applicant would be required to extend the municipal sanitary service from Union Street,
should the application be approved.
Stormwater Management: Union Lane does not have stormwater management facilities
installed. Stormwater runs overland on Union Lane towards culverts on Union Street. This
overland flow of stormwater would continue should the application be approved.
Snow Removal: Union Lane is serviced by City Operations for winter snow removal. Union
Lane is classified as a Priority 3 — Local Residential Streets area on the City's Snowplow
Priorities Map.
Streetlights: Union Lane contains municipal streetlights.
On -Street Parking: Union Lane does not contain on -street parking. Parking is prohibited on
both sides of the Lane.
Street Trees: Union Lane does not contain municipal street trees. The width of the right-of-
way does not allow for sufficient space for street trees.
Telecommunications Utilities: Telecommunications utilities do not currently exist on Union
Lane. Utilities would need to connect through facilities on Union Street.
Hydro and Gas Utilities: Hydro poles do not extend down Union Lane. A hydro pole exists
on the corner of Union Lane and Union Street, hydro service would need to extend from
Union Street. Underground gas lines do not run underneath Union Lane. Gas lines would
need to be extended from Union Street.
Page 259 of 282
While Union Lane contains partial municipal services, it lacks the right-of-way width to
provide for the safe, orderly, and adequate function and use of the Lane as a public street for
individual, separate lots to front onto.
In the opinion of Planning Staff, the Minor Variance Application does not meet the general
intent of the Zoning By-law.
Is/Are the Effects of the Variance(s) Minor?
The effects of the requested variance are not considered to be minor in the opinion of
Planning Staff as it would result in a lack of adequate services available to the lot. The
effects of not having a full range of municipal services is not considered minor in the
opinion of Planning Staff.
Is/Are the Variance(s) Desirable For The Appropriate Development or Use of the Land,
Building and/or Structure?
Union Lane currently is comprised of a majority of back -lotted properties with frontages
onto public streets (Oxford Street and Lancaster Street West). There are no lots with
detached homes that face Union Lane. The proposed lot size, shape, and orientation are
dissimilar to the surrounding lots in the neighbourhood. Further, the area that is requested
to be severed is currently serving as the outdoor amenity space for the tenants of the
existing triplex on the retained lands. Finally, it is not considered appropriate use of the
lands to create a lot without frontage on a street that provides adequate access to
municipal services. In the opinion of Planning Staff, the requested variance is not desirable
for the appropriate development or use of the land.
Rear Yard Setback
General Intent of the Official Plan
The requested variance meets the general intent of the Official Plan. The Low Rise
Residential land use designation in the Official Plan favours the mixing and integration of
different forms of housing, including detached dwellings, to achieve a low overall intensity of
use. The requested variance for reduction in rear yard setback does not interfere with the
general intent of the Official Plan.
General Intent of the Zoning By-law
The intent of the regulation that requires a minimum rear yard setback of 7.5 metres is to
provide for adequate building separation and adequate outdoor amenity space.
Regarding building separation, the original lot is a corner property which would result in
the proposed new lot containing a rear lot line that would face the internal side lot line at
1106 Union Lane. Internal side lot lines typically have a lesser setback and an addition to
the rear of the existing triplex on the retained lands could be located 1.2 metres from the
internal side lot line of 1106 Union Street as -of -right. Planning Staff are satisfied that the
requested variance provides for adequate building separation.
Regarding outdoor amenity space, Staff acknowledge that the total area of amenity space
is similar to a lot with the minimum rear yard setback of 7.5 metres and the minimum lot
width of 9 metres, as the additional area is made up from the surplus lot width of the
proposed lot of 17.1 metres. However, it is important to consider the shape of the amenity
Page 260 of 282
space when considering the use and functionality of the space. Area can be a poor
measure of functional amenity space if it becomes a narrow strip that is not deep or wide
enough to contain space for passive and active forms of recreation. Therefore, the
minimum setback distance of 7.5 metres is important in ensuring not only that there is
adequate amenity area, but that the orientation of that area is functional and appropriate
for its intended use. The proposed amenity area would be 17.1 metres wide by 5 metres
deep and would not provide for enough functional depth for its intended use.
Staff note that should the application be approved, the detached home could contain 4
separate dwelling units and therefore 4 households sharing the outdoor amenity area.
Staff are not of the opinion that the proposed rear yard outdoor amenity area is sufficient
for a potential of 4 households.
Staff are of the opinion that that proposed rear yard setback does not provide for sufficient
outdoor amenity space on site and that the requested variance does not meet the general
intent of the Zoning By-law.
Is/Are the Effects of the Variance(s) Minor?
The effect of the requested variance is that the future users of the site would not have
adequate amenity space on site. Access to outdoor amenity area is important in achieving
the goals of the City to contribute to an enhanced high quality of life. Staff are of the
opinion that the effects of the requested variance are not minor.
Is/Are the Variance(s) Desirable For The Appropriate Development or Use of the Land,
Building and/or Structure?
The requested variance would result in an undersized lot that is unable to provide for
adequate outdoor amenity space on site for a proposed use of the severed lands and the
`Triplex' use of the Retained lands. The appropriate development of the land should
include adequate on site amenity space. Planning Staff is of the opinion that the requested
variance is not desirable for the appropriate development of the land.
Planning Comments Consent Application B2025-013:
In considering all the relevant Provincial legislation, Regional and City policies and
regulations, Planning staff offer the following comments:
Provincial Planning Statement (PPS 2024)
reviewed the application The Provincial Planning Statement contains housing policies in
Chapter 2 regarding intensification and facilitating housing options. Section 2.2 1 (b) states
that Planning authorities shall provide for an appropriate range and mix of housing options
and densities to meet projected needs of current and future residents of the regional
market area by permitting and facilitating all housing options required to meet the social,
health, economic and well-being requirements of current and future residents. Staff are not
satisfied that the proposal to create a lot without frontage on a municipal street meets the
social, health, and well-being needs future residents as the lot will not have access to full
municipal services.
Regional Official Plan (ROP):
ROP Urban Area policies state that the focus of the Region's future growth shall be within
the Urban Area. The subject lands fall within the `Urban Area' and are designated `Built -Up
Page 261 of 282
Area' in the ROP. Policy 2.D.1 of the ROP requires residential development to provide for
adequate physical and community infrastructure including transportation networks,
municipal water and wastewater systems, and a broad range of social and public health
services. The proposal to create a new lot without frontage on a public street will
compromise the ability to provide for adequate physical infrastructure. Staff are of the
opinion that the proposed severance application does not conform to the ROP.
City's Official Plan (2014)
The subject property is identified as `Community Areas' on Map 2 — Urban Structure and is
designated `Low Rise Residential' on Map 3 — Land Use in the City's Official Plan.
Section 17.E.20.5 of the Official Plan implements Section 51 of the Planning Act and
contains policies regarding infill development and lot creation (Consent Policies).These
policies state the following:
"17.E.20.5 Applications for consent to create new lots will only be granted where:
a) the lots comply with the policies of this Plan, any Community Plan
and/or Secondary Plan, and that the lots are in conformity with the
Zoning By-law, or a minor variance has been granted to correct any
deficiencies;
b) the lots reflect the general scale and character of the established
development pattern of surrounding lands by taking into consideration
lot frontages, areas, and configurations;
c) all of the criteria for plan of subdivision are given due consideration;
d) the lot will have frontage on a public street;
e) municipal water services are available;
f) municipal sanitary services are available except in accordance
with Policy 14.C.1.19;
g) a Plan of Subdivision or Condominium has been deemed not to be
necessary for proper and orderly development; and,
h) the lot(s) will not restrict the ultimate development of adjacent
properties."
Regarding policy 17.E.20.5 b) above, the proposed lot does not reflect the general scale
and character of the established development pattern of surrounding lands. Lots on the
surrounding blocks range between 600-1500 square metres in area, whereas the
proposed lot is 235 square metres in area. Figure 5 below illustrates the lot general scale
and lot sizes of the surrounding lands.
Page 262 of 282
M
Ll�
2,.? 20
2U. T�_
[I)1 ❑
00 L�
VA
1 X25
188
���� r
i$d w L413'
4 LJ L�S1
iO_ Q t1
0 405 <
L)
1066 IE, ir,rs41UJl) J
1,1i10� 11tifi. Hifi
Figure 5: Proposed Lot Boundaries shown with Lot Fabric of Surrounding Lands
Regarding Policy 17.E.20.5 d) above, the proposed lot does not have frontage onto a
public street, as Union Lane does not have sufficient right-of-way width to be considered a
public street.
The request for consent to sever does not conform to the Official Plan.
Zoning By-law 2019-051
The property is zoned `Low Rise Residential Four Zone (RES -4)' in Zoning By-law 2019-
051.
With respect to the lands proposed to be severed, Zoning By-law Regulation 4.6 a)
requires all new lots to be located on a street. Union Lane is not considered a street as it
does not have sufficient right-of-way width. The applicant has requested a variance for this
regulation, which has been analyzed in the Minor Variance section of this report.
In the absence of detailed plans for development of the severed parcel, appropriate
justification has not been submitted to support a reduced rear yard; why is it not possible
to comply.
With respect to the `Retained Lands', the drawing, submitted with the Minor Variance and
Consent Applications did not demonstrate the zoning compliance or functionality of the
`Triplex' Dwelling on the Retained Parcel particularly with respect to the location of
required unobstructed walkways, their relationship with the existing entrances and their
intersection, if any, with driveways/parking spaces. The rear landscaped area was noted
as 30% but without the required walkways shown it is not known whether this requirement
Page 263 of 282
is met. Also, it could not be confirmed that the minimum front yard landscaped area would
be 20%. Also, there is a loss of amenity area for the `Triplex' dwelling to create a lot that
does not have frontage on a street. The resultant amenity area for the `Triple' dwelling or
use thereof, has not been clearly identified.
Planning Conclusions/Comments:
With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51(24) of the
Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, Staff is not of the opinion that the creation of the
severed lot is desirable and appropriate.
Specifically, the proposed application does not meet the following criteria in Section 51(24)
of the Planning Act:
c) whether the proposed subdivision conforms to the official plan and adjacent
plans of subdivision, if any;
d) the suitability of the land for the purposes for which it is to be subdivided;
e) the number, width, location and proposed grades and elevations of
highways, and the adequacy of them, and the highways linking the highways
in the proposed subdivision with the established highway system in the
vicinity and the adequacy of them;
f) the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots;
g) the restrictions or proposed restrictions, if any, on the land proposed to be
subdivided or the buildings and structures proposed to be erected on it and
the restrictions, if any, on adjoining land;
i) the adequacy of utilities and municipal services;
The creation of the proposed severed parcel is not in conformity with the City's Official
Plan and Zoning By-law, as the lot does not have frontage onto a street. Further, Staff is of
the opinion that the proposal does not represent good planning and is not in the public
interest.
Environmental Planning Comments:
The standard condition that requires a tree management plan will apply.
Heritage Planning Comments:
The subject property does not have any heritage comments or concerns. However, the
property is located adjacent to the Union Street Cultural Heritage Landscape.
Building Division Comments:
The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance provided building permits
for the new single detached dwelling is obtained prior to construction. Please contact the
Building Division at building(akitchener.ca with any questions.
Page 264 of 282
The Building Division has no objections to the proposed consent subject to the following
conditions:
A qualified designer is retained to complete a building code assessment as it relates to the
new proposed property line and any of the building adjacent to this new property line shall
addresses such items as: Spatial separation of existing buildings' wall face to the
satisfaction of the Chief Building Official. Closing in of openings may be required, pending
spatial separation calculation results.
2. A building permit shall be obtained for any remedial work/ upgrades that may be required
by the building code assessment.
Engineering Division Comments:
Severance of any blocks within the subject lands will require separate, individual service
connections for sanitary and water, in accordance with City policies.
There is currently no servicing on Union Lane, services will need to be extended per City
of Kitchener standards per the condition below.
"That the Owner shall enter into an agreement to be prepared by the City Solicitor which
shall acknowledge that the severed lands are un -serviced and shall provide for the
installation of services and service connections to the severed lands to be completed
prior to any future development of the severed lands. The agreement shall further
require the Owner to include a notice provision in all future Agreements of Purchase
and Sale for the severed lands advising potential Purchaser(s) that the severed lands
are un -serviced. The said agreement shall be to the satisfaction of the Director of
Engineering and the City Solicitor and shall be registered on title to the severed lands."
Planning Comments:
While Engineering Services Staff have noted that an agreement for municipal services
would be a satisfactory condition, Planning staff have concerns given Provincial, Regional
and City policies with respect to the adequacy/availability of municipal services. In
particular:
Section 51(24) of the Planning Act
i) the adequacy of utilities and municipal services,-
Official
ervices,
Official Plan Policy 17.E.20.5
"17.E.20.5 Applications for consent to create new lots will only be granted where.-
d)
here:
d) the lot will have frontage on a public street;
e) municipal water services are available;
f) municipal sanitary services are available except in accordance
with Policy 14. C.1.19;
Page 265 of 282
In this case, it would not be appropriate to defer servicing to a future agreement where a
Minor Variance Application is requesting to create a lot that does not have frontage on a
street.
If it can be demonstrated that the Minor Variance to facilitate the creation of a lot, with no
frontage on a street, can meet the 4 tests of the Planning Act, the creation of the lot should
also meet Provincial and City Policy in that municipal services are adequate and available.
If the Committee decides that the Minor Variances meet the 4 tests in the Planning Act
and that the Consent Application would conform to Provincial, Regional and City Policies
and the City's Zoning By-law, then Planning Staff recommends that they standard
Engineering conditions for servicing should be applied to approval of the Consent
Application.
Parks/Operations Division Comments:
Cash -in -lieu of park land dedication will be required on the severed parcel as 1 new
development lot will be created. The cash -in -lieu dedication required is $11,862.00. Park
Dedication is calculated at 5% of the new development lots only, with a land valuation
calculated by the lineal frontage of 17.1 metres at a land value of $36,080.00 per frontage
meter with a per unit cap of $11,862.00.00.
Transportation Planning Comments:
Transportation Services have no concerns with this application.
Region of Waterloo Comments:
This applicant proposes to sever the subject property into two lots. The severed parcel
is vacant, and the owner/applicant is planning to build a single detached dwelling on the
vacant parcel. The retained parcel has a residential building with three units. The lot area
of the severed parcel is 235 m2. The lot area of the retained parcel is 378 m2.
Threats Inventory Database: This information is provided until such time as access to
the Threat Inventory Database (TID) has been transferred to the Area Municipality.
There are no records in the Threat Inventory Database on the subject property. There
are no high or medium threats in the TID on properties adjacent to the subject property.
Regional Consent Review Fee: Regional staff have not received the fee for consent
review of $350 per application. The fee payment is requested as a condition of approval.
Regional Staff have no objection to Consent File B 2025-013 subject to the following
condition:
1. That the Owner/Developer submit the consent review fee of $350 per application to the
Regional Municipality of Waterloo.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
This report supports the delivery of core services.
Page 266 of 282
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 — 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:
• Planning Act
• Provincial Planning Statement (PPS 2024)
• Regional Official Plan (ROP)
• Official Plan (2014)
• Zoning By-law 2019-051
• Emergency Services Policy
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A — Severance Sketch
Attachment B — Consent Conditions
Page 267 of 282
Attachment B:
Should the Committee approve Minor Variance Application A2025-042 and choose
to approve Consent Application B2025-013, Staff would recommend applying the
following conditions:
Consent Application B2025-013
That Consent Application B2025-013 for 1100 Union Street requesting consent to
sever a parcel of land having a lot width of 17.1 metres, a lot depth of 16.8 metres
and a lot area of 235 square metres, BE APPROVED subject to the following
conditions:
1. That Minor Variance Application A2025-042 receive final approval.
2. That the Owner's solicitor shall provide draft transfer documents and
associated fees for the Certificate of Official to the satisfaction of the Secretary -
Treasurer and City Solicitor, if required.
3. That the Owner shall obtain a tax certificate from the City of Kitchener to
verify that there are no outstanding taxes on the subject property(ies) to the
satisfaction of the City's Revenue Division.
4. That the owner provides a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s)
prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in PDF and either .dwg (AutoCad) or
.dgn (Microstation) format, as well as two full size paper copies of the
plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the City of
Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's
Mapping Technologist.
5. That the existing driveway at the rear be reduced in size to be located fully
within the 'Retained Lands' to the satisfaction of the City's Manager,
Development Approvals.
6. That the Owner submit a Zoning Occupancy Certificate demonstrating
compliance of the Dwelling on the 'Retained Lands' with respect to the revised
lot lines, to the satisfaction of the City's Manager, Development Approvals.
7. That the Owner provides a servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal
servicing system to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services.
8. That the Owner submit a Development Asset Drawing (digital AutoCAD) for
the site (servicing, SWM etc.) with corresponding layer names and asset
information to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering Services,
prior to deed endorsement.
9. That the Owner makes financial arrangements for the installation of any new
service connections to the severed and/or retained lands to the satisfaction of
the City's Director of Engineering Services.
Page 268 of 282
10. That any new driveways are to be built to City of Kitchener standards at the
Owner's expense prior to occupancy of the building to the satisfaction of the
City's Director of Engineering Services.
11. That the Owner provides confirmation that the basement elevation can be
drained by gravity to the street sewers to the satisfaction of the City's Director
of Engineering Services. If this is not the case, then the owner will need to
pump the sewage via a pump and forcemain to the property line and have a
gravity sewer from the property line to the street to the satisfaction of the City's
Director of Engineering Services.
12. That the Owner shall:
a) Complete a Building Code Assessment for the existing dwelling proposed to
be retained on the [severed or retained] parcel of land, prepared by a
qualified person, to confirm that the proposed property line and any of the
building adjacent to this new property line complies with the Ontario Building
Code, to the satisfaction of the City's Chief Building Official. The assessment
shall address items such as, but not limited to, spatial separation of existing
buildings' wall face, and shall include recommendations such as closing in
of openings pending spatial separation calculation results.
b) Obtain a Building Permit for any remedial work/ upgrades required by the
Building Code Assessment.
13. That the owner pay to the City of Kitchener a cash -in -lieu contribution for park
dedication of $11,862.00.
14. That prior to any grading, servicing or the application or issuance of a
Demolition and/or Building Permit, the Owner shall submit a plan, prepared
by a qualified consultant, to the satisfaction and approval of the City's
Manager, Site Plans showing the following:
(i) the proposed location of all buildings (including accessory buildings
and structures), decks and driveways;
(ii) the location of any existing buildings or structures to be removed or
relocated;
(iii) the proposed grades and drainage;
(iv) the location of all trees to be preserved, removed or potentially
impacted on or adjacent to the subject lands, including notations of
their size, species and condition;
(v) justification for any trees to be removed; and
(vi) outline tree protection measures for trees to be preserved; and
(vii) building elevation drawings.
(viii) If necessary, the plan shall include the required mitigation and
compensation measures.
(ix) That the approved elevation drawings shall be implemented as
approved or be substantively similar to the approved elevations as
Page 269 of 282
part of issuance of any building permit(s).
Any alteration or improvement to the lands including grading, servicing, tree
removal and the application or issuance of any Demolition and/or Building
permits shall be in compliance with the approved plan. Any changes or
revisions to the plan require the approval of the City's Manager, Site Plans.
15. That prior to final approval the Owner submits the Consent Application Review Fee
of $350.00 to the Region of Waterloo.
Page 270 of 282
u
ry 16.8
SEVERANCE SKETCH FOR PROPERTY AT
1100 UNION STEET
CITY OF KITCHENER
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO
1 : 300 METRIC
4 0 4 8 12 16 metres
ZONING INFORMATION.
ZONINGTYPE:
PROPOSED
RESIDENTIAL ZONE
ZONE:
RES -5
N
w
LANDSTO BE
LANDS TO BE
REQUIRED BY ZONING
w
RETAINED
BYLAW
LOT AREA
w
378 OM2
235.OM2 (MIN.)
w
17.1m
w
z
9.Om(MIN.)
w
4.5/6.Om
6.7m
4.5/ 6.Om (MIN.)
to
5.Om
I
7.5m (MIN.)
EXTERIORSIDE YARD
ch�SITE
O
z
O
4.5m (MIN.)
ry
w
�
x
z
�
cl�
O
1.2m
1.2m (MIN.)
Q
U
z
13.3
z
74.0m
98.6.2
55% (MAX.)
Q
J
UNION STREET
26.1%
(KEY MAP - N.T.S.)
4.5
u
ry 16.8
SEVERANCE SKETCH FOR PROPERTY AT
1100 UNION STEET
CITY OF KITCHENER
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO
1 : 300 METRIC
4 0 4 8 12 16 metres
ZONING INFORMATION.
ZONINGTYPE:
PROPOSED
RESIDENTIAL ZONE
ZONE:
RES -5
N
LANDSTO BE
LANDS TO BE
REQUIRED BY ZONING
SEVERED
RETAINED
BYLAW
LOT AREA
235.0.2
378 OM2
235.OM2 (MIN.)
LOT FRONTAGE
17.1m
16.8m
9.Om(MIN.)
FRONT YARD DEPTH
4.5/6.Om
6.7m
4.5/ 6.Om (MIN.)
REAR YARD DEPTH
5.Om
7.5m
7.5m (MIN.)
EXTERIORSIDE YARD
N/A
3.5m
4.5m (MIN.)
WIDTH
INTERIORSIDE YARD
12m
1.2m
1.2m (MIN.)
WIDTH
z
13.3
LOT COVERAGE
74.0m
98.6.2
55% (MAX.)
31.4%
26.1%
SART 9 PLAN 58R- 71452
N -
3.5
n
LANDS TO tO
BE RETAINED existing
�rn� tO AREA -378.00 driveway
(O.D37B HECTARES) (5. 2m wide)
Y 5.2
I- 16.8 �--I
UNION STREET
(WIDTH VARIES)
Metric:
DISTANCES AND COORD/NATES SHOWN ON THIS
SKETCH ARE IN METERS AND CAN BE
CONIERTED TO FEET BY DIOD/NC BY 03048
Caution:
THIS /S NOT A PLAN OF SURREY THIS SKETCH
SHALL NOT SE USED FOR MORTGAGE OR
TRANSAC7ON PURPOSES
i
r.
---------------I
I
I
I
I
I
PROPOSED
1n
N DRIVEWAY
N
(5.2m WIDE)
4.5
TO
VERED
XREA=235.00
NECTARES)
04
4.5
5.0
W
t�K�
z
13.3
a n
w?
IIT( ri
NEW LANDSCAPING 30%
J1
3
4.5
Z
xstn
06
W�
O
Z
D
3.5
-
777-
I 2.6
11
I
unenc/osed
stairs
xisting tri -p/
Lq
mun. A 7700
Ql
3.5
n
LANDS TO tO
BE RETAINED existing
�rn� tO AREA -378.00 driveway
(O.D37B HECTARES) (5. 2m wide)
Y 5.2
I- 16.8 �--I
UNION STREET
(WIDTH VARIES)
Metric:
DISTANCES AND COORD/NATES SHOWN ON THIS
SKETCH ARE IN METERS AND CAN BE
CONIERTED TO FEET BY DIOD/NC BY 03048
Caution:
THIS /S NOT A PLAN OF SURREY THIS SKETCH
SHALL NOT SE USED FOR MORTGAGE OR
TRANSAC7ON PURPOSES
i
r.
---------------I
I
I
I
I
I
Region of Waterloo
Connie Owen
Administrative Clerk, Legislative Services
City of Kitchener
200 King Street West
Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7
VIA EMAIL: CofA@kitchener.ca
PLANNING, DEVELOPMENTAND
LEGISLATIVE SERVICES
150 Frederick Street, 8t" floor
Kitchener Ontario N2G 4J3 Canada
Telephone: 519-575-4400
Fax: 519-575-4449
www. regionofwaterloo.ca
Susanna Reid
Cell: 519-502-8298
File: D20-20/25 KIT
March 31, 2025
Re: Comments on Consent Applications: B2025-010 to B2025-013
Committee of Adjustment Hearing April 15, 2025
City of Kitchener
Please accept the following comments for the above -noted Consent applications to be
considered at the upcoming Committee of Adjustment Hearing.
Document Number: 4936939
Page 272 of 282
AM File No: B2025- 009
Address: 179 Jansen Ave
Description: Lt 18 PL 308 Kitchener; Pt Lt 17, 19, 23 PL 308 Kitchener; Pt Lt 1 WLY
Range PL 589 Twp of Waterloo; Pt Lt 183 Streets & Lanes Kitchener
(Being Pt of Guerin Av Formerly Brant Av Closed by By0law No. 5262
Registered as 287362) As in 742539 Except Pts 1 to 4 58R6635;
Kitchener
Owner: 1000589420 Ontario Inc (Alpha Capital Management)
Applicant: MHBC c/o Pierre Chauvin and Robyn McIntyre
The owner/applicant has applied for a consent for easement over 179 Jansen Ave. The
approximate area of the easement is 760.33 m2. The purpose of the easement is to
provide access to property owners at 179 Jansen Ave and 181 Jansen Ave.
Threats Inventory Database: This information is provided until such time as access to
the Threat Inventory Database (TID) has been transferred to the Area Municipality.
Threats Inventory Database mapping 179 Jansen Ave, Kitchener
Regional Fees: Regional staff have received the fee for consent review of $350.
Regional Staff have no objection to Consent File B2025-009.
Document Number: 4936939
Page 273 of 282
AM File No: B 2025-010
Address: 57 and 59 Iron Gate St.
Description: Part 3 & 4, Lot 2, RP 58M-430
Owners: Vasile Sabo and Emanuela Sabo
Applicant: Emanuel Catana
The two parts of the subject parcel were inadvertently registered in common title at the
time of financing and have merged. The owners are applying to recreate the two
separate and conveyable lots (57 and 59 Iron Gate St) that existed prior to merging.
The proposed severed parcel contains one semi-detached dwelling unit and has an
area of 251.38 m2. The proposed retained parcel also contains one semi-detached
dwelling unit and has an area of 251.32 m2.
Threats Inventory Database: This information is provided until such time as access to
the Threat Inventory Database (TID) has been transferred to the Area Municipality.
There are no records in the TID on the subject property. There are no high or medium
threats on properties adjacent to the subject property.
Threats Inventory Database mapping for 59 and 57 Iron Gate Drive, Kitchener.
Regional Consent Review Fee: Regional staff have not received the fee for consent
review of $350 per application. The fee payment is requested as a condition of
approval.
Regional Staff have no objection to Consent File B2025-010 subject to the
following condition:
1. That the Owner/Developer submit the consent review fee of $350 per application
to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo.
Document Number: 4936939
Page 274 of 282
AM File No: B 2025-011
Address: 400 Westwood Drive
Description: Part Lot 1-2 Plan 1536 Kitchener Part 1, 58R-12471
Owners: Anel and Zakia Kardumovic
Applicant: Christian Tsimenidis, UP Consulting
Consent application B2025-011 is to sever 1789 m2 from the rear yard of 400
Westwood Drive and merge it on title to enlarge 787 Glasgow Street.
The retained parcel (400 Westwood Drive) will have an area of 2501 m2.
The new lot area of 787 Glasgow will be 3833 m2.
No new lots are proposed.
Threats Inventory Database: This information is provided until such time as access to
the Threat Inventory Database (TID) has been transferred to the Area Municipality.
There are no records in the TID on the subject property. There are no high or medium
NF
Threats Inventory Database mapping for 400 Westwood Drive.
Regional Consent Review Fee: Regional staff have not received the fee for consent
review of $350 per application. The fee payment is requested as a condition of consent
approval.
Regional Staff have no objection to Consent File B 2025-011 subject to the
following condition:
1. That the Owner/Developer submit the consent review fee of $350 per
application to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo.
Document Number: 4936939
Page 275 of 282
AM File No: B 2025-012
Address: 112 Kehl Street
Description: Lot 33, Registered Plan 384
Owners: Nader and Pegah Ensafi
The applicants have built a semi-detached residence on the subject property. The
purpose of Consent Application B2025-12 is to create a new lot. They have applied to
sever the lot and have a separate address for each residential lot.
The area of the severed parcel is proposed to be 388 m2, and the area of the retained
parcel is also proposed to be 388 m2.
Risk Management Official: The property at 112 Kehl St, Kitchener is in a Source
Protection area where Risk Management Plan or prohibition policies implemented by
the Region of Waterloo may apply. A Notice of Source Protection Plan Compliance
(Section 59 Notice) is required prior to formal application.
The applicant should be directed to TAPS(https://taps.regionofwaterloo.ca) to
determine all applicable source protection plan requirements, and to contact the Risk
Management Official (rmo@regionofwaterloo.ca) as required.
Threats Inventory Database: This information is provided until such time as access to
the Threat Inventory Database (TID) has been transferred to the Area Municipality.
There are no records in the TID on the subject property. There are no high or medium
threats in the TID on properties adjacent to the subject property.
Threats Inventory Database mapping for 112 Kehl Street.
Document Number: 4936939
Page 276 of 282
Regional Consent Review Fee: Regional staff have not received the fee for consent
review of $350 per application. The fee payment is requested as a condition of
approval.
Regional Staff have no objection to Consent File B 2025-012 subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the Owner/Developer submit the consent review fee of $350 per
application to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo.
2. A Notice of Source Protection Plan Compliance (Section 59 Notice) is
provided to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo.
Document Number: 4936939
Page 277 of 282
AM File No: B 2025-013
Address: 1100 Union Street
Description: Lot 25, Registered Plan 789
Owner: David Salvatore
Applicant: Craig Dumart
This applicant proposes to sever the subject property into two lots. The severed parcel
is vacant, and the owner/applicant is planning to build a single detached dwelling on the
vacant parcel. The retained parcel has a residential building with three units.
The lot area of the severed parcel is 235 m2. The lot area of the retained parcel is 378
m2.
Threats Inventory Database: This information is provided until such time as access to
the Threat Inventory Database (TID) has been transferred to the Area Municipality.
There are no records in the Threat Inventory Database on the subject property. There
are no high or medium threats in the TID on properties adjacent to the subject property.
Threats Inventory Database mapping for 1100 Union Street.
Regional Consent Review Fee: Regional staff have not received the fee for consent
review of $350 per application. The fee payment is requested as a condition of
approval.
Regional Staff have no objection to Consent File B 2025-013 subject to the
following condition:
1. That the Owner/Developer submit the consent review fee of $350 per
application to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo.
Document Number: 4936939
Page 278 of 282
General Comments:
Any submission requirements may be subject to peer review, at the owner/applicant's
expense as per By-law 24-052. If any other applications are required to facilitate the
application additional fees and/or requirements may apply.
Any future development on the lands subject to the above -noted consent applications
will be subject to the provisions of Regional Development Charge By-law 19-037 or any
successor thereof.
Prior to final approval, City staff must be in receipt of the above -noted Regional
condition clearances.
Please accept this letter as our request for a copy of the staff reports, decisions and
minutes pertaining to each of the consent applications noted above.
Thank you,
Susanna Reid, MCIP RPP, Senior Planner
Regional Growth, Development and Sustainability Services
Regional Municipality of Waterloo
Document Number: 4936939
Page 279 of 282
March 27, 2025
Connie Owen
City of Kitchener
200 King Street West
P.O. Box 1118
Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7
File No.: D20-20/
VAR KIT GEN
PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT
AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES
150 Frederick Street, 8th Floor
Kitchener ON N2G U Canada
Telephone: 519-575-4400
TTY: 519-575-4608
Fax: 519-575-4449
www. reg i o n ofwate r l o o. ca
Subject: Committee of Adjustment Meeting April 15, 2025, City of Kitchener
Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and
have the following comments:
1) A 2025 —
028
— 250 Riverbend Drive - No Concerns
2) A 2025 —
029
— 315 Wellington Street North — No Concerns
3) A 2025 —
030
— 63 General Drive — No Concerns
4) A 2025 —
031
— 26 Berwick Place — No Concerns
5) A 2025 —
032
— 217 Vanier Drive — No Concerns
6) A 2025 —
033
— 887 Frederick Street — No Concerns
7) A 2025 —
034
— 34 Hohner Avenue — No Concerns
8) A 2025 —
035
— 53 Rusholme Road — No Concerns
9) A 2025 —
036
— 15 Scenic Drive — No Concerns
10)A 2025 —
037
— 265 Breithaupt Street — No Concerns
11)A 2025 —
038
— 206 Shelley Drive — No Concerns
12)A 2025 —
039
— 195 Victoria Street North — No Concerns
13)A 2025 —
040
— 160 Charles Best Place — No Concerns
14)A 2025 —
041
— 249 West Oak Trail — No Concerns
15)A 2025 —
042
— 1100 Union Street — No Concerns
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
Document Number: 4942954
Page 280 of 282
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,
CAI
Joshua Beech Falshaw
Transportation Planner
jbeechfalshaw@regionofwaterloo.ca
Document Number: 4942954
Page 281 of 282
March 28, 2025
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
Marilyn Mills
Secretary -Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment
City of Kitchener
200 King Street West
Kitchener, ON, N2G 4G7
Dear Marilyn Mills,
Re: Committee of Adjustment Meeting — April 15, 2025
Applications for Minor Variance
A 2025-013
160 Grand River Boulevard
A 2025-036
A 2025-029
315 Wellington Street North
A 2025-037
A 2025-030
63 General Drive
A 2025-038
A 2025-031
26 Berwick Place
A 2025-039
A 2025-032
217 Vanier Drive
A 2025-033
887 Frederick Street
A 2025-034
34 Hohner Avenue
A 2025-035
53 Rusholme Road
Applications for Consent
B 2025-009 179 Jansen Avenue
B 2025-010 57 & 59 Iron Gate Street
B 2025-011 400 Westwood Drive
A 2025-040
A 2025-041
A 2025-042
via email
15 Scenic Drive
265 Breithaupt Street
206 Shelley Drive
195 Victoria Street North
160 Charles Best Place
249 West Oak Trail
1100 Union Street
B2025-012 112 Kehl Street
B2025-013 1100 Union Street
Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) staff have 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 are not subject to Ontario Regulation 41/24 and, therefore, a
permission from GRCA is not required.
Should you have any questions, please contact me at aherremana-grand river. ca or 519-
621-2763 ext. 2228.
Sincerely,
Andrew Herreman, CPT
Resource Planning Technician
Grand River Conservation Authority
Member of Conservation Ontario, representing Ontario's 36 Conservation Authorities I The Grand — A Canadian Heritage River
Page 282 of 282