HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2001-03-06COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
FOR THE
CITY OF KITCHENER
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD MARCH 6, 2001
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Messrs. S. Kay, P. Kruse and P. Britton.
OFFICIALS PRESENT:
Ms. B. Doran, Grand River Conservation Authority, Mr. L. Masseo, Manager
of Development & Design and Ms. J. Billett, Secretary-Treasurer.
Mr. S. Kay, Chair, called this meeting to order at 10:00 a.m.
Moved by Mr. P. Britton
Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse
That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment of February 6, 2001, as mailed
to the members, be accepted.
Carried
Mr. P. Britton declared a pecuniary interest in Submission Nos. B 2001-006 to B 2001-010 considered
by the Committee of Adjustment in his absence on February 6, 2001, as his firm acted on behalf of the
applicant.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
CONSENT
1.Submission No.
B 50/99
Applicant:
Electrohome Limited
Property Location:
809 Wellington Street
Legal Description:
Part of Lots 32, 33 and 34, Registered Plan 763
The Chair advised that the Committee was in receipt of a letter dated February 20, 2001 from Ms.
D. Biuk, Green Scheels Pidgeon Planning Consultants Limited, in which she advised that the
applicant is withdrawing the application. Accordingly, this application was not considered by the
Committee.
NEW BUSINESS
MINOR VARIANCE
1.Submission No.:
A 2001-012
Applicant:
Renato Foti
Property Location:
253 Queen Street South
Legal Description: ,
Part of Lot 6RegisteredPlan 398
Appearances:
In Support:Mr. R. Foti
253 Queen St. S.
Kitchener ON N2G 1W4
Contra:None
Written Submissions:
In Support:None
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT55MARCH 6, 2001
1.Submission No.:
A 2001-012(Cont'd)
Contra:None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a 5.18 m x
3.35 m (17 ft. x 11 ft.) 3 storey addition to the southerly side of the existing structure, having a
0 m sideyard setback, rather than the required 1.2 m (3.94 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in
which they advised that the subject property contains a dwelling unit and an artist’s studio. The
studio is located in the ground floor portion of the building which was designed originally as an
attached garage. At the time of construction, around 1923, the southerly side of the building was
constructed with a setback of 0.25 feet.
The owner proposes to construct a 2-storey addition to the building ahead of the existing studio to
permit a 0.0 metre setback rather than 1.2 metres. The footprint of the addition would be
approximately 2.5 metres in width and 4.6 metres in depth. The lower and main floors would be
used for studio space, and the second level, for additional residential space for the existing
dwelling unit.
Two issues are worthy of examination. The appropriateness of the zero metre sideyard and the
adequacy of the site to accommodate the required parking. Relative to parking, according to the
applicant, the total floor area intended to be devoted to studio is 1700 square feet, which would
require 4 spaces. The residential unit would require 1 space, bringing the total to 5 spaces. The
property achieves access from a driveway on Queen Street and the rear lane. A new triple car
garage has been constructed in the rear of the property; together, the 5 required spaces can be
accommodated on site and independently accessed.
With respect to the requested setback of 0 metres, staff advised the owner that the setback is
measured from the wall of the foundation and that no part of the soffit or eave may encroach onto
the neighbouring property, so it would appear that the foundation could not be constructed at 0
metres from the side lot line. The owner has indicated that he contemplates a flat roofed structure
without eaves, however, the final building design has not been determined. Subject to ensuring
no encroachment occurs, the owner advises that it is his intent to construct the building in line
with the existing building, 0.25 feet from the lot line. Normally staff would not be supportive of
such a small sideyard, however, given that it represents an extension of an existing legal, non-
conforming sideyard, no greater impact on the neighbouring property should be experienced. It is
noted that immediately adjacent to the subject yard is a parking lot associated with a multiple
dwelling. Further, the addition should be constructed of maintenance free material, as the owner
would not have a legal entitlement to encroach onto the neighbouring property for either
construction or ongoing maintenance.
A second minor variance should be included in this application, to permit the building to have a
floor space ratio of 0.69 with the addition, whereas the by-law requires a minimum of 1.0 for all
new buildings. While staff have interpreted that building additions technically fall into the category
of “new buildings” and the floor space ratio should therefore be addressed, it is acknowledged
that this provision is intended to apply to entirely new construction on a property. Staff support the
reduction in the floor space ratio for this site and it is worthy of noting that this addition brings the
floor space ratio more into line with the required minimum.
Finally, the property is located within the Victoria Park Heritage Conservation District. This
application was reviewed by the City’s Heritage Planner and the Heritage Kitchener
representative of the Victoria Park Heritage Conservation District. It is their position that there are
no heritage concerns with the minor variance application, however, the building design will be
reviewed by Heritage Kitchener at the time the alteration permit is applied for.
In conclusion, given that the existing sideyard is approximately 0.25 feet, the building addition
maintaining a similar sideyard can be considered minor. The intent of the Zoning By-law, to
provide adequate building separation for Building Code issues and maintenance can be achieved
by appropriate construction materials and design, including minimal wall openings. Provided the
new building is adequately set back to prevent any building encroachment, the variance can be
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT56MARCH 6, 2001
1.Submission No.:
A 2001-012(Cont'd)
considered desirable, as it permits intensification of the site in accordance with the contemplated
objectives of the Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law and permits the continued operation of an
existing business.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of application A2001-
012 to permit the building addition to have a minimum sideyard of 0.25 metres provided no part of
the building extends beyond the lot line, and to permit a building having a floor space ratio of 0.69
rather than 1.0.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a
building permit is required to construct the new addition; the wall located at the property line
hall be constructed to ensure the structure is located entirely on the subject property; the wall
shall have no window openings and shall be of noncombustible construction with a minimum of
1 hour fire resistance rating; the owner shall ensure that roof drainage is not directed onto the
adjacent property.
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 comment.
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. Foti had anything further to add. Mr. R. Foti advised that he had
reviewed the comments and had nothing further to add.
Mr. P. Kruse referred to the Planning staff comments, noting that staff are recommending the
application be amended, firstly, to require a 0.07 m (0.25 ft.) sideyard setback and secondly, to
provide for a floor space ratio of 0.69 rather than 1 and enquired if Mr. Foti was in agreement with
amending his application. Mr. R. Foti stated that he was in agreement and requested his
application be amended according to staff recommendations.
The Chair then reviewed the Building Division comments and enquired if Mr. Foti was in
agreement with the conditions outlined therein and Mr. Foti concurred.
The Chair referred to the staff comments relative to construction of the addition without
encroaching onto the neighbouring property and advised Mr. Foti that in approving his application
the Committee was not sanctioning any encroachment of the addition onto the neighbouring
property. Mr. Foti stated that he understood and was prepared to construct the addition without
encroaching onto the neighbouring property.
Moved by Mr. P. Kruse
Seconded by Mr. P. Britton
That the application of Renato Foti requesting permission to construct a 5.18 m x 3.35 m (17 ft.
x 11 ft.) 2 storey addition to the southerly side of the existing structure, having a sideyard
setback of 0.07 m (0.25 ft.), rather than the required 1.2 m (3.94 ft.) and having a floor space
ratio of 0.69, rather than the required 1.0, on Part of Lot 6, Registered Plan 398, 253 Queen
BE APPROVED
Street South, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions:
1.That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to construction of the new addition.
2.That the wall to be located at the property line shall be constructed to ensure the
structure is located entirely on the subject property.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT57MARCH 6, 2001
1.Submission No.:
A 2001-012(Cont'd)
3.That the wall to be located at the property line shall have no window openings and shall
be of non-combustible construction with a minimum fire resistance rating.
4.That the owner shall ensure that all roof drainage is directed onto the subject property.
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
2.Submission No.:
A 2001-013
Applicant:
Ned Krayshnik
Property Location:
341 Union Boulevard
Legal Description:
Lot 34, RegisteredPlan 810
Appearances:
In Support:Mr. N. Krayshnik
341 Union Blvd.
Kitchener ON N2M 2T3
Mr. B. Miokovic
71 Pine Crest Road
Toronto ON M6P 3G6
Contra:None
Written Submissions:
In Support:None
Contra:Mr. D. Whitfield
Artindale & Partners
101 Frederick Street, Suite 510
P.O. Box 996
Kitchener ON N2G 4E6
(on behalf of clients, Mr. & Mrs. A. Kavanagh)
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct an addition
onto an existing attached single car garage to accommodate 2 vehicles, having an easterly
sideyard setback of 0.58 m (1.9 ft.), rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in
which they advised that the subject property is located on the south side of Union Boulevard, just
west of Westmount Road, and contains a one-storey single detached dwelling with an attached
garage that was constructed in 1955.
The applicant would like to construct two additions onto the existing dwelling which will provide
approximately 70 m² of new floor area (753 sq. ft.). One addition will be constructed onto the front
of the dwelling while the other addition will be constructed onto the easterly side of the dwelling
which will increase the width of the existing garage to accommodate two vehicles and add a
family room floor at the rear.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT58MARCH 6, 2001
2.Submission No.:
A 2001-013(Cont'd)
A minor variance is required as the resultant setback of the addition from the easterly side
property line will be 0.58 m (1.9 ft.), whereas the R-2 zone requires a minimum side yard setback
of 1.2 m (3.94 ft.).
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O. 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, staff offers the following comments in relation to the
requested variance.
The impact of the reduced setback of the proposed addition for the attached garage will not be
any greater than the impact of a fully detached garage, which would be permitted to be located a
minimum distance of 0.6 m from a side lot line without the need for a minor variance. Further, a
proposed side yard setback of 0.58 m (1.9 ft.) will still be sufficient to allow for maintenance of the
exterior of the addition.
Given the space constraints in this side yard, the variance is desirable as it will provide the
applicant the opportunity to expand the size of the existing attached garage to provide for two
vehicles and additional storage without negatively impacting the abutting property.
As the addition will meet all other zoning requirements and the effects of the variance will be
minor, the general intent of the Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan will be maintained.
Accordingly, the Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of the
requested variance for a reduction of the minimum interior side yard requirement in order to
permit the construction of an addition onto the easterly side of the existing dwelling.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Minor Variance Application
A 2001-013, requesting a reduction of the easterly minimum side yard requirement from 1.2 m
(3.94 ft.) to 0.58 m (1.9 ft.), be approved.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a
building permit is required to construct a new addition and the wall located less than 0.6 m to
the property line shall have no openings, a 45 minute fire resistance rating and be clad with
non-combustible cladding.
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 comment.
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 Committee noted the written submission of Mr. D. Whitfield, Artindale & Partners, Solicitor for
Mr. & Mrs. Al Kavanagh, in which he advised that his clients are the owners of the lands and
premises located at 711 Westmount Road West in the City of Kitchener.
The Kavanagh lands abut the lands owned by the applicant in this application and will, therefore,
be directly affected by the addition to the single car garage which the applicant seeks permission
to carry out herein.
Our client's object to the applicant's application for the minor variation requested herein for the
following reasons:
1.The relief requested is not in the nature of a "minor variance" and we believe, therefore,
that the Committee lacks jurisdiction in law to deal with the matter. As we understand it,
the applicants are seeking to reduce the sideyard setback by a distance of 2.1 ft. which is
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT59MARCH 6, 2001
2.Submission No.:
A 2001-013(Cont'd)
more than 50% of the current by-law sideyard requirement of 4.0 ft.. In our opinion, the
applicants ought rather to be dealing with this matter by way of an application for an
amendment to the applicable Zoning By-law for their property.
2.Our clients are very much concerned that if the application is allowed, the addition which
the applicant proposes to construct will have a detrimental effect on the aesthetic appeal
and desirability of the Kavanagh home, and hence significantly adversely impact the value
of the same. Our clients' rear yard measures 8 ft. in depth. Currently, the distance
separating the rear wall of our client's home from the brick wall of the applicant's garage is
16 ft. The several windows overlooking the rearyard of the Kavanagh home now
necessarily open onto the garage wall of the applicant's property which is currently 16 ft.
away. If the application is allowed, the distance separating the rear wall of the Kavanagh
home from the wall of the proposed garage extension will be reduced to 9.9 ft. The effect
of this will be to perceptually "close in" and "restrict" the rearyard of the Kavanagh home
even more so than it now appears to be.
3.Allowing the reduction of the sideyard setback requirement to the size which the applicant
seeks herein will not be in keeping with the general character of the homes in the
surrounding neighbourhood. The homes in the neighbourhood are characterized by being
situated on spacious lots with generous sideyard allowances and which are thus highly
desirable. Allowing the application herein will reduce the spaciousness of separating the
homes in the immediate vicinity of the applicant's property and would also establish a
precedent for others in the neighbourhood. There is a real concern that this will lead to an
erosion of the spaciousness that the homes and lots in the neighbourhood are intended to
portray.
Our clients respectfully request therefore that the application herein be denied.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the
application subject to certain conditions requested by the Building Division and enquired if the
applicant had anything further to add. Mr. B. Miokovic advised that he was acting as agent for
Mr. Krayshnik and stated that his client was in agreement with the conditions outlined by the
Building Division. The Chair referred to the letter of objection received from Artindale & Partners
and offered Mr. Miokovic an opportunity to respond. Mr. Miokovic stated that there is a fence
located between the two properties and it is intended to construct the addition in such a manner
that the addition will not be visible to the neighbouring property.
Mr. P. Britton enquired if the addition to the garage also includes expansion to the interior
dwelling and Mr. Miokovic advised that in addition to the garage expansion, a small addition is
proposed at the rear of the existing dwelling which will add a family room floor and this portion of
the addition does not require minor variance approval. Mr. Britton enquired if the garage addition
will include windows and Mr. Miokovic advised that no windows will be installed as they are not
allowed.
Mr. P. Britton then referred to a hedge located on the subject property and enquired if it is
intended to retain the hedge. Mr. Miokovic advised that it was intended to either retain the hedge
or construct a fence. Mr. P. Britton suggested that a condition be included that would require the
hedge to be retained during the period of construction to provide a barrier for the neighbouring
property. The remaining members of the Committee concurred with this suggestion.
Moved by Mr. P. Britton
Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse
That the application of Ned Krayshnik requesting permission to construct an addition onto an
existing attached single car garage, having an easterly sideyard setback of 0.58 m (1.9 ft.),
rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.), on Lot 34, Registered Plan 810, 341 Union Boulevard,
BE APPROVED
Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions:
1.That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to construction of the new addition.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT60MARCH 6, 2001
2.Submission No.:
A 2001-013(Cont'd)
2.That the wall to be located less than 0.6 m (1.96 ft.) to the property line shall have no
openings, shall have a 45 minute fire resistance rating and shall be clad with non-
combustible cladding.
3.That the hedge located along the easterly sideyard of the subject property shall be
retained during the period of construction.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1.The variance requested in this application is 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
3.Submission No.:
A 2001-014
Applicant:
J. Andreopoulos / V. Stathokostas / A. Tsatsas
Property Location:
1123 King Street East
Legal Description:
Lot 1 and Part Lot 2, Registered Plan 251, Part Park Lot 25,
Registered Plan 404 and Part Streets and Lane Closed
Appearances:
In Support:None
Contra:None
Written Submissions:
In Support:None
Contra:None
As no one was in attendance to support the application and the Department of Business &
Planning Services recommend deferral of the application, the Committee agreed to defer the
application to its next meeting scheduled for Tuesday, April 3, 2001.
Moved by Mr. P. Kruse
Seconded by Mr. P. Britton
That Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 2001-014, as applied for by John
Andreopoulos, Vassiliki Stathokostas and Alex Tsatsas for the property municipally known as
BE DEFERRED
1123 King Street East, Kitchener, Ontario, , to allow an opportunity for the
applicants to provide additional information to staff of the Department of Business & Planning
Services relative to the proposed uses of the subject property, so that staff may determine an
exact number of required parking spaces.
Carried
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT61MARCH 6, 2001
4.Submission No.:
A 2001-015
Applicant:
Waltenbauer Wood Products of Canada Ltd.
Property Location:
26 Franklin Street South
Legal Description:
Part Lot 140, Registered Plan 254
Appearances:
In Support:Ms. S. Rice, Zoning Officer
Department of Business & Planning Services
City Hall
200 King Street, 5th Floor
Kitchener ON N2G 4G7
Contra:None
Written Submissions:
In Support:None
Contra:None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to change a legal non-
conforming use from a dry cleaning establishment to a kitchen cabinet showroom.
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which
they advised that the subject property, along with 16 Franklin Street South, was the subject of an
application for consent to create two parcels with accompanying rights-of-way considered at the
October 24, 2000, Committee of Adjustment meeting. The application was approved subject to
conditions, and the deed to create the two parcels was endorsed on February 2, 2001. Just prior
to the endorsement of the deed, it was discovered that a portion of the property at 26 Franklin
Street South is zoned Residential Four Zone (R-4) while a small portion is zoned Commercial Six
Zone (C-6). The purchaser of the property operates a kitchen cabinet supply business, and the
proposed use of 26 Franklin Street South is a showroom to display kitchen cabinets. The use of
26 Franklin Street South as a kitchen cabinet showroom is not permitted in the R-4 zone. The
lands were formerly zoned C-5 under By-law 4830 which permitted a dry cleaning establishment.
The lands were zoned R-4 and C-6 on October 11, 1994, rendering the dry cleaning use as legal
non-conforming. To address this problem, staff agreed to submit an application on behalf of the
new owner to change the legal non-conforming use of the property from a dry cleaners (the
former use) to a kitchen cabinet showroom. The City will also be initiating a zone change to
remedy the split zoning.
In order to permit a change in legal non-conforming use of lands, the following tests must be
satisfied:
1. Is the new use identical or similar in purpose to the use occurring on the day the Zoning
By-law was passed?
2. Does the new use perpetuate the legal non-conforming use?
3. What is the impact of the proposed, new use?
In regard to the first test, staff consider that kitchen cabinet sales is similar in purpose to the
former dry cleaners in that it also invites members of the public to the premises and provides a
type of “service” to the public. A showroom is an establishment for viewing a product; a dry
cleaner is an establishment for cleaning a product. In terms of the second test, the new use may
perpetuate the legal non-conforming use but to no greater extent than the dry cleaners, and is in
fact less “intensive” a use than the former use. A kitchen cabinet showroom would likely attract
fewer visitors and therefore would generate less activity overall. In regard to the third test, the
impact of the proposed showroom would be minimal in terms of vehicular traffic and noise, and
would therefore have little impact on existing residential uses to the south, and other established
commercial uses in other directions.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT62MARCH 6, 2001
4.Submission No.:
A 2001-015(Cont'd)
Based on the above comments, staff consider that the proposed change in legal non-conforming
use from a dry cleaners to a kitchen cabinet showroom generally satisfies the tests applied in
such cases.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission A
2001-015, without conditions.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a
building permit is required for any construction proposed to accommodate the change of use.
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 comment.
The Committee noted the comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo,
in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed this 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 Ms. Rice had anything further to add. Ms. S. Rice advised that she
had reviewed the comments and had nothing further to add.
The Chair requested clarification with regard to the dual zoning of the subject parcel and the
proposed zone change. Ms. Rice advised that a mapping error occurred when the property was
rezoned in 1994 resulting in a split zoning and it is intended to address this matter through a
housekeeping zone change amendment that will result in the parcel being zoned entirely C-6. As
the property is currently zoned R-4 and C-6 and R-4 zoning does not permit the use as a kitchen
cabinet showroom, the City is making application on behalf of the owner to permit a change in
legal non-conforming use pending a zone change application. When the property is rezoned to
C-6 the use as a kitchen cabinet showroom will be permitted bringing the property into
compliance.
In response to Mr. Britton, Ms. Rice advised that the previous use as a dry cleaning
establishment allowed for the processing of clothes in addition to a drop-off and pick-up location.
She further advised that the proposed change in use will be as a showroom only with no
manufacturing to take place on site.
Mr. Britton enquired if the previous dry cleaning use was continuous up until the use changed to
the kitchen cabinet showroom. Ms. Rice advised that the proposed use is not in operation and
the dry-cleaning use ceased approximately 1 year ago. In this regard, Mr. Britton suggested that
given the previous use ceased to operate, the Committee no longer has jurisdiction to consider a
change in use and requested staff to comment as to the Committee's authority to deal with this
matter.
In response to Mr. L. Masseo, Ms. Rice confirmed that the previous use had ceased and the
property is currently vacant. Accordingly, Mr. Masseo advised that it would appear the
Committee does not have jurisdiction to consider the matter.
Mr. P. Kruse clarified for Ms. Rice that in order for the Committee to consider the change in use
the previous use has to be continuous and in this instance the previous use ceased to operate.
Mr. Kruse suggested that the owner will have to wait until the zone change is complete at which
time the proposed change in use would then comply.
The Chair referred to Section 45.2 (a)(ii) which gives the Committee the authority to consider a
change in use provided "the use continued until the date of the application to the Committee" and
agreed that the Committee had no jurisdiction to consider this matter as the previous use ceased
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT63MARCH 6, 2001
4.Submission No.:
A 2001-015(Cont'd)
to operate prior to the application being submitted. The Chair further agreed that the applicant
should await the outcome of a zone change and suggested that in the interim, the owner would
have opportunity to approach City Council to request approval for temporary occupancy prior to
finalization of the zone change.
Moved by Mr. P. Britton
Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse
That the application of Waltenbauer Wood Products of Canada Ltd. requesting permission to
change a legal non-conforming use from a dry cleaning establishment to a kitchen cabinet
showroom on Part of Lot 140, Registered Plan 254, 26 Franklin Street South, Kitchener,
BE REFUSED
Ontario, .
It is the opinion of this Committee that Section 45.2 (a)(ii) of the Planning Act gives authority to
the Committee to consider a change to legal non-conforming use only if the existing legal non-
conforming use continued until the date of the application to the Committee. It has been
established that the legal non-conforming use of the subject property as a dry cleaning
establishment ceased to operate approximately 1 year ago; therefore, the Committee has no
jurisdiction to approve this request.
Carried
CONSENT
1.Submission No:
B 2001-014
Applicant:
Huron Woods Development Corporation
Property Location:
375 Huron Road
Legal Description:
Part of Lot 11, Biehn's Tract, designated as Part 1 on Reference Plan
58R-7834
Appearances:
In Support:Mr. U. Roetsch
284 Frederick Street
Kitchener ON N2H 2N4
Contra:None
Written Submissions:
In Support:None
Contra:None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting granting of an easement over a
parcel of land located at the southwesterly corner of the subject property, having a lot width of
23.669 m (77.6 ft.), by an average depth of 12.084 m (39.64 ft.) and an area of 143 m² (1,539 sq.
ft.), in favour of Bell Canada for the purpose of installing an electronic walk-in cabinet.
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in
which they advised that an application has been received in order to create an easement in
favour of Bell Canada over lands described as Part of Lot 11, Biehn's Tract, and more particularly
described as Part 8 on Reference Plan 58R-12807. It is understood that Bell Canada intends to
erect a walk-in cabinet for electronic equipment on the subject lands. Approval of a consent to
create an easement is required as the equipment is intended to be located on privately owned
property. The area of the lands is 142.9 m².
The subject lands are located immediately at the intersection between the existing Huron Road
and the proposed re-aligned Huron Road to the north. The location of the re-aligned Huron Road
has been approved and construction has begun. The location of this easement is therefore
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT64MARCH 6, 2001
1.Submission No:
B 2001-014(Cont'd)
established in accordance with the approved road alignment and does not impact the width or
function of the road right-of-way.
It is a policy of the Municipal Plan to support co-operation between the City and utility agencies to
ensure the proper provision of local services. The approval of this easement assists Bell Canada
in providing service in this part of the City.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission B
2001-014.
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 comment.
The Committee noted the comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo,
in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed this application and have no objection to
this application, in which an easement is proposed to construct a Bell Canada walk-in cabinet;
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 objection to this application to grant an easement over a parcel of land
in favour of Bell Canada for the purpose of installing an electronic walk-in cabinet.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the
application and enquired if Mr. Roetsch had anything further to add. Mr. U. Roetsch advised that
he had reviewed the staff comments and had nothing further to add.
There being no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion.
Moved by P. Kruse
Seconded by P. Britton
That the application of Huron Woods Development Corporation requesting granting of an
easement over Part 11, Biehn's Tract, designated as Part 8 on Reference Plan 58R-12807,
having an area of 143 m² (1,539 sq. ft.), in favour of Bell Canada for the purpose of installing an
electronic walk-in cabinet, on Part of Lot 11, Biehn's Tract, 375 Huron Road, Kitchener, Ontario,
BE GRANTED
.
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 March 6, 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 ADJUSTMENT65MARCH 6, 2001
2.Submission No.:
B 2001-015
Applicant:
Jim & Karen Stickel
Property Location:
Smetana Drive
Legal Description:
Part Lot 3, Registered Plan 947
Appearances:
In Support:Mr. J. Stickel
71 Penrose Avenue
Kitchener ON N2A 1G1
Contra:None
Written Submissions:
In Support:None
Contra:None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of
land as a lot addition to an abutting property proposed to be developed with a single duplex
dwelling and retain a parcel of land having an area of 337.124 m² (3,628.89 sq. ft.). The lands
to be severed will have a lot width of 0.914 m (3 ft.) fronting onto Smetana Drive, by a depth of
33.519 m (108.79 ft.) and an area of 30.636 m² (329.77 sq. ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in
which they advised that the subject site is located on the north side of Smetana Drive at the
terminus of Rothsay Avenue, south of Victoria Street and west of Lackner Boulevard in the Grand
River North Community. The site consists of two lots. One lot is legally described as Parts 5 and
6 from 58R-12351 and referred to as 4 Smetana Drive and contains an existing duplex dwelling.
The adjacent lot to the north was part of the Rothsay Avenue right-of-way that has been closed
and purchased by the applicant. This lot is legally described as Parts 3 and 4 from 58R-12351
and is currently vacant with the applicant proposing to construct a duplex dwelling on the lot. The
applicant has submitted the subject consent application with the intention of conveying a small
portion (Part 5 from 58R-12351) of the existing built lot at 4 Smetana Drive as an addition to the
adjacent vacant lot (Parts 3 and 4 from 58R-12351).
The retained lands at 4 Smetana Drive were the subject of previous consent applications last
year (B2000-16, 17 & 18). The consent applications were approved, which allowed the creation of
four lots on the east side of Smetana Drive, including the retained lands at 4 Smetana Drive and
three additional lots now known as 6, 8 and 10 Smetana Drive. These four lots have frontages
ranging from 10.97m (35.99 ft.) to 12.04m (39.5 ft.) wide and have all been developed with single
detached or duplex dwellings. The February 29, 2000 minutes regarding the previous consent
applications noted that a fifth lot (Parts 3 and 4 from 58R-12351) was intended to be created from
part of the closure of Rothsay Avenue which abuts the north side of the retained lands at 4
Smetana Drive.
In terms of the current consent application for a lot addition, the proposed retained lot at 4
Smetana Drive (Part 6) would have a frontage of 11.12 metres (36.50 feet) and an area of 373
m² (4,015.07 sq. ft.). The adjacent lot to the north (Parts 3 and 4) plus the proposed lot
addition (Part 5) would have a frontage of 10.97 m (35.99 ft.) and an area of 367.67 m²
(3957.70 sq. ft.).
The surrounding lands and the subject property are designated Low Rise Residential in the
Municipal Plan. This designation allows for a range of residential housing types including single
detached and duplex dwellings. The subject property is zoned Residential Four Zone (R-4) which
permits single detached and duplex dwellings. The proposed lot sizes and frontages for the
retained lands and the adjacent lot to the north plus the lot addition comply with the minimum
requirements of the R-4 zone. In addition, all other regulations pertaining to the severed and
retained lands as required by the R-4 zone would be satisfied. The Committee should note that
the applicant could construct a dwelling on the vacant lot without the lot addition. The lands to the
north of the subject site are also zoned R-4 with similar sized lots and the lands to the south are
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT66MARCH 6, 2001
2.Submission No.:
B 2001-015(Cont'd)
zoned Residential Three (R-3) with minimum lot widths of 13.7 m (45 ft.).
Staff have been in discussion with the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) with regards
to any potential impact that the development proposal may have on the potential fish habitat area
of the Kolb Greenway which is located just to the north of the subject site. It is acknowledged that
consideration of the application of any fisheries policies in the City’s Municipal Plan is weighted
towards the delegated authority’s (GRCA) analysis of the subject application. It should be
recognized, however, that the proposed lot addition only facilitates an infill development and is not
within a newly developing area. It is understood that the GRCA will be providing comments on
the consent application and may be requesting a scoped Environmental Impact Study. The EIS
would help address whether the proposed development would have any impact on the potential
fish habitat of the Kolb Greenway or any mitigation measures (such as development setbacks,
plantings, etc.) that should be applied.
Site servicing issues and parkland dedication for the retained lands (Part 6) and parkland
dedication for the proposed lot addition (Part 5) have been dealt with through conditions of the
previous consent applications B 2000-016, 017 and 018. Site servicing items for Parts 3, 4 and 5
and parkland dedication for Parts 3 and 4 are required to be addressed as conditions of any
approval.
The subject consent application for an addition to the lot on the north side of 4 Smetana Drive is
appropriate as it allows for development of the lot in accordance with the Municipal Plan
designation and the Zoning By-law requirements. Furthermore, the retained land and adjacent
lands would have similar frontage and lot area as those lots on Smetana Drive that were created
through the previous consent applications last year and similar to the surrounding residential
development.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Application B 2001-
015 subject to the following conditions:
1. That the lands to be severed (Part 5) be added to the abutting lands (Parts 3 and 4) and
title be taken in identical ownership as the abutting lands. Any subsequent conveyance of
the parcel to be severed shall comply with Sections 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act,
1995.
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.
3. That the owners pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for park dedication
equal to 5% of the value of Parts 3 and 4 of 58R-12351.
4. That the owners make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City’s General
Manager of Public Works for the installation of all new service connections to Parts 3, 4
and 5 of 58R-12351.
5. That the owners 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 Parts 3, 4 and 5 of 58R-12351.
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 comment.
The Committee noted the comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo,
in which they advised that Regional staff have no objection to this application, which proposes a
lot addition for residential use; 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 ADJUSTMENT67MARCH 6, 2001
2.Submission No.:
B 2001-015(Cont'd)
The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they
advised that they recommend approval conditional upon the completion of a satisfactory Scoped
Environmental Impact Study that is prepared by a qualified biologist and submitted to the Grand
River Conservation Authority to demonstrate that the proposed development will not negatively
impact fish habitat present in the Kolb Greenway.
The subject lands are outside the floodplain of Kolb Greenway. The proposed lot is in close
proximity to the Kolb Greenway, which has been designated a potential coldwater fishery by the
Ministry of Natural Resources. The Provincial Policy Statement states in Policy 2.3.1b) that
"Development and site alteration may be permitted in fish habitat…if it has been demonstrated
that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or the ecological functions for which
the area is identified." The Ministry of Natural Resources considers adjacent lands as the lands
within which impacts must be considered and within which the compatibility of a development
proposal must be addressed. The Province states that adjacent lands are those within 30 metres
of fish habitat.
In general, it is the practice of the Grand River Conservation Authority to review site specific
proposals to determine the need for a greater or lesser distance for adjacent land widths. In this
case, we recognize that this proposed development is an infilling situation within an established
residential development. However, the proposed development will be less than 15 metres from
the top of the bank. In accordance with Provincial Policy, we will require the submission of a
Scoped Environmental Study (EIS). The Scoped EIS is required to demonstrate that the
development will not have a negative impact on the watercourse or ecological functions of the
fishery.
We would also like to note that the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan contemplates fisheries
policies. Section 7.8.1.5 states that "The Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans or its
delegate may require the submission of an Environmental Impact Study with any proposal for
development near or adjacent to an existing or potential fish habitat area".
In summary, we recommend approval of the application conditional upon the completion of a
satisfactory Scoped Environmental Impact Study that is prepared by a qualified biologist and
submitted to the Grand River Conservation Authority to demonstrate that the proposed
development will not negatively impact fish habitat present in the Kolb Greenway.
The Committee noted the comments of CN Rail in which they advised that the owner is required
to insert the following warning clause in all development agreements, offers to purchase,
agreements of Purchase and Sale or Lease and include in a Noise Impact Statement:
"Warning:Canadian National Railway Company or its assigns or successors in interest
has or have a right-of-way within 300 metres from the land the subject hereof. There may
be alterations to or expansions of the rail facilities on such right-of-way in the future
including the possibility that the railway or its assigns or successors as aforesaid may
expand its operations, which expansion may affect the living environment of the residents
in the vicinity, notwithstanding the inclusion of any noise and vibration attenuating
measures in the design of the development and individual dwelling(s). CNR will not be
responsible for any complaints or claims arising from use of such facilities and/or
operations on, over or under the aforesaid right-of-way."
We recommend the owner engage a consultant to undertake an analysis of noise and provide
abatement measures necessary to achieve the maximum level limits set by the Ministry of
environment and Canadian National.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the
application subject to certain conditions and enquired if Mr. Stickel had anything further to add.
Mr. J. Stickel advised that he had reviewed the staff comments and had nothing further to add.
The Chair requested Mr. Stickel to review the background with regard to previous severance
applications and what is now proposed. Mr. Stickel advised that under the previous severance
applications 3 new lots were created, being Parts 7, 8 and 9 with Parts 5 and 6 being retained.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT68MARCH 6, 2001
2.Submission No.:
B 2001-015(Cont'd)
He pointed out that Parts 3 and 4 were part of Rothsay Avenue which has now been closed and
together with Part 5, it is intended to create another new lot. Mr. Stickel advised that he was not
able to create the lot consisting of Parts 3, 4 and 5 at the time of the previous severances as the
road closure had not taken place. Mr. Stickel advised that the purpose of the current application
is to sever Part 5 and add it to Parts 3 and 4.
The Chair referred to the comments from the Grand River Conservation Authority which request
that a condition be imposed to require a Scoped Environmental Impact Study to be completed
and enquired if Mr. Stickel had reviewed these comments. Mr. Stickel stated that this had not
been an issue with the previous applications and questioned why it would be an issue at this time.
In response to Mr. P. Britton, Mr. Stickel advised that Parts 3, 4 and 5 are separated from the
Kolb Creek by Parts 1 and 2, as well as by a gravel walkway and embankment. Mr. Stickel
further advised that originally Rothsay Avenue was to be extended over the area shown as Parts
1 through 4; however, this section of Rothsay Avenue was subsequently declared redundant and
closed. Mr. Stickel stated that he had purchased Parts 3 and 4 while the City had retained Parts
1 and 2. Mr. Britton referred to the fact that the applicant has the ability to apply for a building
permit for the lot consisting of Parts 3 and 4 and enquired if the purpose of the current application
was simply to add width to the existing lot. Mr. Stickel advised that was correct and that the draft
plan had been prepared with this configuration in mind.
The Chair enquired as to the rationale for conveying Part 5 as it was not required in order to build
on Parts 3 and 4. Mr. Stickel stated that it was his desire to have a consistent lot width with those
lots that had been created under the previous severances. The Chair clarified that there was no
compelling reason to sever Part 5 other than a personal decision to have lots of equal width and
Mr. Stickel stated that was correct.
The Chair then requested Ms. B. Doran, Resource Planner for the Grand River Conservation
Authority, to comment on the GRCA's request to have a Scoped Environmental Impact Study
completed.
In response to the applicant's earlier question as to why the issue of an EIS Study had not been
raised for the previous consent applications, Ms. B. Doran pointed out that Provincial policy
determines adjacent lands to an established fish habitat to be those within 30 m and as the
previous severances were at a greater distance than 30 m an EIS Study was not requested. Ms.
Doran advised that the Kolb Creek has been identified by the Ministry of Natural Resources as a
coldwater fishery and it is the practice of the GRCA to review site specific proposals for adjacent
lands that are less than 30 m from the creek to determine the impact development may have on
the fish habitat. The current application will create a new lot that is to be less than 15 m from the
top of the bank. Ms. Doran acknowledged the proposal represents infilling and the Kolb Creek is
not in the best condition; however, such a study would be required for any new lot adjacent to a
coldwater fishery within less than 30 m and the intent is to be consistent in applying this
requirement. She further pointed out that the City's Municipal Plan provides for the possibility an
EIS may be required for any proposal near or adjacent to existing or potential fish habitat areas.
Mr. P. Kruse pointed out that the severance application was not required in order to develop Parts
3 and 4 and, accordingly, development could take place without the GRCA being involved. In this
regard, he suggested that it may be inappropriate to require the applicant to complete an EIS
simply because he wishes to add approximately 3 ft. to the width of an already developable lot.
Mr. P. Britton requested Ms. Doran to comment on the condition of the Kolb Creek upstream. Ms.
Doran responded that the Kolb Creek shows signs of strain given previous development and the
environment through which it flows and is not in the best condition; however, the Ministry has
classified it as a coldwater fishery and recognizes that the creek has potential to improve. In
addition, she pointed out that the City has put considerable funding toward creek rehabilitation.
Mr. Britton further questioned if the GRCA or the City has a management plan in place to improve
the Kolb Creek upstream. Ms. Doran advised that an Environmental Assessment had been
completed in 1993 which primarily dealt with the Kolb Creek downstream and was unaware of
any plans which involved upstream. She pointed out, however, that improvements could be
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT69MARCH 6, 2001
2.Submission No.:
B 2001-015(Cont'd)
assisted through completion of an Environmental Impact Study for any new development within
30 m of the creek.
The Chair enquired if the study results would have potential to prohibit development and Ms. B.
Doran responded that the GRCA is looking towards the study more as a means to justify the
reduction in buffer. The Chair further enquired what impact this development could have
upstream given the current condition of the Kolb Creek. Ms. Doran stated that any impact is likely
to occur downstream. Regardless, she stated the GRCA is attempting to protect the stream from
new development despite negative impacts from past development.
The Chair referred to the comments from CN and enquired if these comments had been
submitted with the previous severance applications. Mr. Stickel advised that he had not received
any comments from CN with regard to the previous severances.
Mr. P. Britton enquired if Mr. Stickel had been given indication that the lot could be built on at the
time Parts 3 and 4 were purchased from the City and Mr. Stickel advised that was correct. In
response to further questioning from Mr. Britton, Mr. Stickel advised that the location of the
proposed dwelling is some distance from the creek, buffered by Parts 1 and 2 together with a
walkway and the creek embankment.
The Chair referred to Condition No. 3 within the Planning staff report which requires the owner to
pay a cash-in-lieu contribution for park dedication and Mr. Masseo advised that this was a
standard condition being applied as it would not have been paid through the previous
applications. Mr. P. Britton pointed out that the parcel being severed was included as part of the
original severance applications and questioned if it was possible the park dedication had already
been paid. Mr. Masseo stated that this may have been the case and Mr. Stickel advised that he
had paid park dedication fees on Parts 5 and 6, as well as the severed parcels, being Parts 7, 8
and 9.
Mr. Britton stated that he was prepared to move approval of the application subject to the
recommendations outlined in the Planning staff report, save and except Condition 3 relative to the
park dedication fee as it can be assumed this has already been paid under the previous
severance applications. Mr. Britton also stated that he was not prepared to include the condition
of the GRCA requiring an Environmental Impact Study; however, would include a condition
requiring the owner to ensure that erosion/sedimentation resulting from any grading of the subject
property would not be allowed into the Kolb Creek. Mr. Britton stated that, in his opinion, this was
reasonable as this was not a proposal to create a new lot but rather to add a small parcel to an
existing lot.
Moved by Mr. P. Britton
Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse
That the application of Jim & Karen Stickel requesting permission to convey a parcel of land (Part
5, R.P. 58R-12351) as a lot addition to abutting lands (Parts 3 and 4, R.P. 58R-12351) to be
developed with a single duplex dwelling, having a lot width of 0.914 m (3 ft.) fronting onto
Smetana Drive, by a depth of 33.519 m (108.79 ft.) and an area of 30.636 m² (329.77 sq. ft.), on
Lot 3, Registered Plan 947, designated as Parts 3, 4 and 5 on Reference Plan 58R-12351, 4
BE GRANTED
Smetana Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions:
1.That the lands to be severed (Part 5, R.P. 58R-12351) shall be added to the abutting lands
(Parts 3 and 4, R.P. 58R-12351) and title shall be taken in identical ownership as the
abutting lands. Any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed shall comply with
Sections 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, 1995.
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.
3.That the owners 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 Parts 3, 4
and 5 on R.P. 58R-12351.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT70MARCH 6, 2001
2.Submission No.:
B 2001-015(Cont'd)
4.That the owners 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 Parts 3, 4 and 5, R.P. 58R-12351.
5.That prior to any grading or construction on any part of the lands, a grading control plan
and drainage control plan, showing all erosion and siltation control features, shall be
approved by the City's General Manager of Public Works.
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 March 6, 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
CONSENT & MINOR VARIANCE
1.Submission Nos.:
B 2001-016 &A 2001-016
Applicant:
Monarch Construction Ltd.
Property Location:
393 Tilt Drive
Legal Description:
Part of Lot 4, Biehn's Tract
Appearances:
In Support:Mr. G. Scheels
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 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 residential dwelling and retaining a
parcel of land having an average area of 141 ha (348.4 ac). The severed lands will have frontage
on future Robert Ferrie Drive of 54.55 m (178.97 ft.), by an average depth of 48 m (157.48 ft.) and
an area of 0.22 ha (0.54 ac). A variance to the Zoning By-law is also requested to permit the lot
to be created without frontage on a public street until such time as Robert Ferrie Drive is
constructed, with interim access to be provided by temporary easement over adjacent lands.
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in
which they advised that the subject lands are part of a 141 hectare parcel of land, located in
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT71MARCH 6, 2001
1.Submission Nos.:
B 2001-016 &A 2001-016(Cont'd)
the Doon South Community. The lands are designated Low Rise Residential in the Municipal
Plan and are zoned Residential Three Zone (R-3) with Holding Provision 31H according to
Zoning By-law 85-1. The lands are currently draft approved for a future residential subdivision
and are identified as Blocks 3 and 4 (Stage 8), Draft Plan of Subdivision 30T-95018. The
lands are shown as Parts 1 through 5 on the attached draft reference plan.
The subject lands are developed with a log cabin that is recognized as a significant heritage
structure. The log cabin was constructed circa 1815 by Abraham Stauffer Jr., a pioneer settler
of the area, and is recognized as one of the oldest structures in Waterloo Region. The
applicant is requesting consent to sever a 0.22 hectare parcel of land from the current land
holding, so that an appropriately sized lot for the existing log cabin may be conveyed.
Approval of a minor variance application is also requested so that a lot may be created without
frontage on a public road.
Currently, a unique situation exists, where the applicant (Monarch Construction Limited) owns
the lands, and another party (Mr. and Mrs. T. Reynolds) owns the actual log cabin structure.
The Reynolds have lived in the log cabin for over 20 years and have leased the land from
Monarch. The proposed consent would allow Monarch to convey the severed lands to Mr. and
Mrs. Reynolds so that they may continue to live on the lands and keep the log cabin in its
current setting.
The Minor Variance Application as submitted by the applicants correctly requests permission
to create a lot without frontage on a public road but incorrectly seeks relief from section 37.2.1
of the Zoning By-law instead of the general provision 5.2 which requires that all lots front a
public road. In addition, the applicants require approval of a right-of-way to provide interim
access to Tilt Drive. Accordingly, Minor Variance Application A 2001-016 should be revised to
request relief from section 5.2 of the Zoning By-law and Consent Application B 2001-016
should be revised to request the establishment of a right-of-way for access over the retained
lands.
During the processing of Draft Plan of Subdivision 30T-95018, a comprehensive examination
of all heritage resources was conducted within and adjacent to the subject lands. In addition, a
Heritage Impact Assessment, specifically addressing the future disposition of the Stauffer log
cabin, was completed and subsequently approved. The Heritage Impact Assessment provided
the basis for the current consent and minor variance applications.
The approved draft plan of subdivision provides for the creation of a 0.22 hectare block of land,
providing an appropriate context for the Stauffer log cabin and frontage on a new collector
road, named Robert Ferrie Drive. This block is shown as Part 1 on the attached draft
reference plan, which is the lands to be severed. Another large block, approximately 0.33
hectares in size and located immediately adjacent to the proposed lot to be severed, will
eventually be purchased by the City of Kitchener for open space purposes. This block, shown
as Parts 2-5 on the attached draft reference plan, will further add to the contextual setting of
the log cabin and provide a linkage to Tilt Drive. At this time, Parts 2-5 will remain as part of
the retained lands.
The severed lot will not have legal frontage on a public street until such time as Robert Ferrie
Drive is eventually constructed and dedicated as a public highway. In order to provide the
severed lot with a legal means of access until such time as Robert Ferrie Drive is constructed,
a right-of-way over the existing laneway (shown as Part 3 and part of Part 5 on the attached
draft reference plan) will be established. This right-of-way will allow for continued access via
Tilt Drive until such time as Robert Ferrie Drive is constructed and opened to vehicular traffic.
The applicant will be required to enter into an agreement that will ensure that the right-of-way
is quit claimed upon the construction and opening of Robert Ferrie Drive.
In negotiations between the City, Monarch Construction Limited and Mr. and Mrs. Reynolds, it
was agreed that Monarch would convey the parcel identified in the draft plan of subdivision in
2002, which is prior to the intended time of registration of the portion of the subdivision. This
will allow the Reynolds’ to continue to live in the log cabin and continue to invest in the lands,
without waiting for Stage 8 of the draft plan of subdivision to be registered and developed. The
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT72MARCH 6, 2001
1.Submission Nos.:
B 2001-016 &A 2001-016(Cont'd)
Department of Business and Planning Services would not normally support the creation of a lot
without frontage on a public road. However, the creation of the lot at this time will facilitate the
conservation of an important heritage resource. It is recognized that the creation of this lot
without frontage on a public road will only be a temporary situation and the severed lot will
eventually front on a new road within the draft plan of subdivision.
Consent Application B 2001-016 is in full compliance with the approved draft plan of
subdivision, the recommendations of the Heritage Impact Assessment, and prior resolutions of
City Council regarding the conveyance of the lands to be severed. Further, given the unique
circumstances with this application, Minor Variance Application A 2001-016 is considered to be
minor in nature, appropriate for the development of the subject lands and in conformity with the
general intent of the Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law.
To ensure that the severed lands continue to be maintained in a manner that provides a
suitable context for the log cabin, the Department of Business and Planning Services
recommends that the owner be required to register a heritage conservation easement on the
lands. In addition, since the severed lands will ultimately be conveyed to another party, it is
recommended that they be removed from Draft Plan of Subdivision 30T-95018 and that a new
agreement, incorporating applicable conditions from the existing subdivision agreement, be
entered into with the City and registered on title.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Minor Variance
Application A2001-016, as revised, be approved, without conditions.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Consent Application
B2001-016, as revised to include the establishment of a right-of-way for access over the
retained lands, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That Minor Variance Application A2001-016 receive final approval.
2. That satisfactory financial arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the
payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement
charges.
3. That the owner enter into a heritage easement agreement with the City of Kitchener, to
apply to Parts 1 through 5 inclusive of the attached draft reference plan.
4. To provide confirmation to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor, that a right-of-way for
access over Part 3 and part of Part 5 as shown on the attached draft reference plan, in
favour of the severed lands, will be registered on title of the retained lands.
5. That the owner enter into an agreement, to be approved by the City Solicitor, which will
ensure that the right-of-way for access over the retained lands and a joint maintenance
agreement are maintained until such time as Robert Ferrie Drive abutting the severed
lands is constructed and open to public vehicular traffic, and to provide confirmation that
said agreement will be registered against the title of both properties.
6. That the existing septic system on the severed parcel of land be modified/relocated, or a
new septic system be constructed, 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 is located a minimum of 3 metres from the new lot line shall be
confirmed by a qualified professional to the satisfaction of the City’s Chief Building
Official and Principal Planner.
7. That the owner enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener, to be registered on
title of the severed lands, which shall contain the following special conditions:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT73MARCH 6, 2001
1.Submission Nos.:
B 2001-016 &A 2001-016(Cont'd)
a) That the owner make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City’s
General Manager of Public Works for the future installation of all new service
connections to the severed lands and further, to remove or fill the existing septic
bed to the satisfaction of the City’s Chief Building Official, upon connection to
municipal services.
b) That the owner make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City’s
General Manager of Public Works for the future installation to City standards of a
paved driveway ramp on the portion of the severed lands abutting future Robert
Ferrie Drive within draft plan of subdivision 30T-95018.
c) 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 future grading on the retained lands within draft plan
of subdivision 30T-95018.
d) The owner shall obtain approval from the City’s Director of Planning of a 1.8
metre high wood fence or a plan showing an appropriate continuous landscape
barrier along the boundary of the severed lands where it abuts Blocks 1 and 2
(Stage 9) of Draft Plan of Subdivision 30T-95018, and to construct such
approved fence or landscape barrier within one year of the registration of Stage 8
of Draft Plan of Subdivision 30T-95018 on adjacent lands, or at other such time
as deemed acceptable by the City’s Director of Planning.
e) The owner agrees to quit claim the right-of-way for access over Part 3 and part of
Part 5, as shown on the attached draft reference plan, at such time as Robert
Ferrie Drive is constructed adjacent to the subject lands and is open to public
vehicular traffic.
f) That the severed lands be released from the terms and obligations of the
Residential Subdivision Agreement, registered as Instrument Number
LT0044137, upon registration of the deed, arising out of Consent Application
B2001-016.
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 Traffic & Parking Analyst in which he advised that
the Traffic & Parking Division has reviewed these applications and has no comment.
The Committee noted the comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of
Waterloo, in which they advised Regional staff understand an existing home is to be severed
from lands owned by Monarch Construction Limited that is within the Doon Mills Subdivision.
At this time, the existing home is privately serviced. The proposed lot is approximately 0.54
acres. While staff realize that the intent is to connect the residence to municipal services at
some time in the future and that the existing septic system will be replaced in the spring, it is
important for the City to satisfy itself that the effluent from the septic system can be
appropriately disposed of within the proposed lot area. The Region further advised that 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 Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the
applications subject to certain conditions and enquired if Mr. Scheels had anything further to
add. Mr. G. Scheels advised that the applications provide for creation of a lot for the Stauffer
log cabin which is a significant heritage structure within the municipality. Mr. Scheels pointed
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT74MARCH 6, 2001
1.Submission Nos.:
B 2001-016 &A 2001-016(Cont'd)
out that the log cabin is currently being leased from Monarch Construction by Mr. & Mrs. T.
Reynolds who have lived in the cabin for a number of years. Mr. Scheels advised that an
exhaustive planning process had been undertaken in the early 1990's resulting in a draft
approved plan of subdivision and a Heritage Impact Assessment was also completed. The
subdivision will undergo staging of development that will not reach the subject lands for
approximately 6 to 8 years. In this regard, it is intended to convey the subject parcel to the
Reynolds at this time so they may proceed with necessary improvements and this will also
provide them with security of ownership. Mr. Scheels referred to the Planning staff report
which requests the minor variance application be revised to request relief from Section 5.2 of
Zoning By-law 85-1 rather than Section 37.2.1 and stated that he had no concerns with this
amendment. He noted that the subject property will have frontage on a future public roadway;
however, access at this time is from Tilt Drive. The Planning staff report also recommends an
amendment to the consent application to request establishment of a right-of-way for access
over the retained lands and Mr. Scheels indicated that he had no concerns with this
amendment. He pointed out that the lands between the subject property and the proposed
right-of-way will be conveyed to the City and there was some question of how the right-of-way
should be established. Monarch Construction has agreed to establish the right-of-way to
ensure that the severance application is not delayed.
In response to the Chair, Mr. Scheels advised that the severed parcel will not have frontage on
a public roadway for 6 to 8 years at which time it is anticipated Robert Ferrie Drive will be
constructed. He further advised that the proposed right-of-way will be over Part 3 which is the
existing laneway and part of Part 5, with the remaining parts to eventually be conveyed to the
City. Mr. Scheels also acknowledged that the severed parcel is serviced by a septic system
which at this time is in poor condition and as a condition of approval a new septic system will
have to be constructed.
In response to Mr. P. Britton, Mr. Scheels advised that a heritage easement agreement will be
entered into which will apply to Parts 1 through 5, with Parts 2 to 5 to be conveyed to the City
for open space purposes including retention of the treed laneway. At such time as access to
Robert Ferrie Drive becomes available to the severed parcel, Monarch Construction will quit
claim its interest in Part 3.
The Chair recalled a previous application relative to a property located on Woolwich Street in
which the applicant requested permission to expand the existing dwelling in preparation for
retirement; however, the property did not have frontage on a public roadway and, even though
a proposed plan of subdivision by Activa Development was approximately 2 to 3 years from
development, staff were adamantly opposed. This particular application was eventually
approved after the applicant agreed to substantially reduce the scale of their proposal to
maintain the original building footprint. In this regard, he questioned how the current
application was viewed in comparison as staff appear not to have taken a consistent approach.
Mr. L. Masseo stated that he was not familiar with the particulars of the previous application;
however, suggested that it may have differed in that there was nothing to indicate to staff at the
time that the subject lands would ever front onto a public roadway. The Chair disagreed
pointing out that the Activa subdivision was to be developed within 2 to 3 years which could
provide access.
Mr. P. Britton suggested that the only difference appears to be the heritage component and
questioned if this was the weighing factor. Mr. Scheels stated that an extensive heritage
assessment had been undertaken and there was concern that this heritage resource may be
lost. Mr. Masseo added that the heritage component was a differing factor as there was some
concern that the log cabin would be removed from its present location.
The Chair expressed the opinion that the Committee should be consistent in its decisions
regarding such issues and suggested the previous application was identical to the current
application. Mr. Masseo stated that he was not convinced they were identical and without
reviewing the details of the previous application it would be difficult to say they were with any
certainty.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT75MARCH 6, 2001
1.Submission Nos.:
B 2001-016 &A 2001-016(Cont'd)
Mr. P. Britton questioned if the heritage easement agreement would limit improvements to the
log cabin within the existing building footprint as this had been a condition of the previous
application. Mr. Masseo advised that the agreement would make provisions for improvements
in keeping with heritage issues but could not say if this would be limited to the existing building
footprint. Mr. Britton suggested that it may be appropriate to impose a condition to require any
improvements to be maintained within the existing building footprint.
Mr. P. Kruse expressed the opinion that he preferred to have the option of flexibility rather than
to dictate all decisions be the same. He stated that planning is an evolving process and under
certain circumstances, whether it be the heritage component of this application or something
else, if there is opportunity to move a proposal forward he would view this in a positive manner.
Accordingly, Mr. Kruse stated that he was prepared to move approval of these applications.
The Chair maintained that consideration should be based on past precedent and agreed with
the suggestion that, if approved, the application should be conditional upon any improvements
being maintained within the existing building footprint. Mr. Kruse stated that he did not recall
the previous application and, notwithstanding the comments of the Chair, he was prepared to
approve the applications based on the documentation before the Committee. Mr. Scheels
commented that he felt details of the previous application had not been fully explained and
suggested the Reynolds would not undertake major expansion given the heritage nature of the
structure which will be subject to a heritage easement agreement.
Mr. Britton advised that in recalling the previous application, there was one other clear
distinction from the current proposal. The property on Woolwich Street was actually located
outside the Activa subdivision and, although contemplated, was not actually drafted as fronting
onto a public roadway; whereas the Stauffer property is included within an approved draft plan
of subdivision which includes a public road access. In this regard, Mr. Britton questioned if the
subdivision agreement had been registered on title with the public road included. Mr. Scheels
confirmed that the agreement had been registered in 1999 with Robert Ferrie Drive included.
Mr. Britton then referred to the Regional comments relative to the septic system and Mr.
Scheels advised that appropriate permits to construct the new septic system have been
obtained which should address the Region's concerns; however, the new system has not yet
been installed.
Mr. P. Kruse stated that he was satisfied the Region's concerns have been addressed and was
prepared to move approval of the applications subject to the conditions outlined in the Planning
staff report. Further, Mr. Kruse declined to include a condition relative to restricting
improvements to be maintained within the existing building footprint as he was satisfied the
conditions in the Planning staff report were adequate.
Minor Variance A 2001-016
Moved by Mr. P. Kruse
Seconded by Mr. P. Britton
That the application of Monarch Construction Limited requesting permission to create a new lot
without having frontage on a public street until such time as future Robert Ferrie Drive is
constructed, with interim access from Tilt Drive to be provided over the retained lands, on Part of
BE APPROVED
Lot 4, Biehn's Tract, 393 Tilt Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, , as revised to request
relief from Section 5.2 of Zoning By-law 85-1 rather than Section 37.2.1.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1.The variance requested in this application is minor in nature.
2.This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT76MARCH 6, 2001
1.Submission Nos.:
B 2001-016 &A 2001-016(Cont'd)
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 2001-016
Moved by Mr. P. Kruse
Seconded by Mr. P. Britton
That the application of Monarch Construction Limited requesting permission to convey a parcel of
land containing an existing residential dwelling having frontage on future Robert Ferrie Drive of
54.55 m (178.97 ft.), by an average depth of 48 m (157.48 ft.) and an area of 0.22 ha (0.54 ac);
and to grant a right-of-way over the retained lands, shown as Part 3 and part of Part 5 on the draft
reference plan submitted with the application, in favour of the severed lands, shown as Part 1 on
the draft reference plan submitted with the application, for the purpose of providing interim access
to Tilt Drive until such time as Robert Ferrie Drive is constructed and dedicated as a public
BE GRANTED
highway; on Part of Lot 4, Biehn's Tract, 393 Tilt Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, ,
subject to the following conditions:
1.That Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 2001-016, shall receive final
approval.
2.That the owner shall make satisfactory financial arrangements with the City of Kitchener
for the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement
charges.
3.That the owner shall enter into a heritage easement agreement with the City of
Kitchener, to apply to Parts 1 through 5 inclusive, as shown on the draft reference plan
submitted with Consent Application, Submission No. B 2001-016.
4.That the owner shall provide confirmation to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor that a
right-of-way for access over Part 3 and part of Part 5, as shown on the draft reference
plan submitted with Consent Application, Submission No. B 2001-016, in favour of the
severed lands, will be registered on title of the retained lands.
5.That the owner shall enter into an agreement, to be approved by the City Solicitor, which
will ensure that the right-of-way for access over the retained lands and a joint maintenance
agreement are maintained until such time as Robert Ferrie Drive abutting the severed
lands is constructed and open to public vehicular traffic, and to provide confirmation that
said agreement will be registered against the title of both properties.
6.That the existing septic system on the severed parcel of land shall be
modified/relocated, or a new septic system be constructed, 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 is located a minimum of 3 metres from the new
lot line shall be confirmed by a qualified professional to the satisfaction of the City’s
Chief Building Official and Principal Planner.
7.That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener, to be approved
by the City Solicitor, and registered on title of the severed lands, which shall contain the
following special conditions:
a)That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City’s
General Manager of Public Works for the future installation of all new service
connections to the severed lands and further, to remove or fill the existing septic
bed to the satisfaction of the City’s Chief Building Official, upon connection to
municipal services.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT77MARCH 6, 2001
1.Submission Nos.:
B 2001-016 &A 2001-016(Cont'd)
b)That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City’s
General Manager of Public Works for the future installation to City standards of a
paved driveway ramp on the portion of the severed lands abutting future Robert
Ferrie Drive within draft plan of subdivision 30T-95018.
c)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 future grading on the retained lands
within draft plan of subdivision 30T-95018.
d)That the owner shall obtain approval from the City’s Director of Planning of a 1.8
metre high wood fence or a plan showing an appropriate continuous landscape
barrier along the boundary of the severed lands where it abuts Blocks 1 and 2
(Stage 9) of Draft Plan of Subdivision 30T-95018, and to construct such
approved fence or landscape barrier within one year of the registration of Stage 8
of Draft Plan of Subdivision 30T-95018 on adjacent lands, or at such other time
as deemed acceptable by the City’s Director of Planning.
e)That the owner shall quit claim the right-of-way for access over Part 3 and part of
Part 5, as shown on the draft reference plan submitted with Consent Application,
Submission No. B 2001-016, at such time as Robert Ferrie Drive is constructed
adjacent to the subject lands and is open to public vehicular traffic.
f)That the severed lands shall be released from the terms and obligations of the
Residential Subdivision Agreement, registered as Instrument Number
LT0044137, upon registration of the deed, arising out of Consent Application,
Submission No. B 2001-016.
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 March 6, 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
ADJOURNMENT
On motion, the meeting adjourned at 11:15 a.m.
Dated at the City of Kitchener this 6th day of March, 2001.
J. Billett
Secretary-Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment