HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2001-01-09COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
FOR THE
CITY OF KITCHENER
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD JANUARY 9, 2001
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Messrs. S. Kay, D. Cybalski and B. Isaac.
OFFICIALS PRESENT:
Ms. J. Given, Principal Planner, Mr. B. Sloan, Planner and Ms. J. Billett,
Secretary-Treasurer.
Mr. S. Kay, Chair, called this meeting to order at 9:30 a.m.
Moved by Mr. B. Isaac
Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski
That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment of December 12, 2000 and the
special meeting of December 19, 2000, as mailed to the members, be accepted.
Carried
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
MINOR VARIANCE
1.Submission No.:
A 2000-078
Applicant:
Oliver Berry
Property Location:
33 Campbell Avenue
Legal Description:
Part Lot A, Registered Plan 40
Mr. S. Kay declared a pecuniary interest in this application as he acts on behalf of the applicant
and did not participate in any discussion or voting with respect to this application.
Mr. S. Kay left the meeting and Mr. D. Cybalski Chaired the meeting during consideration of this
application and in accordance with the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act this application was
considered by the remaining two members.
Appearances:
In Support:Mr. O. Berry
32 Costain Court
Kitchener ON N2N 3A8
Contra:None
Written Submissions:
In Support:None
Contra:None
This application was previously considered by the Committee at its meeting held on December
12, 2000, at which time the Committee agreed to defer consideration of the application to allow
the applicant an opportunity to further discuss the application with City staff to address
alternatives with respect to parking on the subject lands.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT2JANUARY 9, 2001
1.Submission No.:
A 2000-078 (Cont'd)
The Committee was previously advised that the lands involved in this application are proposed to
be developed as a church and the applicant is requesting permission to locate one of the required
parking spaces setback 2.44 m (8 ft.) from the front lot line, rather than the required 3.05 m (10
ft.).
Previous comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services, the Building Division,
the Traffic & Parking Division, the Regional Planning & Culture Department, the Ministry of
Transportation and the Grand River Conservation Authority, as documented in the minutes of the
Committee's meeting held on December 12th, were further considered this date. No further
comments were forthcoming from any of the aforementioned agencies.
The Chair enquired if Mr. Berry had anything further to add and Mr. Berry deferred to staff.
Ms. J. Given advised that she had recently received a detailed drawing illustrating the dimensions
of the church sanctuary and from this drawing staff have been able to determine the applicant will
require 5 parking spaces rather than the 10 spaces noted in the staff report dated December 8,
2000. The 5 spaces can be all accommodated on site within the 3 m setback and staff are
recommending that the following variances be approved:
a)permission to locate 4 parking spaces 2.13 m (7 ft.) setback from Campbell Avenue rather
than the required 3 m (10 ft.);
b)permission to locate 1 parking space 1.07 m (3.5 ft.) setback from Campbell Avenue,
rather than 3 m (10 ft.); and,
c)permission for the 5 parking spaces to exit onto Campbell Avenue in a rearward motion,
rather than in a forward motion.
In addition, Ms. J. Given advised that staff of the Traffic & Parking Division are in support of the
proposed 5 parking spaces and the recommended variances.
The Secretary-Treasurer requested that the drawing provided to Ms. J. Given be submitted for
the record and Ms. Given concurred.
Moved by Mr. B. Isaac
Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski
That the application of Oliver Berry requesting permission to locate 4 required parking spaces
setback 2.13 m (7 ft.) and 1 required parking space setback 1.07 m (3.5 ft.) from the front lot line,
rather than the required 3.05 m (10 ft.), and to permit the 5 required parking spaces to exit onto
Campbell Avenue in a rearward motion, rather than in a forward motion, on Part Lot A,
BE APPROVED.
Registered Plan 40, 33 Campbell Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario,
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1.That the variances requested in this application are minor in nature.
2.This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3.The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan
are being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT3JANUARY 9, 2001
2.Submission No.:
A 2000-082
Applicant:
Randy Bouchard & Paula Lemieux
Property Location:
50 Tradewinds Place
Legal Description:
Lot 10, Registered Plan 1756
Appearances:
In Support:Mr. R. Bouchard
Ms. P. Lemieux
50 Tradewinds Place
Kitchener ON N2N 3G4
Contra:Mr. F. Sonser
173 Rolling Meadows Drive
Kitchener ON N2N 2H1
Written Submissions:
In Support:Ms. P. Lemieux
50 Tradewinds Place
Kitchener ON N2N 3G4
Contra:Mr. F. Sonser
173 Rolling Meadows Drive
Kitchener ON N2N 2H1
Mr. G. Meincke
177 Rolling Meadows Drive
Kitchener ON N2N 2H1
This application was previously considered by the Committee at its meeting held on December
12, 2000, at which time the Committee agreed to defer consideration of the application to allow
an opportunity for exact measurements pertaining to the deck to be obtained and to allow further
discussion to take place with the neighbouring property owner.
The Committee was previously advised that the applicant is requesting legalization of an
existing rearyard deck attached to the south side of an existing swimming pool having a
maximum height of 0.79 m (2.6 ft.) above grade with a sideyard setback of 0 m, rather than the
required 4 m (13.12 ft.).
The Committee noted previous comments from the Department of Business & Planning Services,
dated December 12, 2000, as documented in the minutes of the December 12, 2000 meeting. In
addition, the Committee noted revised comments from the Department of Business & Planning
Services, dated January 9, 2001, in which they advised that following the December 12th
meeting, the height of the subject deck was measured in several locations and the
measurements are indicated on the attached drawing. After reviewing the confirmed
measurements of the deck, staff's comments dated December 12, 2000 remain applicable.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Minor Variance Application
A 2000-082, seeking a reduction in the rear yard setback from a minimum of 4 metres to a 0
metre rear yard setback and a reduction in the side yard setback from a minimum of 1.2 metres to
a 0 metre side yard setback for a deck that exceeds 0.6 metres in height above the finished grade
level, be refused.
The Committee also noted previous comments from the Building Division, the Regional Planning
and Culture Department, the Grand River Conservation Authority, Mr. F. Sonser and Mr. G.
Meincke, as documented in the minutes of the December 12, 2000 meeting. No further written
comments were forthcoming from the aforementioned agencies or individuals.
The Committee noted the written submission of Ms. P. Lemieux in which she advised that she
would like to address the situation regarding the application for a minor variance of a rear deck.
Specifically in response to the letter sent in by Mr. Sonser, which we did not have opportunity to
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT4JANUARY 9, 2001
2.Submission No.:
A 2000-082 (Cont'd)
read until the last minute and did not have time to rebut. The Committee appeared to place a
great deal of weight to Mr. Sonser's letter, which they obviously had seen prior to the court
hearing. I hope that our response will be granted the same respect.
Your Inspector came to our house to measure the deck which set all of this in motion. We came
prepared to discuss the issue of the height of the deck according to those measurements. We
then arrive at court to see that Mr. Sonser has given his own measurements (without benefit of
City personnel) and the Committee saw fit to perhaps believe his measurement over that of your
own employee.
Subsequently, we were told that we had to submit to a second inspection to measure the deck.
We made mention of the abundance of snow and ice surrounding the area but you chose to
ignore those concerns and insist on a re-measurement in the middle of winter.
The Inspector showed up without a tape measure and felt that Mr. Sonser needed to be there to
verify the measure. Why is it that everyone seems to lay so much credence to Mr. Sonser's
opinion? Both of your Inspectors noted the drop off of the grading to the property and that the
better part of the deck is within the by-law provision. However, they did disagree as to whether
the measurement should be to the underside or the top of the deck. The first inspector who
seemed more knowledgeable (and came prepared) said it was to the underside and that is what
we have been basing our request upon.
In Mr. Sonser's letter he places the measurement at 4'1" which is complete fabrication. The
measurements taken by your Inspectors were 2'6" to the underside and 3'1" to the top (which
equates to 2' 6" to the underside). As you can see in the diagram that I have attached the deck is
3/4 within the by-law. That in itself should show you that we did our best to maintain a proper
deck if it were not for the drainage swale and the sudden drop in the back corner.
Mr. Sonser also keeps referring to "his" back fence, which he forgets is also "our" back fence.
We wanted an 8' fence and had to settle for 6' to please him. We added the 2' of lattice, for the
look that we wanted. Your inspector also measured the height to the fence out of curiosity and
saw that it was 5' high, while standing on our deck, and not 2' like Mr. Sonser alleges. I see no
way how someone could fall over a 5' high fence. I also do not appreciate his insinuation that my
children are unsupervised and allowed to hang over into his property. If the Committee wished to
hear about each other's children I could include certain things in my letter as well.
I also resent Mr. Sonser's comments regarding my husband's profession and what he is
insinuating with regards to his prior knowledge. If Mr. Sonser wishes to attack us on a personal
level I would hope that the Committee does not grant him this forum as it is hard enough having
someone like him as a neighbour without having to pay to try to vindicate ourselves every time he
creates a problem.
Mr. Sonser comments on his privacy and included pictures with his letter (attached). He says in
his letter the deck should be at ground level or no more than 1 1/2' off the ground and even that
still won't make him happy! So, he knows the by-law says 2' and yet he thinks he can dictate to
us and the City that it should be no more that 1 1/2' - and that still won't make him happy anyway!
The first picture he includes shows his backyard as taken from our neighbour's upper deck which
is as high as our upper deck. As you can see, we can see everything that is going on in his
backyard and we can even see right through his windows and into his kitchen. How much
privacy is that? If he wants to control everyone's house around him he should have moved to the
country. He points out our neighbour's 4' back fence that has nothing to do with anything about
our case because he has a different grade to his lot than we do. However, it is interesting that if
he is so concerned about his privacy from his back neighbours why did he put up a 4' fence and
not a 6' or 8' fence? Obviously, Mr. Sonser wants to have his backyard just the way he wants it
and doesn't want to work with anyone else regarding what kind of fence they may want or what
they may want to use their backyard for.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT5JANUARY 9, 2001
2.Submission No.:
A 2000-082 (Cont'd)
His second page of pictures shows his precious rock garden and as you can see you cannot
even see our deck from his backyard and in the bottom picture you can barely see our upper
deck which is 9' off the ground. How is that intruding on his privacy?
Lastly, as indicated in my sketch attached, 3/4 of our deck is within the 2' by-law and I propose
that the main reason there is such a drop off right at Mr. Sonser's corner and property line is
because of the altering of the grade level that he has caused. His backyard consists of: 7 trees,
39 bushes, 18 shrubs, upwards of 150 plants, a lamp post, a bird feeder, a wishing well, a large
shed, a swing, a patio, clothes line posts, over 225 rocks, a cement bench, 12 moonrays, 8
lantern sticks and one large 2-3' deep fish pond. Mr. Sonser has done so much digging to get his
rocks, garden, trees and pond into place that the grade at that spot is lower than anywhere else.
I sincerely hope that you will accept and read our letter of concerns and not continue to give Mr.
Sonser a forum for his picky and petty problems. As indicated by his signature on his letter, Mr.
Sonser thinks that he is a pretty important person who needs to let everyone know that he is the
Production Manager at Michelin. I'm not sure what that has to do with a personal matter other
than he is hoping it will give weight to his cause. I'm sure we've all encountered a neighbour like
Mr. Sonser who is never happy and is always looking for things to criticize or complain about.
Please do not grant him anymore of my important time away from my family and position.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending refusal of the
application and enquired if the applicants had anything further to add. Ms. P. Lemieux expressed
the opinion that the measurements noted on the sketch attached to the Planning staff report were
not the same as taken on site. She pointed out that staff had not come prepared to take
measurements as she had been asked to supply the measuring tape. In her opinion, the total
height of the fence should be 8.6 ft., rather than the recorded 7.6 ft. and did not agree with some
of the recorded measurements of the deck.
The Chair questioned how the deck came about to be constructed in the manner it was. Mr. R.
Bouchard responded that the rear of the subject property drops off to provide a drainage swale
for a number of neighbouring properties. He pointed out that 90% of the deck has been
constructed within the required 2 ft. above grade and it is only the south corner that is over the 2
ft. requirement because of the drop off of the property. Mr. Bouchard referred to his neighbours
concern with respect to persons falling over the fence around the deck and pointed out that the
fence height from the deck to the top of the fence is approximately 5 ft. It was Mr. Bouchard's
opinion that it would be difficult for anyone to fall over the fence. Mr. Bouchard further noted that
Mr. Sonser could have built an 8 ft. fence along the rear of his property; however, the portion of
Mr. Sonser's fence abutting the rear of the property next to the subject property is only 4 ft. in
height and, accordingly, questioned Mr. Sonser's concerns with respect to privacy.
In response to questioning, Mr. Sonser advised that he was unaware that the deck did not comply
with Zoning regulations until he received notice of the application. He advised that he had not
been happy with the way in which the deck had been built but for the past 2 years had not raised
any concern as he was unaware that it did not comply. Upon receiving notice of the application,
he realized that he did not have to live with this situation and decided to come forward to raise his
concerns with respect to privacy and the potential safety hazard.
Mr. R. Bouchard pointed out that only a small section of the deck actually abuts Mr. Sonser's
property as most of Mr. Sonser's backyard is adjacent to another property.
The Chair requested staff to clarify their position, noting that pictures show elevated decks which,
in his opinion, pose a greater impact to the issue of privacy rather than the deck in question which
is shielded by a fence. Ms. J. Given responded that the comments of staff were prepared prior to
any knowledge of neighbouring concerns and were based on the intent of the Zoning By-law.
She acknowledged that there are elevated decks; however, in staff's opinion these do not impose
as great a concern as a deck located at the rear property line. Ms. Given further stated that staff
attending on site took careful steps to ensure there would be no confusion with respect to
measurements.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT6JANUARY 9, 2001
2.Submission No.:
A 2000-082 (Cont'd)
Mr. B. Sloan advised that, as a result of the confusion over measurements discussed at the
previous meeting, staff undertook to ensure that the tape measure used would be that of the
owners and that the owner would be required to do the measurements under the supervision of
staff. He stated that the measurements recorded on the sketch attached to the Planning staff
report are those as called out by Mr. Bouchard on the date the measurements were taken. Mr.
Sloan then provided the Committee with another diagram illustrating how much the deck was
above grade. Mr. Sloan referred to Item No. 6 on the original sketch noting that at this point the
deck is approximately 3 1/2 ft. above finished grade. He stated that there is fencing along both
the rear and side yards and the approximate height of the fence above the deck is 4.7 ft. with the
total height of the fence being 7.6 ft.
Both Mr. Bouchard and Ms. Lemieux disputed these measurements and Mr. Bouchard
maintained that Mr. Sonser's concerns with respect to privacy were unreasonable and he should
have advised of his concerns at the time the deck was constructed. Mr. Bouchard pointed out
that if approval was not given for the existing deck it would result in significant cost to him to
reconstruct the deck to comply with regulations.
The Chair enquired if the deck could be lowered and Mr. Sloan responded that if a flat level deck
was maintained it could not be lowered without constructing stepped down levels. In response to
the issue of concerns over privacy, Ms. Given advised that the by-law requirements are in place
to protect privacy and pointed out that along a rearyard it is possible to have an 8 ft. fence. Under
normal circumstances, with an 8 ft. fence and a 2 ft. deck above grade there would be 6 ft. of
fence screening above the deck.
During further discussion, Mr. Bouchard pointed out that he had changed the grade of his
property when constructing the deck and Mr. Sonser had also done landscaping which may have
affected the grade on his property.
Mr. Sonser advised that he had done considerable landscaping; however, maintained this had
not affected the grade on his property. Mr. Sonser further advised that the properties are short in
length and when he had purchased his property there was no one behind him. He stated that he
had not anticipated anyone building a deck on the rear property line and when the deck is in use
his privacy is affected. He stated that he realized he must live with the upper decks; however,
having learned that the rearyard deck does not comply was asking the application be refused.
Mr. Sonser also acknowledged that other neighbours may look over the portion of his fence that
is only 4 ft. in height but pointed out that they are not entertaining along the rear lot line.
The Chair questioned if the fence in the area of the deck could be extended higher and Ms. Given
advised that variances for small sections of fences in excess of 8 ft. have been supported in the
past. She stated that staff would not likely have concern in this case should the fence be made
higher. Mr. Bouchard stated that he was willing to extend the fence and build it in an aesthetically
pleasing manner. Mr. Sonser also stated that if the fence was made higher he would no longer
have concerns.
A discussion was then undertaken to determine the length of fence that would be modified and
what modifications would be made. As a result, it was determined and agreed upon by all parties
that the fence would be modified from the most southerly corner of the portion of fence with lattice
to the sideyard fence; the existing lattice would be removed and replaced with 2 ft. of solid
wooden fence with 1 ft. of lattice on top; no construction to modify the fence would commence
prior to a meeting on site taking place with staff, the owners of the subject property and Mr.
Sonser to ensure all were in agreement and to determine whether a fence variance is required;
and, if a variance is necessary the owners will be required to submit an application independently
prior to any modifications to the fence.
Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski
Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac
That the application of Randy Bouchard and Paula Lemieux requesting permission to legalize
only a rearyard deck as existing on January 9, 2001, having a sideyard setback of 0 m, rather
than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.), and a rearyard setback of 0 m, rather than the required 4 m
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT7JANUARY 9, 2001
2.Submission No.:
A 2000-082 (Cont'd)
(13.12 ft.), for a deck of varying height that exceeds 0.6 m (2 ft.) in height above the finished
grade level to a maximum height of 1.07 m (3.5 ft.), on Part Lot 10, Registered Plan 1756, 50
BE APPROVED
Tradewinds Place, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following condition:
1.That the existing rearyard fence be modified from the most southerly corner of the
portion of the fence with lattice to the sideyard fence of the property known municipally
as 173 Rolling Meadows Drive, by replacing the existing lattice with 0.6 m (2 ft.) of solid
wood fence and adding 0.3 m (1 ft.) of lattice on top of the solid wood fence, prior to
May 31, 2001. No extension to this completion date shall be granted unless approved
in writing by the City's Principal Planner prior to the completion date set out in this
decision; and further,
That prior to any construction of the modifications to the fence, the owners shall meet
on site of the subject property with City staff and the owner of 173 Rolling Meadows
Drive to determine if the required modifications to the fence will result in variance to the
City's Fence By-law. If it is determined a variance approval to the City's Fence By-law
will be required, the owners shall at their own cost submit a fence variance application
and such application shall be finally approved prior to any construction of the required
modifications to the fence, all prior to May 31, 2001.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1.The variances requested in this application are minor in nature.
2.This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3.The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan
are being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
CONSENT
1.Submission No.:
B 2000-077
Applicant:
Monarch Construction Limited
Property Location:
10 Oregon Drive
Legal Description:
Part Lots 3 & 4, Biehn's Tract; Part Biehn's Tract Unnumbered; Part
2, Beasley's New Survey; Lot 14, Registered Plan 594
Appearances:
In Support:Mr. R. Mounsey
Green Scheels Pidgeon
Planning Consultants Limited
201-72 Victoria Street South
Kitchener ON N2G 4Y9
Contra:None
Written Submissions:
In Support:None
Contra:None
This application was previously considered by the Committee at its meeting held on December
12, 2000 at which time the Committee agreed to defer the application as the applicant was not in
attendance and Planning staff were recommending deferral.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT8JANUARY 9, 2001
1.Submission No.:
B 2000-077(Cont'd)
The Committee was previously advised that the lands involved in this application are proposed for
future development of a residential subdivision. The applicant is requesting permission to create
one new lot by severing a parcel of land containing an existing single residential dwelling and
retaining a parcel of land having an area of 120.924 ha (298.8 ac). The severed lands will have
frontage on Oregon Drive of 43.5 m (148.62 ft.), by an average depth of 47 m (154.2 ft.) and an
area of .20 ha (0.495 ac).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services,
dated December 5, 2000, in which they advised that the subject lands are located in the south
end of Kitchener and have approximately 1,357 metres (4,452 feet) of frontage on Tilt Drive and
an area of 141 hectares (348 acres). These lands currently have draft plan of subdivision
approval for 1166-1708 dwelling units, which are proposed to be developed in nine stages.
The site contains several existing dwellings of which Monarch Construction would like to dispose
of in advance of the completion of the Doon Mills Subdivision. In particular, the applicant would
like to sever a parcel of land containing the existing dwelling municipally known as 10 Oregon
Drive, in advance of the registration of Stage 4 of the plan of subdivision. The severed parcel of
land would eventually have frontage on Oregon Drive of 43.17 metres (141.6 feet) and an area of
0.2 hectares (0.49 acres). The configuration of the proposed severed parcel of land would be the
same as the configuration of the proposed lot as shown on the draft approved plan of subdivision.
In reviewing the application for severance, staff notes the following concerns.
The existing single detached dwelling is currently serviced by the City’s municipal water system
and a private septic system. The Building Division has advised that there is a minimum 3 metre
setback required for the existing septic system from all lot lines. With the proposed lot
configuration, the location of the existing septic system will not meet the minimum required 3
metre setback. The dwelling on the proposed severed parcel of land is intended to connect to the
municipal sanitary sewer with the development of Stage 4 of the plan of subdivision. Until the
development of Stage 4 occurs, and full municipal services are available to the dwelling
municipally known as 10 Oregon Drive, the proposed severed parcel must adequately
accommodate the existing septic system and meet the minimum required 3 metre setback.
As part of the Heritage Impact Assessment that was done in 1997, and approved by the General
Manager of Business and Planning Services in 1998, a 15 metre (50 foot) heritage landscape
easement will be required along the southerly boundary of the proposed lots on the south side of
Oregon Drive. The applicant has indicated concerns with the required width of this easement and
its location. As these concerns may impact the configuration of the lots and the location of
Oregon Drive, it would not be appropriate to recommend approval of this consent application until
all issues related to the heritage landscape easement are resolved.
The applicant has been advised that deferral of this consent application will be recommended by
Planning staff at the December 12, 2000 Committee of Adjustment meeting. The applicant is in
agreement with this deferral and pending resolution of the issues expressed in this report, the
application could be considered at the January 9, 2001 Committee of Adjustment meeting.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Consent Application
B2000-077 be deferred to the January 9, 2001 meeting.
The Committee also noted revised comments from the Department of Business & Planning
Services, dated January 3, 2001 in which they advised that this application for consent was
previously considered by the Committee of Adjustment at its December 12, 2000 meeting but
was deferred to the January 9, 2001 meeting pending the resolution of two issues. The first issue
related to the location of the septic system on the proposed severed parcel of land and the need
for this septic system to be located a minimum distance of 3 metres from all new lot lines. The
dwelling on the proposed severed parcel of land is intended to eventually connect to the
municipal sanitary sewer with the development of Stage 4 of the plan of subdivision. Until Stage 4
is serviced, the proposed severed parcel must be on a private sewage system. Legal staff has
advised that the creation of this lot at this time would be in contravention with Ontario Building
Code as the septic system will not be located a minimum distance of 3 metres from the proposed
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT9JANUARY 9, 2001
1.Submission No.:
B 2000-077(Cont'd)
rear lot line. In order to resolve this issue, the applicant’s consultant has advised that the
applicant is willing to modify/relocate the existing septic system to ensure that it will be located a
minimum of 3 metres from all lot lines on the proposed severed parcel of land. Staff are prepared
to recommend approval of this consent application conditional on the existing septic system being
modified/relocated in order to meet the required Building Code setbacks for a private sewage
system on a lot. The applicant must understand that this relocation/modification must occur
before the deed is endorsed to ensure Building Code compliance.
The engineering consultants for the applicant have provided staff with a letter confirming that the
applicant will be extending the watermain and sanitary and storm sewers along Oregon Drive with
the development of Ayres Court (Stage 4) in accordance with the existing subdivision agreement
currently registered on the subject lands. They have also agreed to provide sanitary and storm
sewer connections to the severed parcel when Ayres Court is developed which will provide the
dwelling on the severed parcel the opportunity to hook up to full municipal services.
The second issue related to the prior Heritage Impact Assessment requirement for a 50 foot wide
visual easement to the south of proposed Ayres Court. The applicant was concerned with the
required width of the easement and the ability to provide a sufficient building envelope and rear
yard for Lots 5-7 on proposed Ayres Court. The applicant has submitted a “Designated Heritage
Property Alteration/Demolition Application” to amend the configuration and location of the “visual
easement” such that the lotting pattern around Ayres Court and the location of Ayres Court, as
shown on the draft approved plan of subdivision, will not be impacted, as was staff’s first concern.
This application will be considered by Heritage Kitchener at its meeting on January 11, 2001 and
will also require Council approval. Staff is of the opinion that the proposal to amend the
configuration and location of the visual easement is appropriate and are prepared to recommend
approval of the consent conditional on the application for alteration to the visual easement
receiving final Council approval.
As all outstanding issues related to this severance have been resolved and the proposed severed
parcel will meet all zoning requirements, it would therefore be appropriate to recommend
approval of the consent application to create 10 Oregon Drive.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Consent Application
B2000-077 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the existing septic system on the severed parcel of land be modified/relocated in such
a way to ensure that it is located a minimum distance of 3 metres from the new lot line.
Documentation that the septic system on the severed parcel has been relocated/modified
to be a minimum distance of 3 metres from the new lot line shall be confirmed by a
qualified professional to the satisfaction of the City’s Principal Planner and Chief Building
Official.
2. That the owner shall submit, for the review of the City’s Chief Building Official, a
geotechnical investigation completed by a professional engineer confirming the suitability
of the severed lot for the modified private in-ground sewage disposal system.
3. That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any
outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
4. That the owner make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City’s General
Manager of Public Works, for the installation of all new service connections to the severed
lands.
5. That the owner make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City’s General
Manager of Public Works for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping
including street trees, and a paved driveway ramp, on the portion of the severed lands
abutting Oregon Drive.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT10JANUARY 9, 2001
1.Submission No.:
B 2000-077(Cont'd)
6. That the owner prepare a grading plan to the satisfaction of the City’s General Manager of
Public Works to demonstrate that the grading on the severed lands will be compatible with
the grading on the lands to be retained.
7. That the Designated Heritage Property Alteration/Demolition Application, dated December
20, 2000, or as subsequently amended, pertaining to the 50 foot wide “visual easement” to
the south of proposed Ayres Court, receive final Council approval.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised there shall be
a minimum 3 m setback required for the septic system from all property lines. The sketch shows
the septic area extending all the way to the rear property line. This proposal shall be amended so
that there is a 3 m setback from the end of the septic run to the rear property line.
The Committee noted the comments of the Planning and Culture Department, Region of
Waterloo in which they advised that Regional staff understand an existing home is to be severed
from lands owned by Monarch Construction Limited as part of draft plan of subdivision 30T-
95018. At this time, the existing home is privately serviced. The proposed lot is approximately
0.2 acres. While we realize that the intent is to connect the residence to municipal services at
some time in the future, it is important that the City satisfy itself that the proposed lot can
accommodate the effluent treatment from the septic system within the proposed lot area.
The Region further advised that any future development on the lands subject to this consent
application will be subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 93-038,
or any successor thereof, and there may be a Regional fee assessed for development
agreements, if required.
The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they
advised that they have no objection to this application to sever a lot containing an existing single
detached dwelling.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the
application subject to certain conditions and inquired if Mr. Mounsey had anything further to add.
Mr. R. Mounsey advised that the severed parcel is within the Doon Mills subdivision which has
obtained draft plan approval and is designated as Part 1 on the draft plan of subdivision. The
severed parcel contains an existing residential dwelling and it is desired to sell this parcel prior to
developing the remainder of the Plan of Subdivision. Mr. Mounsey stated that the severed parcel
meets all zoning requirements and is currently connected to a private septic system. In this
regard, he advised that the applicant has agreed to shorten the length of the tile bed to meet
Ontario Building Code Regulations which require a 3 m setback from all property lines. In
addition, Mr. Mounsey advised that the applicant is in agreement with the conditions contained in
the Planning staff report.
The Chair requested clarification as to the access intended for the severed parcel and Mr.
Mounsey advised the severed parcel will front onto Oregon Drive with access onto an established
right-of-way. Mr. Mounsey further advised that it is intended the severed parcel will be connected
to full municipal services at the time development of Stage 4 of the subdivision takes place;
however, until that time it is intended the parcel remain on private septic system.
As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion.
Moved by Mr. B. Isaac
Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski
That the application of Monarch Construction Limited requesting permission to convey a parcel of
land containing an existing single residential dwelling having frontage on Oregon Drive of 43.17 m
(141.63 ft.), by an average depth of 47 m (154.2 ft.) and an area of 0.2 ha (0.495 ac), on Part Lots
3 & 4, Biehn's Tract; Part Biehn's Tract Unnumbered; Part 2, Beasley's New Survey; Lot 14,
BE GRANTED
Registered Plan 594, 10 Oregon Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the
following conditions:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT11JANUARY 9, 2001
1.Submission No.:
B 2000-077(Cont'd)
1.That the existing septic system on the severed parcel of land shall be modified/relocated in
such a way to ensure that it is located a minimum distance of 3 metres from the new lot
line. Documentation that the septic system on the severed parcel has been
relocated/modified to be a minimum distance of 3 metres from the new lot line shall be
confirmed by a qualified professional to the satisfaction of the City’s Principal Planner and
Chief Building Official.
2.That the owner shall submit, for the review of the City’s Chief Building Official, a
geotechnical investigation completed by a professional engineer confirming the suitability
of the severed lot for the modified private in-ground sewage disposal system.
3.That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the
payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
4.That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City’s General
Manager of Public Works, for the installation of all new service connections to the severed
lands.
5.That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City’s General
Manager of Public Works for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping
including street trees, and a paved driveway ramp, on the portion of the severed lands
abutting Oregon Drive.
6.That the owner shall prepare a grading plan to the satisfaction of the City’s General
Manager of Public Works to demonstrate that the grading on the severed lands will be
compatible with the grading on the lands to be retained.
7.That the Designated Heritage Property Alteration/Demolition Application, dated December
20, 2000, or as subsequently amended, pertaining to the 50 foot wide “visual easement” to
the south of proposed Ayres Court, shall receive final Council approval.
Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-
noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision.
Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall
lapse two years from the date of approval, being January 9, 2003.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1.A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the
municipality.
2.The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the
retained lands.
3.The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and
the Regional Official Policies Plan.
Carried
The Committee then recessed the meeting temporarily, at 10:30 a.m., in order to consider applications
for Minor Variance to the City of Kitchener's Fence and Sign By-laws. This meeting reconvened at 10:40
a.m.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT12JANUARY 9, 2001
NEW BUSINESS
MINOR VARIANCE
1.Submission No.:
A 2001-001
Applicant:
Alan and Angela Cook
Property Location:
641 Glasgow Street
Legal Description:
Lot 36, Registered Plan 793
Appearances:
In Support:Mr. A. Cook
641 Glasgow Street
Kitchener ON N2M 2N6
Contra:None
Written Submissions:
In Support:None
Contra:None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to install a circular
driveway on a lot having a frontage of 20.25 m (66.46 ft.), rather than the required 30 m (98.43
ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which
they advised that the subject land is located on the southerly side of Glasgow Street just east of
Knell Drive and contains a single-family dwelling. The property has an area of approximately 0.13
hectares (0.32 acres) and 20.25 metres (66.43 feet) of frontage on Glasgow Street. A driveway of
4.9 metres (16 feet) in width is located on the westerly side of the property and leads to a single
car garage.
The applicant wishes to construct a circular driveway in the front yard to allow for easier and safer
exit onto Glasgow Street. The volume of traffic on Glasgow makes entering and exiting in reverse
difficult and potentially dangerous. The circle driveway would allow vehicles to enter and exit the
property without reversing onto or from Glasgow Street.
The existing driveway would remain in its present location with the same dimensions of 4.8
metres (16 feet) in width and approximately 21 metres (70 feet) in length from the property line.
The second access to the property from Glasgow Street would be a driveway located 0.6 metres
(2 feet) from the easterly property line with a width of 3.3 metres (11 feet). This second driveway
entrance would arc around to meet with the existing driveway thereby creating a circle driveway
to allow for both forward entrance and exit of the vehicles from the property.
The application seeks approval for a second driveway on a lot having 20 metres in width rather
than 30 metres as required in the Zoning By-law.
To permit the proposed circle driveway, three minor variances are actually required:
a) A reduction in the required lot width to 20.25 metres (66.4 feet) whereas the Zoning By-law
requires a minimum of 30 metres (98.4 feet) to permit two driveway entrances.
b) To permit the proposed driveway in a location not leading directly from the street to a
parking space.
c) An increase in the maximum permitted driveway width to 8.3 metres (27 feet) whereas the
Zoning By-law requires a maximum width of 8 metres (26.2 feet).
The proposed circle driveway can be considered desirable and appropriate given that it would
increase the safety of vehicles entering and exiting the site. As stated by the owner, an attempt
will be made to preserve the existing trees on site, thereby maintaining the existing streetscape.
Additionally, other homes on this street have already constructed circle driveways. This property
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT13JANUARY 9, 2001
1.Submission No.:
A 2001-001(Cont'd)
also has a large front yard setback of 17.6 metres (57.7 feet) which can easily accommodate a
circle driveway and still provide for a landscaped area, ensuring that the extra paved area does
not dominate.
Considering the requested reduction of the lot width for a second driveway would not negatively
impact the appearance of the property nor the adjacent properties and would enhance safety, it is
considered to be minor in nature and appropriate for the development of the subject land. The
variances also maintain the general intent of both the Zoning By-law and the Municipal Plan.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that minor variance application
A 2001-001 be approved, as amended, to permit the construction of the proposed circle driveway
and generally in accordance with the plan provided by the applicant and attached to this report.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the
Building Division has no concerns with respect to this application.
The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst in which he advised that
the Traffic & Parking Division has reviewed this application and has no concerns with the
proposed driveway.
The Committee noted the comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo,
in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed the application and have no concerns;
however, any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the Regional
Development Charge By-law 99-038 or any successor thereof and may require the payment of
Regional Development Charges for this development prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they
advised that they have no objections with respect to this application.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the
application subject to the application being amended to include a variance to permit the
proposed driveway in a location not leading directly from the street to a parking space and to
permit an increased maximum driveway width of 8.3 m rather than 8 m. The Chair enquired if
Mr. Cook was prepared to amend his application in accordance with staff's recommendation
and Mr. Cook concurred.
The Chair enquired if an entrance permit would be required by the Region and Ms. Given
advised that Glasgow Street is a municipal street and an entrance permit would not be
required.
Moved by Mr. B. Isaac
Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski
That the application of Alan and Angela Cook requesting permission to construct a circular
driveway on a lot having a frontage of 20.25 m (66.46 ft.), rather than the required 30 m (98.43
ft.), and to permit the proposed driveway in a location not leading directly from the street to a
parking space, and to permit a maximum driveway width of 8.3 m (27 ft.), rather than the
permitted 8 m (26.2 ft.), on Lot 36, Registered Plan 793, 641 Glasgow Street, Kitchener,
BE APPROVED
Ontario, , subject to the following condition:
1.That the variances as approved in this application shall be generally in accordance with
the plan attached to the Department of Business & Planning Services staff report dated
January 2, 2001.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1.The variances requested in this application are minor in nature.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT14JANUARY 9, 2001
1.Submission No.:
A 2001-001(Cont'd)
2.This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3.The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal
Plan is being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
2.Submission No.:
A 2001-002
Applicant:
St. Joseph's Healthcare System
Property Location:
911 Queen's Boulevard
Legal Description:
Lots 341 to 365 incl., Registered Plan 230
Appearances:
In Support:Mr. G. Wood
Parkin Architects
73 Laird Drive
Toronto ON M4G 3T4
Ms. M. Taylor
St. Mary's Hospital
911 Queen's Blvd.
Kitchener ON N2M 1B2
Contra:None
Written Submissions:
In Support:None
Contra:None
The Committee was advised that the lands involved in this application comprise St. Mary's
Hospital. The applicant is requesting permission to construct a new entranceway to the
Emergency Department, together with an ambulance garage, having setbacks adjacent to
Queen's Boulevard of 0.4 m (1.4 ft.) and 6.4 m (21 ft.) respectively, rather than the required 7.5 m
(24.6 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in
which they advised that the hospital has begun what will amount to major internal and external
changes to the building over the next few years. This includes changes to the Emergency
Department, mechanical equipment rooms, revised loading bays, and other internal changes.
The hospital has been awaiting funding from the Provincial Government prior to commencing the
alterations. The funding is now available and a detailed site plan and construction process is now
commencing.
The proposed pedestrian entrance and ambulance garage are necessary in order to improve the
internal layout and function of the Emergency Department. The pedestrian entrance will be
connected to an 11-storey section of the hospital which is already approximately 2.0 metres from
the street line with Queen’s Boulevard. Given this factor, staff consider that the pedestrian
entrance will have minimal impact on the visual appearance of the building. In fact, it is only the
roof portion of the pedestrian entrance which will be located the requested 0.4 metres from the
street line. Most of the entrance structure will be set back approximately 1.0 metres from the
street line.
The proposed ambulance garage is intended to provide a secure shelter for ambulance
unloading. The current ambulance unloading area is located on the west side of the building, but
with the internal changes proposed to the Emergency Department, must now be relocated to the
north side of the hospital. It should be noted that there already exists a driveway in this location
which acts as an informal pick up and drop off point for the hospital. The construction of an
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT15JANUARY 9, 2001
2.Submission No.:
A 2001-002 (Cont'd)
ambulance garage in this location and the adaptation of the driveway for ambulance use will have
minimal impact on the overall appearance of the building and site. In fact, only a very small
portion of the ambulance garage will be located within the 7.5 metre setback.
For all the above reasons, the impact of the proposed minor variances is considered relatively
minor in nature and the variances are desirable and appropriate for the use of the land. The
variances provide for the rationalisation of the Emergency Department and enable the hospital to
move forward with needed renovations. Finally, the variances maintain the general intent and
purpose of the Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission A
2001-002.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the
Building Division has no concerns with respect to this application.
The Committee noted the comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo,
in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed the application and have no concerns;
however, any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the Regional
Development Charge By-law 99-038 or any successor thereof and may require the payment of
Regional Development Charges for this development prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they
advised that they have no objections with respect to this application.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the
application and enquired if Mr. Wood had anything further to add. Mr. Wood advised that he
had reviewed the staff reports and had nothing further to add.
As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion.
Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski
Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac
That the application of St. Joseph's Healthcare System requesting permission to construct a
new entranceway to the Emergency Department of St. Mary's Hospital setback 0.4 m (1.4 ft.)
from the lot line adjacent to Queen's Boulevard, rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.), and to
construct an ambulance garage setback 6.4 m (21 ft.) from the lot line adjacent to Queen's
Boulevard, rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.), on Lots 341 to 365 inclusive, Registered
BE APPROVED
Plan 230, 911 Queen's Boulevard, Kitchener, Ontario, .
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1.The variances requested in this application are minor in nature.
2.This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3.The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal
Plan is being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT16JANUARY 9, 2001
3.Submission Nos.:
A 2001-004, A 2001-005, A 2001-006 & A 2001-007
Applicants:
Scott & Anne Frieburger; France Bertrand & Cindy Mercier; Margaret
J. Goldsmith; and Jeff Charette & Michelle Ranger
Property Locations:
12, 14, 18 & 24 Copper Leaf Street
Legal Description:
Part Block 18, Registered Plan 58M-132, designated as Parts 31, 32,
34 and 37 on Reference Plan 58R-12160
Appearances:
In Support:None
Contra:None
Written Submissions:
In Support:None
Contra:None
As no one was in attendance to support the applications, the Committee agreed to set these
applications aside until the end of the meeting.
CONSENT
1.Submission Nos:
B 2001-001, B 2001-002 and B 2001-003
Applicant:
Elfriede Czerlinski
Property Location:
268 Woolwich Street
Legal Description:
Part Lots 66, 124 & 125, German Company Tract, designated as Part
1 on Reference Plan 58R-4978
Appearances:
In Support:None
Contra:None
Written Submissions:
In Support:None
Contra:None
Ms. J. Given advised that the applicant had recently submitted a Zone Change Application to
rezone the subject lands from Agriculture Zone (A-1) to Residential Three Zone (R-3) with a
special regulation provision to permit a minimum lot width of 12.97 m. Accordingly, staff are
recommending that these applications be deferred pending the outcome of the Zone Change
application process.
Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski
Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac
That Consent Applications, Submission Nos. B 2001-001, B 2001-002 and B 2001-003, as
applied for by Elfriede Czerlinski for lands known municipally as 268 Woolwich Street, Kitchener,
BE DEFERRED
Ontario, , to the Committee's meeting scheduled to be held on Tuesday, April 3,
2001, to allow an opportunity for Zone Change Application ZC 00/35/W/BS to be finally
completed.
Carried
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT17JANUARY 9, 2001
2.Submission No.:
B 2001-004
Applicant:
Antigua International Developments Limited
Property Location:
2410 Homer Watson Boulevard
Legal Description:
Part of Biehn's Unnumbered Tract, designated as Part 3 on
Reference Plan 58R-4554
Appearances:
In Support:Mr. R. Blunt
Goodman & Carr
c/o Sheldon L. Disenhouse
2300-200 King Street West
Toronto ON M5H 3W5
Contra:None
Written Submissions:
In Support:None
Contra:None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to lease a portion of the
subject lands for restaurant use for a period of time in excess of the 21 years permitted under
the Planning Act. The proposed term of the lease is for 20 years, together with 4 options to
renew for an additional 5 years each, for a total of 40 years. In addition, the applicant is
requesting granting of an easement over the remaining unleased portion of the subject lands in
favour of the restaurant use for the purpose of access for the drive-through facility.
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in
which they advised that an application has been received to lease a portion of a site currently
developed for a drive-through restaurant. The restaurant, McDonald’s Restaurants, is part of a
development proposal for the subject lands that currently contains another restaurant and a
gas bar. The balance of the vacant property, approximately half the site, is to be developed
with other service commercial uses. The subject lands are located on the south side of Homer
Watson Boulevard, at the intersection of New Dundee Road. Section 50(3) of the Planning Act
requires that a consent must be granted where it is intended to lease land for a period of 21
years or more.
Site plan approval for two drive-through restaurants and a gas bar was given on March 16,
2000 by the Department of Business and Planning Services. The proposed lease for the
building operated by the McDonald’s Restaurant and requested consent for a drive through
easement as shown on the map attached to this application is identical to the Department’s
approved plan of March 16, 2000. Staff have no concerns and recommend approval.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Submission B2001-004
be approved subject to the following condition.
1. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the
payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement
charges.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the
Building Division has no concerns or comments with respect to this application.
The Committee noted the comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of
Waterloo, in which they advised Regional staff have reviewed the application and have no
concerns; however, any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the
Regional Development Charge By-law 99-038, or any successor thereof, and there may be a
Regional fee assessed for development agreements, if required.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT18JANUARY 9, 2001
2.Submission No.:
B 2001-004 (Cont'd)
The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they
advised that they have no objections or concerns with respect to this application.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the
application and enquired if Mr. Blunt had anything further to add. Mr. Blunt briefly reviewed the
purpose of the application and advised that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation.
Ms. J. Given requested that should the Committee grant the requested easement, approval be
conditional upon the easement document being prepared to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor.
The Committee concurred with this request.
As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion.
Moved by Mr. B. Isaac
Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski
That the application of Antigua International Development Limited requesting permission to lease
a portion of the lands known municipally as 2410 Homer Watson Boulevard for restaurant use for
a period of time in excess of the 21 years permitted under the Planning Act, being an initial term
of 20 years, together with 4 options to renew for an additional 5 years each, for a total of 40
years; and, to grant an easement over the unleased portion of 2410 Homer Watson Boulevard as
shown on the site plan submitted with Consent Application, Submission No. B 2001-004, in
favour of the restaurant use for the purpose of access for the drive-through facility, on Part of
Biehn's Unnumbered Tract, designated as Part 3 on Reference Plan 58R-4554, 2410 Homer
BE GRANTED
Watson Boulevard, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions:
1.That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for
payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
2.That any documents relating to the creation of the easement shall be submitted to the City
Solicitor for approval.
Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-
noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision.
Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall
lapse two years from the date of approval, being January 9, 2003.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1.A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the
municipality.
2.The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the
retained lands.
3.The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and
the Regional Official Policies Plan.
Carried
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT19JANUARY 9, 2001
CONSENT & MINOR VARIANCE
1.Submission Nos.:
B 2001-005 &A 2001-003
Applicant:
Lutheran Homes Kitchener-Waterloo
Property Location:
2727 Kingsway Drive
Legal Description:
Part Lot 6, Municipal Compiled Plan 958, designated as Part 1 on
Reference Plan 58R-8910
Appearances:
In Support:Mr. T. McCabe
Green Scheels Pidgeon Planning Consultants
201-72 Victoria Street South
Kitchener ON N2G 4Y9
Contra:None
Written Submissions:
In Support:None
Contra:None
The Committee was advised that the lands involved in this application comprise the Trinity Village
development consisting of townhouse dwellings and a long term care facility. The applicant is
requesting permission to mortgage separately that part of the subject lands which will contain
the long term care facility. Registered ownership of the entire parcel is intended to remain
under one ownership. The parcel to be mortgaged will have an area of 1.75 ha (4.33 ac). In
addition, several variances to the Zoning By-law relative to the "mortgage line" are being
requested and are necessary only in the event the "mortgage line" should become a "lot line"
through an occurrence such as a default of mortgage:
·
To permit multiple dwellings to be located on a lot separate from a residential care
facility rather than located on the same lot.
·
To permit a sideyard of 1.2 m (4 ft.) for the west wall of the modified supportive housing
facility rather than the required 6 m (19.68 ft.).
·
To permit a sideyard of 3 m (9.84 ft.) for the southwest wall of the modified supportive
housing facility rather than the required 6 m (19.84 ft.).
·
To permit a sideyard of 4.6 m (15.09 ft.) for the most southerly wall of the modified
housing facility rather than the required 6 m (19.84 ft.).
·
To permit sideyards of 1.8 m (5.9 ft.) for Unit 57 of the townhouse development; 4.5 m
(14.76 ft.) for Unit 19; and, 3.6 m (11.81 ft.) for Unit 12; rather than the required 6 m
(19.84 ft.).
·
To permit a rearyard of 6 m (19.84 ft.) for Units 13 to 18 inclusive of the townhouse
development, rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in
which they advised that the subject property is the site of a mixed residential and residential care
development owned by Lutheran Homes Kitchener-Waterloo. The site presently is under
development of a total of 60 life-lease townhouse units which surround an existing residential
care facility. The approved site plan contemplates the further development of an additional
residential care building and modifications to the existing building. In order to secure a mortgage
from CMHC, the proponents are advised that such mortgage must be separate from the
townhouse portion of the site. Accordingly, B2001-005 seeks approval of a consent to mortgage
Part 1 separately from Parts 2 and 3.
Staff have no concern with the consent to mortgage as it would facilitate the completion of the site
in accordance with the approvals granted by the City. However, given that the consent to
mortgage is reviewed on the basis that given a default in the mortgage, the parts would become
separate lots, a number of minor variance approvals are also required.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT20JANUARY 9, 2001
1.Submission Nos.:
B 2001-005 &A 2001-003 (Cont'd)
The key minor variance sought is relief to the regulation requiring that multiple dwellings (cluster
townhouse units in this case) be located only on the same lot, as accessory to a large residential
care facility. The Municipal Plan permits multiple residential uses developed in association with
permitted institutional uses. The site has been comprehensively planned and developed and will
continue to be owned by Lutheran Homes. Accordingly, the intent of the Zoning By-law and
Municipal Plan continue to be met and the variance is required only to permit the mortgage to
facilitate the development. As such, it is minor and desirable for the appropriate development of
the property.
A number of other variances are required to ensure zoning compliance with sideyard/rearyard
requirements in the event of a mortgage default as previously noted above.
Given that the site will remain under one ownership and has been comprehensively planned, staff
have no concerns with the requested variances as they maintain the Municipal Plan and Zoning
By-law intent and are for administrative safeguarding purposes only. It appears that given the
information provided with the application and that each of the severed and retained lands will
continue to comply with the Zoning By-law in all other respects, including parking. It is noted that
a site plan revision is being processed which modifies the configuration of the proposed long-term
care facility. There is some risk on the part of the applicant that if the site plan is not approved in
the format proposed, the resulting sideyard variances may not fully reflect the desired mortgage
boundary.
Typical consideration on a full consent include independent access and municipal services.
However, given the inability to register easements on land under the same ownership, it is
impossible to require such easements on a consent to mortgage only. The owner is advised that
should the mortgage default or in the event a full consent is sought, easements and rights-of-way
for access would be required.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission A
2001-003 as generally shown on the plan submitted, without conditions.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission B
2001-005, subject to the following conditions:
1. That final approval of A 2001-003 be granted.
2. That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any
outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the
Building Division has no concerns or comments with respect to these applications.
The Committee noted the comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of
Waterloo, in which they advised Regional staff have reviewed the applications and have no
concerns; however, any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the
Regional Development Charge By-law 99-038, or any successor thereof, and there may be a
Regional fee assessed for development agreements, if required.
The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they
advised that they have no objections or concerns with respect to these applications.
The Committee noted the comments of the Ministry of Transportation in which they advised
that the Ministry has completed its review of the applications. These applications have been
considered in accordance with the requirements of our highway access control policies and the
Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act. The following outlines our comments.
The Ministry does not anticipate a problem with its highway system as a result of these
applications. The owner should be aware that building/land use and sign permits are required
from the Ministry of Transportation before any new grading/construction commences. Please
advise the owner to contact Ms. Heather Hoffman, Corridor Management Officer at the MTO
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT21JANUARY 9, 2001
1.Submission Nos.:
B 2001-005 &A 2001-003 (Cont'd)
London Operations Office (659 Exeter Road, London, Ontario, N6E 1L3 Phone 519-873-4209)
to discuss MTO's permit requirements and obtain the necessary applications.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the
applications subject to certain conditions. The Chair requested clarification as to the severed and
retained parcels. Mr. T. McCabe advised that Part 1 as shown on the sketch provided with the
application is the severed parcel which will contain the long term care facility. He pointed out that
the severance is for mortgage purposes only and it is intended that all lands remain under one
ownership. He advised that the lands to be retained would be Parts 2 & 3 as shown on the
sketch.
The Chair enquired in the event that a default occurred if the access for Part 1 would front onto a
Provincial highway. Ms. J. Given advised that Part 1 would front onto a highway at the driveway
access. The Chair enquired if the driveway access was sufficient and Ms. Given advised that the
driveway access would be sufficient having a width of 15 m. Mr. T. McCabe further stated that in
the event a default occurs the applicant has taken steps to ensure that all parcels would fully
comply with zoning requirements, including parking. He noted that all variances are internal to
the imaginary lot line that would be created by a default in the mortgage and would only be
necessary if a default occurs.
The Chair referred to the need for easements and access right-of-ways in the event of a default
and Mr. McCabe advised that as the property is currently under one ownership it is not possible
to arrange for easements and rights-of-way for access at this time. Should a default occur, he
stated that the parties involved would have to negotiate with each other to provide easements
and access for servicing and emergency purposes.
The Chair questioned if it was sufficient to grant consent to mortgage only or if it would be
appropriate to impose a condition that in the event of a default easements and rights-of-way must
be dealt with. Ms. J. Given advised that it would be sufficient to grant consent of mortgage
without such a condition as the parties involved would be compelled to make arrangement for
easements and rights-of-way in the event of a default.
Minor Variance A 2000-003
Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski
Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac
That the application of Lutheran Homes Kitchener-Waterloo requesting permission for variances
to the Zoning By-law relative to the mortgage line, as shown on the sketch submitted with Minor
Variance Application, Submission No. A 2001-003, in the event an occurrence such as a default
of mortgage were to take place, as follows:
·
to permit multiple dwellings to be located on a lot separate from a residential-care facility,
rather than located on the same lot;
·
a sideyard setback of 1.2 m (4 ft.) for the west wall of the modified supportive housing facility,
rather than the required 6 m (19.68 ft.);
·
a sideyard setback of 3 m (9.84 ft.) for the southwest wall of the modified supportive housing
facility, rather than the required 6 m (19.84 ft.);
·
a sideyard setback of 4.6 m (15.09 ft.) for the most southerly wall of the modified housing
facility, rather than the required 6 m (19.84 ft.);
·
sideyard setbacks of 1.8 m (5.9 ft.) for Unit 57 of the townhouse development; 4.5 m (14.76
ft.) for Unit 19; and, 3.6 m (11.81 ft.) for Unit 12; rather than the required 6 m (19.84 ft.); and,
·
a rearyard setback of 6 m (19.84 ft.) for Units 13 to 18 inclusive of the townhouse
development, rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.);
with all units of the townhouse development as shown on the sketch submitted with Minor
Variance Application, Submission No. A 2001-003;
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT22JANUARY 9, 2001
1.Submission Nos.:
B 2001-005 &A 2001-003 (Cont'd)
on Part Lot 6, Municipal Compiled Plan 958, designated as Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-8910,
BE APPROVED
2727 Kingsway Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following condition:
1.That the variances as approved in this application shall be generally in accordance with
the plan submitted with Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 2001-003.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1.The variances requested in this application are minor in nature.
2.This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3.The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan
are being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Consent B 2001-005
Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski
Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac
That the application of Lutheran Homes Kitchener-Waterloo requesting permission to mortgage
separately Part 1, as shown on the sketch submitted with Consent Application, Submission No. B
2001-005, to be developed as a long term care facility, having frontage on Kingsway Drive of 15
m (49.21 ft.) and an area of 1.75 ha (4.33 ac), on Part Lot 6, Municipal Compiled Plan 958,
BE
designated as Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-8910, 2727 Kingsway Drive, Kitchener, Ontario,
GRANTED
, subject to the following conditions:
1.That Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 2001-003, shall receive final approval.
2.That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the
payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-
noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision.
Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall
lapse two years from the date of approval, being January 9, 2003.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1.A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the
municipality.
2.The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the
retained lands.
3.The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and
the Regional Official Policies Plan.
Carried
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT23JANUARY 9, 2001
MINOR VARIANCE
3.Submission Nos.:
A 2001-004, A 2001-005, A 2001-006 & A 2001-007
Applicants:
Scott & Anne Frieburger; France Bertrand & Cindy Mercier; Margaret
J. Goldsmith; and Jeff Charette & Michelle Ranger
Property Locations:
12, 14, 18 & 24 Copper Leaf Street
Legal Description:
Part Block 18, Registered Plan 58M-132, designated as Parts 31, 32,
34 and 37 on Reference Plan 58R-12160
Appearances:
In Support:None
Contra:None
Written Submissions:
In Support:None
Contra:None
Earlier this date, consideration of these applications had been delayed as no one was in
attendance to support the applications. As the Committee had come to the conclusion of it's
agenda and there was still no one in attendance to support these applications, the Committee
agreed to defer the applications to its next meeting to be held on February 6, 2001.
ADJOURNMENT
On motion, the meeting adjourned at 11:00 a.m.
Dated at the City of Kitchener this 9th day of January, 2001.
J. Billett
Secretary-Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment