HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2001-04-03COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
FOR THE
CITY OF KITCHENER
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD APRIL 3, 2001
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Messrs. P. Kruse, P. Britton and D. Cybalski.
OFFICIALS PRESENT:
Ms S. Rice, Zoning Officer, Ms. J. Given, Principal Planner, Mr. R. Parent,
Traffic & Parking Analyst and Ms. J. Billett, Secretary-Treasurer.
Mr. P. Kruse, Vice-Chair, called this meeting to order at 9:35 a.m.
Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski
Seconded by Mr. P. Britton
That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment of February 6, 2001, be
amended as follows:
·
Page 45 to amend the Committee’s decision respecting Consent Application, Submission No. B
2001-013, by inserting in the first paragraph of the decision immediately preceding the phrase “BE
GRANTED” the phrase “on Part Lots 23, 24 and 25 and Part Lots 27, 28 and 29, Registered Plan
379, designated as Part 3 on Reference Plan 58R-3888, 52 Mansion Street and 175 Queen Street
North, Kitchener, Ontario”.
Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski
Seconded by Mr. P. Britton
That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment of March 6, 2001, as mailed to
the members, be accepted.
Carried
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
MINOR VARIANCE
1.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 of Park Lot 25,
Registered Plan 404 and Part Streets and Lanes Closed
Appearances:
In Support:Ms. E. Andreopoulos
573 George Street
Woodstock, ON N4S 4J6
Contra:None
Written Submissions:
In Support:None
Contra:Ms. T. Marquis
Miami Nutrition Centre
1135 King Street E
Kitchener ON N2G 2N3
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT78APRIL 3, 2001
1.Submission No.:
A 2001-014 (Cont’d)
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to reduce the number
of required parking spaces for a commercial building from 8 parking spaces to 4.
The Committee noted previous comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services
dated February 28, 2001 in which they advised that according to City records this building had
once accommodated the following uses: wholesale, office, health office (dentist office) and
dwelling units. At that time the parking appeared to be considered legal non-conforming for such
uses. As a result of a fire, the building has recently been renovated and is in the process of being
leased to new tenants.
Staff note that at the time of application the exact number of units, their use and floor area were
not known. The requirement for 8 spaces was based on an approximation of what the existing
uses required, these being Victoria’s (personal service use) and IGAAS (office), plus a proposed
new personal service use (hair salon). However, it now appears that there are additional
commercial units to be rented that would require more than the eight spaces noted in the
application.
Staff has asked the applicant for a detailed list of the proposed tenants, and the floor area they
occupy, so that a total number of required parking spaces could be determined. A list has not
been supplied to date and the applicant’s agent has advised that they wish to reconsider the
proposed uses of the building and determine if uses with lower parking requirements can be
obtained for the building.
As a result of insufficient information supplied by the applicant, staff recommends that this
variance be deferred until an exact number of required parking spaces could be determined.
The Committee also noted revised comments of the Department of Business and Planning
Services dated March 29, 2001 in which they advised that at the time of application the total
number of units, their use and floor area was not known. The requirement for 8 spaces was
based on an approximation of what the two existing uses and one new use would require. Staff
has tried contacting the applicant's agent on numerous occasions and has asked for details on
the floor area and intended uses for the additional commercial units but have yet to obtain details
from the agent. It is believed that up to five units may have been developed within the building.
Two of the current tenants have received Occupancy Permits: Victoria's (personal service) and
IGASS (office). To date, a third tenant has renovated and occupied a unit but has yet to receive
City approval and licenses. The newest tenant is a Sushi restaurant and the business owner has
advised staff that his unit has a floor area of 60 square metres. His business consists mainly of
preparing food (sushi) which he delivers to local grocery stores, as well as having a portion of his
business devoted to take out. It is noted that the applicant's agent has stated that there is no
seating for the public in his take-out restaurant.
Based on the above three uses, which occupy a total of 198 square metres, staff have calculated
that the parking requirement would actually be nine (9) spaces. This variance should be
amended to request permission for four parking spaces rather than the required nine spaces for
three existing commercial businesses.
The restaurant would not appear to attract many vehicles to the property. The business owner
has stated that he would use only one space, and that the majority of his business is preparing
the food, which he delivers. Any retail sales are at a take out counter and people coming to the
premises with a vehicle would not be parking for any length of time at the property. The IGAAS
office stated on their occupancy permit that they are only open evenings and Saturday
afternoons, therefore not attracting people to their unit during regular daytime working hours.
Considering the location of the building to the Downtown and accessibility to transit and some off-
street parking spaces, it appears that the shortfall of parking could be considered minor in nature
and appropriate development for the surrounding area.
It should be noted that the four spaces on site are not always accessible independently as
vehicles have been seen parked in tandem, therefore blocking access to the rear parking area, or
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT79APRIL 3, 2001
1.Submission No.:
A 2001-014 (Cont’d)
causing the vehicles to drive onto the neighbouring driveway to access the parking area. The
applicant should be aware that this is not permitted and can be enforced. To assist in clarifying
the location of the parking spaces, it is recommended that the four parking spaces be
demarcated, by June 1, 2001, in accordance with a parking plan to be approved by the Principal
Planner.
Please note that this variance does not take into account the currently vacant commercial space
yet to be leased as the long-term use is unclear and the owner has not responded to staff's
suggestion to discuss this. The applicant is advised that further occupancy of the building will not
be allowed unless approval is requested through the Committee for any additional parking
variance.
Based on the above, it is the opinion of staff that the requested variance is minor in nature and
the general intent of the by-law is being met.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission A
2001-014, as amended.
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 Traffic & Parking Analyst in which he advised that
the Traffic & Parking Division has reviewed this application and cannot support the decrease in
the number of required parking spaces from 8 to 4.
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 at this location, King
Street has an existing road allowance width of 60 feet and a designated road allowance width of
86 feet. Therefore a (86-60=26/2=13) 13 foot road widening is required from this property. It may
not be appropriate to acquire the road widening under this application. 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 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 objection to this application.
The Committee noted written comments from Ms. T. Marquis, Miami Nutrition Centre, in which
she advised that there are 3 to 5 businesses in the building at this time and are causing parking
problems in this area now, which will get much worse if this parking situation is allowed to
continue. Considering the fact that we operate the business next door at 1135 King Street East
and were told to get our occupancy permit we would have to have 8 parking spots for our
business which is a single owner/operator business, this makes it very hard to understand why
the application is even being considered. I am sure the law will be considered on this application.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending the application be
amended to request permission for 4 parking spaces rather than the required 9 spaces for three
existing commercial businesses. The Chair enquired if Ms. Andreopoulos was in agreement with
amending her application. Ms. E. Andreopoulos advised that she had reviewed the staff
comments and was in agreement with amending the application as recommended by staff. Ms.
Andreopoulos further pointed out that through discussions with staff she was aware that should
the remaining space be leased, the tenant would have to look for alternate parking arrangements.
The Chair requested staff to comment regarding parking for the remaining leasable space and
Ms. Given advised that arrangements could be made for parking through an off-site parking
agreement with a third party or, alternatively, the owner could submit a further variance
application to the Committee.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT80APRIL 3, 2001
1.Submission No.:
A 2001-014 (Cont’d)
The Chair clarified for Ms. Andreopoulos that in order to lease the remaining space one of the 2
steps outlined by Ms. Given would have to be undertaken.
Mr. P. Britton referred to the Regional comments referencing a road widening and was advised
these comments are standard for the purpose of making the applicant aware and was not
intended to be a condition of approval.
The Chair referred to the Traffic comments which do not support approval of the application and
requested Ms. Given to comment. Ms. J. Given responded that the applicant is in the process of
recovering from a recent fire to which Planning staff are sympathetic. Staff recognize the property
does not have any extra space to accommodate additional parking; however, are of the opinion
their recommendation is a reasonable approach and, given the types of uses, consider the
shortage of parking to be minor.
As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion.
Moved by Mr. P. Britton
Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski
That the application of John Andreopoulos, Alex Tsatsas and Vassiliki Stathokostas requesting
permission for a reduction in the number of required parking spaces for three existing
commercial businesses from 9 parking spaces to 4 spaces, on Lot 1 and Part Lot 2,
Registered Plan 251, Part of Park Lot 25, Registered Plan 404 and Part Streets and Lanes
BE APPROVED
Closed, 1123 King Street East, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following
condition:
1. That the owner shall demarcate the four (4) parking spaces on site in accordance with a
detailed plan to be approved by the City’s Principal Planner prior to June 1, 2001. No
extension to this completion date shall be granted unless approved in writing by the
Principal Planner prior to the completion date set out in this decision.
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
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
Mr. P. Britton declared a pecuniary interest in these applications, as his firm acts on behalf of the
applicant and did not participate in any discussion or voting with respect to these applications.
Mr. Britton left the meeting and in accordance with the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, these
applications were considered by the remaining two members.
Appearances:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT81APRIL 3, 2001
1.Submission Nos.:
B 2001-001, B 2001-002 and B 2001-003(Cont’d)
In Support:Mr. P. Chauvin
MHBC Planning Consultants
171 Victoria St. N
Kitchener, ON N2H 5C5
Contra:None
Written Submissions:
In Support:None
Contra:None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to create 3 new lots by
severing 3 parcels of land from the north corner of the rear lands and retaining a parcel of land
having an area of 7,009 m² (75,446.72 sq. ft.). The lands to be severed are proposed to be
developed with single residential dwellings and will each have frontage on future Hawkswood
Drive of 12.97 m (42.55 ft.), by a depth of 30.48 m (100 ft.), and an area of 389 m² (3,326.16
sq. ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services dated
January 2, 2001 in which they advised that the owner is proposing to sever three lots from an
existing residential property. The lands currently have an area of approximately 0.7 hectares.
The owner’s property forms a “T” shape and has frontage onto both Woolwich Street and
Hawkswood Drive. The proposed lots would have frontage onto Hawkswood Drive, a street
which forms part of Activa Holdings draft approved Plan of Subdivision off Woolwich Street in
Bridgeport North (file no. 30T-98205). Each proposed lot would have a width of 12.97 metres and
a depth of 30.48 metres, which creates an area of 389 square metres each.
The owner has recently submitted a Zone Change application to change the zoning of the lands
from Agricultural Zone (A-1) to Residential Three Zone (R-3) with a special regulation provision to
permit a minimum lot width of 12.97 metres. The application will shortly be circulated for agency
and neighbour comment. As the ultimate use of the land is dictated by the Zoning By-law and the
lots are proposed to be in conformity with the proposed R-3 zoning, Planning staff recommend
that the applications be deferred until the April 3, 2001, Committee meeting to permit the
opportunity for Zone Change Application ZC 00/35/W/BS to be finally completed.
The Committee also noted revised comments of the Department of Business and Planning
Services, dated March 27, 2001, in which they advised that these applications were deferred from
the January 9, 2001, Committee of Adjustment meeting pending completion of a Zone Change
application to change the zoning on the lands to Residential Three Zone (R-3). The application
for this Zone Change (ZC 00/35/W/BS) will be considered at the April 9, 2001, Planning and
Economic Development Committee meeting. The zone change application also requests a
reduction in lot area from 464 m² to 395 m², and a reduction in lot width from 13.97 m to 12.97 m.
Staff are recommending approval of the zone change application.
As previously stated, the proposed lots would have frontage onto Hawkswood Drive, a street
which forms part of Activa Holdings draft approved Plan of Subdivision adjacent Woolwich Street
in Bridgeport North (file number 30T-98205). The subdivision is intended to be registered soon
which would lead to the acceptance and opening of Hawkswood Drive as a public street. It
should be noted that there is a minor discrepancy between the application form and the plan
submitted with the application. The correct depth of the lots is 30.48 m, not 30 m as shown in the
application form.
The lots are within the 300-unit limit of development for Bridgeport North imposed by the Region
pending local street improvements are made to service this area. From a planning perspective,
severance of these lands would form a logical addition to those residential blocks immediately
east fronting Hawkswood Drive which will be part of the Activa subdivision. The retained lands
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT82APRIL 3, 2001
1.Submission Nos.:
B 2001-001, B 2001-002 and B 2001-003(Cont’d)
would form approximately 0.7 hectares, still leaving a generous yard for the retained dwelling on
the property.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission Nos. B
2001-001 to B 2001-003, inclusive, subject to the application form being amended to indicate a lot
depth of 30.48 m, and each be subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for park dedication
equal to 5% of the value of the lands to be severed.
2. That Zone Change Application ZC00/35/W/BS receive final approval.
3. That the owner enter into an agreement, to be approved by the City Solicitor, that no
occupancy permits for any dwellings on said lots be issued until Hawkswood Drive is
constructed to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Public Works and opened to the
public and until the sanitary pumping station constructed under Plan of Subdivision 30T-
98205 is operational to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Public Works and
accepted by the City.
4. 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 severed lands.
5. 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.
6. 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 with respect to these applications.
The Committee noted comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo,
dated January 3, 2001 and March 28, 2001 in which they advised that Regional staff have
reviewed these applications and note that the proposed new lots can be accommodated within
the 300 unit limit presently imposed for this 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 objection to these applications.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the
application; however, point out that the application form should be amended to indicate a lot
depth of 30.48 m for the severed parcel. In this regard, the Chair enquired if Mr. Chauvin was
prepared to amend the application form.
Mr. P. Chauvin responded that he had reviewed the staff reports and was in agreement with the
recommendations contained therein, including the conditions of approval. Mr. Chauvin further
advised that he was in agreement to amend the application form with regard to the lot depth as
recommended by staff.
As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT83APRIL 3, 2001
Submission Nos.: B 2001-001, B 2001-002 and B 2001-003(Cont’d)
1.
Consent B 2001-001
Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski
Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse
That the application of Elfriede Czerlinski requesting permission to convey a parcel of land to
be developed with a single residential dwelling having frontage on future Hawkswood Drive of
12.97 m (42.55 ft.), by a depth of 30.48 m (100 ft.), and an area of 395 m² (4,251.88 sq. ft.), on
Part Lots 66, 124 and 125, German Company Tract, designated as Part 1 on Reference Plan
BE GRANTED
58R-4978, 268 Woolwich Street, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following
conditions:
1.That the owner shall pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for park
dedication equal to 5% of the value of the lands to be severed.
2.That Zone Change Application ZC00/35/W/BS shall receive final approval.
3.That the owner shall enter into an agreement, to be approved by the City Solicitor, that no
occupancy permits for any dwellings on said lots be issued until Hawkswood Drive is
constructed to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Public Works and opened to the
public and until the sanitary pumping station constructed under Plan of Subdivision 30T-
98205 is operational to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Public Works and
accepted by the City.
4.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 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 of all new service connections to the severed
lands.
6.That satisfactory arrangements shall be made 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 April 3, 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 B 2001-002
Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski
Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse
That the application of Elfriede Czerlinski requesting permission to convey a parcel of land to
be developed with a single residential dwelling having frontage on future Hawkswood Drive of
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT84APRIL 3, 2001
1.Submission Nos.:
B 2001-001, B 2001-002 and B 2001-003(Cont’d)
12.97 m (42.55 ft.), by a depth of 30.48 m (100 ft.), and an area of 395 m² (4,251.88 sq. ft.), on
Part Lots 66, 124 and 125, German Company Tract, designated as Part 1 on Reference Plan
BE GRANTED
58R-4978, 268 Woolwich Street, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following
conditions:
1.That the owner shall pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for park
dedication equal to 5% of the value of the lands to be severed.
2.That Zone Change Application ZC00/35/W/BS shall receive final approval.
3.That the owner shall enter into an agreement, to be approved by the City Solicitor, that no
occupancy permits for any dwellings on said lots be issued until Hawkswood Drive is
constructed to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Public Works and opened to the
public and until the sanitary pumping station constructed under Plan of Subdivision 30T-
98205 is operational to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Public Works and
accepted by the City.
4.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 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 of all new service connections to the severed
lands.
6.That satisfactory arrangements shall be made 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 April 3, 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 B 2001-003
Moved by D. Cybalski
Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse
That the application of Elfriede Czerlinski requesting permission to convey a parcel of land to
be developed with a single residential dwelling having frontage on future Hawkswood Drive of
12.97 m (42.55 ft.), by a depth of 30.48 m (100 ft.), and an area of 395 m² (4,251.88 sq. ft.), on
Part Lots 66, 124 and 125, German Company Tract, designated as Part 1 on Reference Plan
BE GRANTED
58R-4978, 268 Woolwich Street, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following
conditions:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT85APRIL 3, 2001
1.Submission Nos.:
B 2001-001, B 2001-002 and B 2001-003(Cont’d)
1.That the owner shall pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for park
dedication equal to 5% of the value of the lands to be severed.
2.That Zone Change Application ZC00/35/W/BS shall receive final approval.
3.That the owner shall enter into an agreement, to be approved by the City Solicitor, that no
occupancy permits for any dwellings on said lots be issued until Hawkswood Drive is
constructed to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Public Works and opened to the
public and until the sanitary pumping station constructed under Plan of Subdivision 30T-
98205 is operational to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Public Works and
accepted by the City.
4.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 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 of all new service connections to the severed
lands.
6.That satisfactory arrangements shall be made 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 April 3, 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.
2. 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 9:45 a.m. in order to consider applications for
a minor variance to the City of Kitchener’s Sign By-law. The meeting reconvened at 10:10 a.m.
NEW BUSINESS
MINOR VARIANCES
1.Submission No.:
A 2001-017
Applicant:
Freure Nantucket Village Limited
Property Location:
149 Windflower Drive
Legal Description:
Part Block 4, Plan 58M-55, designated as Part 8 on Reference Plan
58R-11498
Appearances:
In Support:None
Contra:None
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT86APRIL 3, 2001
1.Submission No.:
A 2001-017(Cont’d)
Written Submissions:
In Support:None
Contra:None
As no one was in attendance to support the application the Committee agreed to delay
consideration of the application to allow an opportunity for the applicant to arrive.
2.Submission No:
A 2001-018
Applicant:
Family and Children's Services
Property Location:
571-579 Park Street
Legal Description:
Part Lots 10, 11 & 12, Registered Plan 408
Appearances:
In Support:Ms. L. Thompson
Department of Business and Planning Services
City of Kitchener
200 King St. W.
Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7
Contra:None
Written Submissions:
In Support:None
Contra:None
The Committee was advised that the lands involved in this application were the subject of a
previously approved Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 2000-022. A clerical error
was made in measuring the sideyard setback adjacent to Park Street as 1.5 m (4.92 ft.), rather
than 0 m. Accordingly, this application requests permission to legalize an existing group home
having a 0 m sideyard setback from Park Street, rather than the required 6 m (19.68 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in
which they advised that this property was the subject of a minor variance application at the April
11, 2000 Committee of Adjustment meeting. The purpose of the application was to request
permission to locate a group home at a distance of 51 metres from the municipal boundary rather
than the permitted 100 metres, and to legalize certain setbacks for the existing buildings on the
property. The application was approved and no appeal was received.
Since that time, it has been discovered that an additional variance is necessary. The building
described as 579 Park Street has steps which have a 0 metre setback from Park Street, and the
building at 571 Park Street has two concrete porches with steps which also have a 0 metre
setback from Park Street. The steps, porches and eaves referred to are described as Parts 2, 3
and 4, Plan 58R-7552, which form parts which were retained on the property following past
widening of Park Street. The Zoning By-law requires that terraces, porches or decks have a
minimum setback of 3.0 metres from a lot line abutting a street for dwellings located in an
Institutional Zone.
It is understood that the buildings at 571 and 579 Park Street have existed for many years (579
Park Street was built in 1955). The steps and porches form an integral part of the buildings’ form
and do not adversely impact the streetscape or pedestrian movement on the adjacent sidewalk.
For these reasons, the minor variance is considered minor in nature, appropriate for the
development of the land and in general conformity with the Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission No. A
2001-018 relative only to the buildings existing on April 3, 2001.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT87APRIL 3, 2001
2.Submission No:
A 2001-018(Cont’d)
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 the 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 has 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 objection to this application.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the
application and enquired if Ms. Thompson had anything further to add. Ms. L. Thompson advised
that she had reviewed the staff comments and had nothing further to add.
Mr. P. Britton enquired if there were any Regional concerns with regard to the steps encroaching
into the Park Street widening. Ms. J. Given advised that to her knowledge she could only assume
that these lands were never dedicated and the Region has indicated no concerns with this
application.
As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion.
Moved by Mr. P. Britton
Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski
That the application of the Family and Children’s Services requesting permission to legalize an
existing group home having a 0 m sideyard setback from Park Street, rather than the required
3 m (9.84 ft.), on Part Lots 10, 11 & 12, Registered Plan 408, 571 – 579 Park Street, Kitchener,
BE APPROVED
Ontario, , subject to the following condition:
1. That the variance as approved in this application shall be only in accordance with the
buildings existing on April 3, 2001.
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 2001-017
Applicant:
Freure Nantucket Village Limited
Property Location:
149 Windflower Drive
Legal Description:
Part Block 4, Plan 58M-55, designated as Part 8 on Reference Plan
58R-11498
Appearances:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT88APRIL 3, 2001
3.Submission No.:
A 2001-017(Cont’d)
In Support:Mr. G. Treusch
c/o Freure Nantucket Village Limited
501 Krug Street
PO Box 23023
Kitchener, ON N2B 3V1
Contra:None
Written Submissions:
In Support:None
Contra:None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an attached
garage for a single residential dwelling having an unobstructed interior clearance from an interior
landing and stairs of 4.9 m (16.10 ft.), rather than the required 5.49 m (18 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business and Planning Services in
which they advised that the subject property is located on the easterly side of Windflower Drive,
north of Wake Robin Drive, and contains a one-storey single detached dwelling with an attached
garage that was constructed in 2001.
Zoning By-law 85-1 requires that a building which contains a required parking space have a
minimum width of 3.04 metres (9.97 feet) and a minimum length of 5.49 metres (18.01 feet). Due
to the difference in grade between the garage floor level and the main floor level of the subject
dwelling, a landing with stairs was required to be constructed in the interior of the garage in order
to provide access to the dwelling from inside the garage.
As the landing and stairs currently encroach into the required parking space in the garage, the
applicant is requesting a minor variance to reduce the length of a required parking space within a
building from 5.49 metres (18.01 feet) to 5.13 metres (16.83 feet).
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.
Although the length of the required parking space is deficient by 0.36 metres (1.18 feet), the
parking space is still sufficient and adequate in length to accommodate a vehicle. As the
functionality of the parking space within the attached garage is not inhibited by the landing and
stairs, the effects of the variance will be minor.
The landing and stairs are required in order to allow the homeowner to access the main floor of
the dwelling from inside of the garage. The variance is desirable as it will permit the
encroachment of the landing and stairs in the required parking space and bring the length of the
existing parking space into compliance with Zoning By-law 85-1.
As the dwelling and attached garage on the subject property 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.
Planning staff has discussed the review process for residential building permits with Building
Department staff in order to avoid future minor variance applications of this type from being
considered by the Committee of Adjustment. The applicant/builder and City Building staff need to
be aware of any differences in grade between the garage level and the main floor level of the
dwelling and if it is determined that a landing and stairs will be required, the attached garage must
be lengthened accordingly.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT89APRIL 3, 2001
3.Submission No.:
A 2001-017(Cont’d)
Freure Homes has advised that they have implemented a change to their internal review process
for future building permit submissions. If it is determined that a landing and stairs will be required
in order to provide access to the main floor of the dwelling from inside the garage, the attached
garage will be extended an additional 0.6 metres (2 feet) in width.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Minor Variance Application
A 2001-017, requesting a reduction of the minimum required length of a parking space within a
building from 5.49 metres (18.01 feet) to 5.13 metres (16.83 feet), be approved.
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 cannot support the deficiency in the
garage depth of .36 m. We are reluctant to set a precedent of permitting legal off-street parking
spaces that do not meet the minimum standard of 3.04 m x 5.49 m. While some vehicles would
have no difficulty in parking in a parking space less than 5.49 m long, many would. Should a
vehicle be longer than the proposed 5.13 m, this could result in the garage door not being able to
be closed, or could result in the vehicle having to park in the driveway, not in the legal off-street
parking space. We cannot support the deficient parking space dimensions, and maintain that the
required space should be 3.04 m x 5.49 m.
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 objection to this application.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the
application and enquired if Mr. Treusch had anything further to add.
Mr. G. Treusch advised that the purchaser of the subject property had been contacted when the
deficiency of the parking space was discovered and the purchaser has indicated that they have
no problem with the proposed size of the parking space. The purchaser feels that there existing
vehicle and any other vehicle they may purchase in future will be of a size that will fit within the
length of the proposed parking space. Notwithstanding, Mr. Treusch advised that the stairway
could be downsized from 3 ft. to 2 ft.; however, the landing would still be maintained at a width of
3 ft. The purpose of narrowing the stairs would provide an additional 1 ft. clearance for the
vehicle.
In response to Mr. P. Britton, Ms. J. Given advised that it is not a requirement of the Zoning By-
law to provide a garage; however, where an enclosed garage is provided there are minimum
dimensions required under the By-law. Mr. Britton referred to comments of the Traffic Division,
noting that future purchasers may have a larger vehicle that will not fit in the garage, resulting in
the vehicle being parked in the driveway. In this regard, he questioned if granting a variance to
the setback from the lot line to allow a vehicle to be parked in front of the garage would achieve
the same result. Ms. J. Given advised that the setback requirement is 6 m. She pointed out that
the length of the existing driveway is 6.3 m which is more than what is required to comply;
however, she stated that she would support a variance to the setback from the lot line to allow a
vehicle to be located in front of the garage, subject to the applicants agreement.
Mr. Treusch pointed out that the exterior of the dwelling is substantially complete and would be
too difficult to modify at this time. Mr. Britton advised that he was not suggesting modifications to
the structure but rather suggesting a different variance relative to the setback of a parking space
from the lot line. Mr. Treusch pointed out that there is room to park another vehicle in the
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT90APRIL 3, 2001
3.Submission No.:
A 2001-017(Cont’d)
driveway without requiring a variance and essentially the dwelling would have two legal off-street
parking spaces if the requested variance were approved. Mr. Treusch again advised that he
would be agreeable to downsizing the stairs within the garage to 2 ft. in width. He further noted
that the Building Division has been consulted on the issue of narrowing the stairs and has
indicated no concerns. Mr. Treusch also commented that, as a preventative measure, his firm
has implemented a new internal review process to ensure similar variance requests for future
buildings do not occur.
Following further discussion, Mr. Treusch agreed to amend the application to request permission
for a reduction of the minimum required length of a parking space within a building from 5.49 m
(18.01 ft.) to a range between 5.21 m (17.10 ft.) and 4.9 m (16.10 ft.) to accommodate a landing
0.9 m (3 ft.) in width and stairs 0.6 m (2 ft.) in width.
Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski
Seconded by Mr. P. Britton
That the application of Freure Nantucket Village Limited requesting permission to reduce the
minimum required length of a parking space within a building from 5.49 m (18.01 ft.) to a range
between 5.21 m (17.10 ft.) and 4.9 m (16.10 ft.) to accommodate an interior landing 0.9 m (3
ft.) in width and interior stairs 0.6 m (2 ft.) in width, on Part Block 4, Registered Plan 58M-55,
designated as Part 8 on Reference Plan 58R-11498, 149 Windflower Drive, Kitchener, Ontario,
BE APPROVED
.
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
4.Submission No.:
A 2001-019
Applicant:
Lilly Lalka
Property Location:
97 Craig Drive
Legal Description:
Lot 81, Registered Plan 1055
Appearances:
In Support:Mr. D. GrimmMr. A. Hanna
Royal LePage Wolle RealtyRoyal LePage Wolle Realty
385 Frederick St.385 Frederick St.
Kitchener, ON N2H 2P2Kitchener, ON N2H 2P2
Mr. G. Naylor
12 Hatt Street
Dundas, ON L9H 2E8
Contra:Mr. W. S. DahmsMr. & Mrs. T. Bruyea
Sims Clement Eastman101 Craig Drive
Market Square Office TowerKitchener, ON N2B 2J5
22 Frederick Street
Kitchener, ON N2G 4A2
Mr. J. HennebryMr. & Mrs. S. Waters
61 Craig Drive92 Craig Drive
Kitchener, ON N2B 2J5Kitchener, ON N2B 2J3
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT91APRIL 3, 2001
4.Submission No.:
A 2001-019(Cont’d)
Mr. & Mrs. L. RobertsonMs. B. Milo
100 Craig Drive109 Craig Drive
Kitchener, ON N2B 2J3Kitchener, ON N2B 2J5
Mr. B. HelmMs. L. Schwartz
20 Craig Drive116 Craig Drive
Kitchener, ON N2B 2J3Kitchener, ON N2B 2J3
Mr. E. NancekivellMr. L. Bond
112 Craig Drive96 Craig Drive
Kitchener, ON N2B 2J3Kitchener, ON N2B 2J3
Mr. J. KuepferMr. C. Ashby
104 Craig Drive67 Craig Drive
Kitchener, ON N2B 2J3Kitchener, ON N2B 2J5
Kimberly, Stephanie & Ethan BallMr. & Mrs. E. Matlow
128 Craig Drive88 Craig Drive
Kitchener, ON N2B 2J3Kitchener, ON N2B 2J3
Ms. M. GorelMs. E. Lukas
48 Craig Drive52 Craig Drive
Kitchener, ON N2B 2J3Kitchener, ON N2B 2J3
Written Submissions:
In Support:None
Contra:Neighbourhood PetitionMr. W. S. Dahms
Sims Clement Eastman
Mr. & Mrs. L. BondMarket Square Office Tower
96 Craig Drive22 Frederick St. Suite 700
Kitchener, ON N2B 2J3Kitchener ON N2G 4A2
Mr. & Mrs. T. Bruyea
101 Craig Drive
Kitchener, ON N2B 2J5
Mr. S. Waters & Family
92 Craig Drive
Kitchener, ON N2B 2J3
Mr. & Mrs. J. Kuepfer
104 Craig Dr.
Kitchener, ON N2B 2J3
Mr. & Mrs. C. Horman
113 Craig Drive
Kitchener, ON N2B 2J5
Mr. J. Hennebry
61 Craig Drive
Kitchener, ON N2B 2J5
The Committee noted written comments from Mr. W. S. Dahms, Sims Clement Eastman, in which
he advised that we have just been retained by Mr. Lloyd Robertson, who resides at 100 Craig
Drive, Kitchener. We also understand that there are various other neighbours on Craig Drive who
also wish to retain us with respect to the above referenced minor variance application. Mr.
Robertson and numerous other neighbours are opposed to this minor variance application.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT92APRIL 3, 2001
4.Submission No.:
A 2001-019(Cont’d)
For the reason we have just been retained by Mr. Robertson and have not had time to analyse
and prepare for this application, coupled with the fact the neighbours wish to conduct a traffic
impact analysis and hire a planner, we a writing to request an adjournment of this minor variance
application to at least the next meeting of your Committee.
Mr. D. Grimm, agent for the applicant, Mr. W. Dahms, Solicitor for Mr. L. Robertson, and Mr. L.
Robertson came forward to discuss the issue of the request for deferral. The Chair enquired if
Mr. Dahms had spoken with the applicant to determine if there was agreement to a deferral of the
application. Mr. Dahms indicated that he had only been retained the day before and had not had
an opportunity to speak with the applicant or City staff and had only been able to give cursory
review of the application. For these reasons, together with a desire on the part of his client to
retain a planner to conduct a traffic analysis, Mr. Dahms requested the matter be adjourned to the
Committee’s next meeting.
The Chair enquired if Mr. Grimm was in agreement with the request for deferral and Mr. Grimm
responded that he would need time to confer with his client.
The Committee then recessed the meeting, temporarily, at 10:30 a.m. to allow Mr. Grimm an
opportunity to confer with his client on the issue of deferral. This meeting reconvened at 10:35
a.m.
Mr. D. Grimm advised that a legal contract for the purchase of the subject property has been
entered into, to which time constraints are attached. He pointed out that deferral would result in
having to approach the seller for an extension and the seller may not be agreeable to do so. He
indicated the purchaser had planned to take over the subject property at the end of April and the
seller also has plans of her own. Mr. Grimm requested the Committee and staff to consider if
there was anything to be gained by undertaking a traffic study.
The Chair requested staff to comment. Ms. J. Given advised that the small group home
proposed is a permitted use and group homes are allowed in all residential zones throughout the
municipality. During a comprehensive review of the Zoning By-law in 1992 an analysis of parking
requirements for this type of group home was undertaken and it was determined it would require
no more than 2 parking spaces, similar to a residential dwelling with a garage. She noted that
these facilities house individuals that for varying reasons require care but also have potential for
rehabilitation. The objective is to provide a more normal family setting to assist individuals in re-
integrating into the community. Ms. Given advised that to her knowledge there have been no
traffic concerns relative to residential care facilities and pointed out the applicant does not in fact,
require a variance for parking in tandem. She stated that the garage provides one of the required
parking spaces and the driveway is wide enough to accommodate a second vehicle to the side of
the garage. The only variance required is for the location of the second parking space to be
within the required 6 m setback from the lot line. In effect, she commented that the subject
property could accommodate 3 vehicles, 1 in the garage and 2 in the driveway, while only 2
spaces are required. Mr. R. Parent, Traffic & Parking Analyst, added that to his knowledge the
Traffic & Parking Division is not aware of any parking or traffic problems relating to group homes.
Mr. Dahms stated that he was unaware if staff had even attended the site. He pointed out that
some of the residents have lived on the street for many years and his client, Mr. Robertson, has
expressed concern that a business would be permitted to move into the neighbourhood within
such a short timeframe when neighbours have not even had time to prepare their case. Mr.
Dahms suggested that a facility of up to 8 residents with 3 or 4 staff attendants, would generate
increased traffic and place constraint on on-street parking spaces.
Mr. Grimm expressed the view that he did not believe traffic was an issue and advised that it was
intended 6 residents be accommodated with support staff working in 3 shifts. Mr. G. Naylor
added that the residents would range in age between 8 to 15 years. He further stated that
Children’s Aid Societies from other municipalities support this endeavour given the need to send
their children elsewhere because of a shortage of facilities.
At this time the Chair called for a motion relative to the request for deferral.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT93APRIL 3, 2001
4.Submission No.:
A 2001-019(Cont’d)
Mr. P. Britton indicated that he was inclined to proceed to consider the matter; however, advised
that he would have expectation on the part of the applicant to satisfy the Committee that the
requested variance meets the 4 tests under the Planning Act, and would pose his questions
accordingly. Mr. Grimm indicated he understood and was prepared to proceed.
The remaining members of the Committee also expressed support for proceeding to consider the
application and, accordingly, it was agreed to deny the request for deferral. The Committee then
proceeded with consideration of the application.
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission for 2 required parking
spaces for a group home to be in tandem, rather than side-by-side, and for one of the required
parking spaces to be located ahead of the building line with a setback of 2.47 m (8.11 ft.),
rather than the required 6 m (19.68 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in
which they advised that this existing single detached dwelling is intended to be used as a small
group home, which is permitted in all residential zones. Two parking spaces are required to be
provided behind the 6.0 metre setback. Although the application seeks approval for the spaces to
be located in tandem, with one ahead of the 6.0 metre setback, technically, the garage provides
one space, which meets the setback and the second space can be accommodated within the
widened driveway without the necessity to park in tandem. Approval is therefore only required to
permit one space to be located 1.9 metres (6.2 feet) from the lot rather than 6.0 metres (20 feet).
As there will be no visual change to the look of the dwelling, the variance can be considered
minor in nature and desirable for the appropriate use of the property. The intent of the by-law is
that the two required parking spaces are provided without necessitating further widening. The
proposed use complies in all other respects with the Zoning By-law.
As all Planning Act tests are satisfied, the Department of Business and Planning Services
recommends approval of the application, as amended.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission A
2001-019, as amended to require only permission for one parking space for a small residential
care facility to be located 1.9 metres from the lot line.
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 the 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, this consent application will be 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 written comments of a neighbourhood petition in which the petitioners
advised we oppose Submission No. A 2001-019 for 97 Craig Drive, Kitchener, which is a request
for permission to not comply with the by-laws regarding tandem parking and parking spaces
setback from the street line.
The need for increased parking requirements for a group home with 8 non-related residents, plus
staff, over a single-family residence is obvious. The By-law recognizes this in that two spaces are
required rather than one for a single-family residence. Frankly, we believe that the By-law is
overly generous, in that only two spaces are required for eight residents while four are required
for nine residents. More than two vehicles will certainly be involved. A group home has rotating
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT94APRIL 3, 2001
4.Submission No.:
A 2001-019(Cont’d)
staff, which means at least three shift changes each day. What will, in fact, happen is that the
overflow will be parked on the street. This extra parking will occur on a curve (virtually a corner
lot) and in front of a fire hydrant. This curve has long been considered by neighbours to be a
blind curve, especially in winter.
Tandem parking means more manoeuvring of vehicles, since one vehicle must be moved to get
the other vehicle in and out of the garage.
All of our neighbours take great pride in our streetscape. The houses and properties are kept in
excellent condition even though most were constructed in the early sixties. Extra parking spaces
designated within eight feet of the street line as proposed will degrade the neighbourhood.
There are many children, preschool and school-aged, living in close proximity to the subject
property, as well as many regularly visiting grandchildren. Children do play on the street and
cross it frequently to play with their friends.
In addition, because the houses across the street from the applicant's property back onto the
community trail with an entrance to the trail very near 97 Craig, we have a huge amount of
pedestrian traffic including walkers, joggers, roller bladers and bikers who use our street to
connect them to the trail. Increased vehicular traffic puts not only the residents but also many
members of our community who frequent the trail at additional unnecessary risk. A stone's throw
from 97 Craig Drive is also a pathway connecting Craig Drive to Ottawa Street. This path is used
each weekday by children commuting to and from the various schools in our community,
including Franklin Public Elementary, Crestview Public Elementary, St. Daniel's Elementary and
Stanley Park Sr. Public School.
If this variance to, or circumventing of, the By-law is allowed, there will be a dramatic increase in
vehicular traffic with the extra people coming and going from this residence, more manoeuvring of
vehicles between the garage, driveway and street, vehicles parked closer to the sidewalk, and
more vehicles parked on an already dangerous portion of our street. The risk to the unusually
high pedestrian traffic and the risk to our children is dramatically increased.
Our neighbourhood already has traffic concerns. As a result of the number of small children in
our area and our concern for traffic safety, we were recently successful in having decreased
speed signs erected on Hickson Street, off of which Craig Drive runs.
The City by-laws were established after a great deal of consideration and, we are sure, debate.
97 Craig Drive is not a suitable property for a "residential care facility." It does not comply with
those by-laws. The submission is an attempt to circumvent those by-laws for monetary gain. It
should not be incumbent on the neighbours to restate or debate all of the original reasons for the
by-laws, and we cannot do so. We can only urge the committee to recognize our concerns, to
stand by those original ideals and commitments, and to reject this application.
The Committee noted written comments from Mr. and Mrs. Larry Bond in which they advised that
as per the application for a minor variance on 97 Craig Drive, we do not agree with this
entitlement. There is absolutely no consent for this proposed change from us.
We reside directly across the street at 96 Craig Drive, Plan 1055, Lot 45. This is a quiet
residential circle street. There is minimal traffic. We believe that allowing such a change to extra
parking in the neighbourhood would be detrimental by increased safety risks for our children.
There are families, besides us, with preschool and elementary school-age children on this street
who are also at risk. Craig Drive is a loop road that connects to a main artery Hickson Street at
both ends. The lot with the proposed change is situated in the middle of Craig Drive at a sharp
curve. At that bend there is an island where our children play. Even without the proposed
increased traffic, cars have run into this island over the years. Any increased traffic flow, as a
result of allowing this proposed change, would only add to this risk. At this island, there is a
walkway to Ottawa Street that further increases pedestrian traffic. A conservation area adjacent
to Craig Drive adds to more people biking, walking and jogging in this area. Do you think it
prudent to increase traffic here?
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT95APRIL 3, 2001
4.Submission No.:
A 2001-019(Cont’d)
In the notice we received about the proposed change, the term "minor variance" is used. If you
give automatic allowance to these so called minor variances, then these restrictions to the code
have no meaning and should be removed from the regulations.
In closing, we trust that our concerns about the safety of the children in our neighbourhood will
not be considered minor.
The Committee noted written comments from Mr. and Mrs. Tim Bruyea in which they advised
that we are writing this letter in opposition to Submission No. A 2001-019 for 97 Craig Drive,
Kitchener, requesting permission to vary the by-laws regarding tandem parking and parking
spaces setback from the street line.
As the neighbours residing directly beside the subject property, we have a vested interest in the
outcome of this submission. We have two small children who currently attend Crestview Public
Elementary School, and we are obviously concerned about the impact that this decision will have
on their safety.
If this application is granted, there will be an obvious need for increased parking facilities for a
group home with 8 residents, plus staff, and their inevitable visitors. As we understand it, the
current by-law requires that there be two parking spaces to be located ahead of the building line
with a setback of at least 6 m. The subject property does not meet those requirements, as it is
located closer to the street and would need for the vehicles to be parked with a setback of 2.47
m, a substantial difference from the by-law requirements. Surely the City had valid reasons and
most likely performed various studies prior to creating those by-law specifications. On a property
located on a blind curve, those reasons are not only valid, but obvious.
We believe that granting this submission would have a severely negative impact on our street by
reason of, among other things, the following:
(1) It would substantially increase traffic with the comings and goings of the residents, staff, and
their inevitable visitors.
(2) Tandem parking is visually an eyesore to our neighbourhood.
(3) The increased traffic and manoeuvring of vehicles would create unnecessary danger to the
many small children in our neighbourhood, specifically including our own two children and
their visiting friends.
(4) The subject property has a poor site line, especially given that the property is located on an
already dangerous blind curve and the driveway is sandwiched between two large trees (one
on our property and one on theirs).
(5) The additional traffic and manoeuvring of vehicles would create serious danger, which could
cause serious injury or even death to residents and/or passing pedestrians. Those
particularly at risk are the many children in our area.
To relax the safety issues (for which the current zoning, by-laws and regulations were created), in
a residential area with lots of children and pedestrian traffic would not be prudent. If there are to
be many teenagers residing in the subject residence, they will by virtue of their age, be
inexperienced drivers, and so safety issues should be upheld or enhanced rather than relaxed.
In addition, it is obvious that tandem parking will mean more manoeuvring of vehicles since one
vehicle must be moved to get the other vehicle in and out of the garage. This, in all probability,
would mean more parking in front of the subject property by staff and visitors of the residents.
There is currently a fire hydrant located directly in front of 97 Craig Drive, and so regular parking
in front of that address could compromise access to the fire hydrant with obvious potentially
hazardous repercussions.
Because of our close proximity to the community trail with an entrance to the trail very near the
applicant's property, the pedestrian traffic on our street is substantial. This includes many regular
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT96APRIL 3, 2001
4.Submission No.:
A 2001-019(Cont’d)
walkers, joggers, roller bladers and bikers who use our street to connect them to the trail.
Obviously, increased vehicular traffic puts not only the residents, but also many members of our
community who frequent the trail, at additional unnecessary risk. Our street has already had
traffic concerns, when a speeding car miscalculated the curve on Hickson Street (off of which
Craig Drive runs), crashing through the fence and entering the yard of the home on the corner of
Hickson and Craig. Because of this and a continuing concern regarding speeding vehicles, we
were recently able to have two reduced speed signs erected on that street. These signs are only
marginally effective, so to add to these traffic concerns would be irresponsible.
We, therefore, respectfully request that the Committee of Adjustment deny this application and
uphold the current by-laws and related specifications, recognizing that this property is not suitable
for the purpose stated in the application.
The Committee noted written comments from Mr. Scott Waters and family in which they advised
that as neighbours living directly across the street from the subject property, we are writing to
state our opposition to Submission No. A 2001-019 for 97 Craig Drive, Kitchener.
We have 2 preschool children and are very concerned about the impact of the above submission.
We feel that the request to approve tandem parking presents a real hazard for the residens of
Craig Drive. A group home housing up to 8 residents will cause an increase in traffic and result in
a parking requirement that cannot be served by 2 tandem parking spaces.
During employee shift changes, the extra people coming and going from this residence will result
in movement of vehicles between the garage, driveway and street. Presumably, some of the
residents of the home will also own vehicles, which will add to the number of vehicles being
moved and parked. We are concerned that this increase in vehicle movement presents a hazard
to all those who use Craig Drive. This includes a very large population of walkers, bikers,
skateboarders and, especially, our young children.
In addition, we feel that 2 tandem parking spaces for all the vehicles of the group home
employees and up to 8 residents will be inadequate and ultimately result in vehicles being parked
on the street. This creates a potentially dangerous situation. Due to the location of the house on
a corner lot, any cars parked on the street will create a hazard for vehicles travelling around the
blind curve adjacent to the house. Also, cars parked on the street will restrict access to the fire
hydrant located in front of the house. This creates a potential fire hazard for both the subject
property and the surrounding residences. Based on the above concerns, we ask you to reject
this application.
The Committee noted the written comments from Mr. and Mrs. Jarett Kuepfer in which they
advised that they are in opposition to the application for a parking variance at 97 Craig Drive in
Kitchener to facilitate the operation of a for-profit business, more specifically, a group home.
By-law regulations are typically developed and applied with the best and foremost interest of the
City of Kitchener, its residents and the general public. The procedures involved in the
development and application of these by-law regulations involve many city and municipal
departments, and are generally procured with the co-operation of the planning, traffic and
parking, law enforcement, service and legal departments. Most of all, the City of Kitchener by-law
regulations are implemented with the overall safety and protection of its residents and visitors in
mind.
There are many reasons that 97 Craig Drive is not a suitable location from which to operate any
business, by which the City's own existing, current and accepted by-law requires the minimum of
two parking spaces, separated by a distance of no less than twenty feet from the street.
The variance that is being applied for is to allow the operators of the aforementioned business to
allow the parking of staff vehicles in a tandem fashion, or one vehicle in front of or behind the
other. Because the vehicles would be parked in this configuration, there would be numerous
movements in and out of the driveway, while staff members manoeuvre their vehicles to allow for
shift changes, etc. The operation of a group home of this size requires the minimum of two staff
members be present at all times. This relates to the possibility of the minimum of six vehicles
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT97APRIL 3, 2001
4.Submission No.:
A 2001-019(Cont’d)
arriving and departing from this address every twenty-four hours. Any visitors that the residents
would have would need to park on the street due to the lack of proper parking facilities on the
property, which would have the tendency to violate other existing by-laws.
Craig Drive is a crescent configuration with both entrances joining onto Hickson Street. Craig
Drive is comprised entirely of single-family residential dwellings, containing a mixture of young
families, established residents and retirees. There are many children that play on and about the
street, joined by their friends from other neighbourhoods, and the grandchildren of the residents.
There is an access path that originates from Ottawa Street, and enters Craig Drive directly across
the street from 97 Craig Drive. There is also a green space community trail that travels parallel to
Craig Drive. Local residents utilize Craig Drive to access the community trail via the access path.
These amenities lend themselves to increased pedestrian and bicycle traffic, and would only
serve to endanger the participants if a variance of the existing accepted by-law is passed. These
transportation routes are utilized daily by school children and adults alike, and, therefore, should
not be subjected to such risks.
97 Craig Drive is a corner property with the street surrounding the property on two sides in an
acute angle configuration. Combining the angle of the street, trees, shrubbery and a fence
creates a "blind corner" situation. Add to this the existence of a fire hydrant directly in front of the
property in question, and the accumulation of snow and debris in the winter, and you have a
recipe for a dangerous condition.
The prevailing conditions and existence of current by-laws should automatically negate the
proposed application for variance. What is the purpose of the democratic processes of debating,
developing and passing of by-laws if applicants can have them overturned to provide for
monetary gain, especially when it places the local residents and visitors to the area at extreme
risk? It is by virtue of the above discussion that we vehemently oppose the request for a parking
variance at 97 Craig Drive.
The Committee noted written comments from Mr. and Mrs. Charles Horman in which they
advised we have been made aware of a request for permission to increase parking requirements
at 97 Craig Drive. As we have lived on this street (four doors from 97 address) for 36 years,
raised three children, and now enjoy grandchildren visiting, who also play with others on this
Craig Street sidewalk and street (as our children -- their parents did).
This very obvious increase in traffic and street parking, additional vehicle movement, raises deep
concerns for their safety and will deteriorate this lifestyle we and others have enjoyed for 36
years.
We, therefore, strongly oppose this request (Submission No. A 2001-019 -- 97 Craig Drive,
Kitchener), all as above noted reasons, plus the location will, without question, result in unsafe
traffic movement at that corner for fire trucks, ambulance, police and other so necessary services
immediate access to serve the residences and property structures in this area.
The Committee noted written comments from Mr. John Hennebry in which he advised that I am
the registered owner of 61 Craig Drive, which is located two lots away from 97 Craig Drive. I am
deeply concerned about the impact the granting of the requested variance may have on safety
on this street, namely the safety of children and pedestrian traffic on the street, as well as
vehicular traffic.
If the variance request is granted, we will see a substantial increase in traffic coming and going as
the supervisory staff change shifts 3 times daily. There will also, obviously, be a crossover time
when one shift arrives before another is ready to leave, which will result in cars being moved
around as one or two back out of the drive to allow the others to park. This will all be taking place
on a particularly bad location, as there is a blind curve right at the subject property.
This curve is very dangerous in the winter months due to high snowbanks on the boulevard and
any cars that might be parked on the street while parking spots are switched will definitely create
a serious hazard. I personally have narrowly avoided being hit on this curve twice this year due
to drivers unfamiliar with the curve.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT98APRIL 3, 2001
4.Submission No.:
A 2001-019(Cont’d)
A further concern is that this street has a lot of pedestrian traffic due to the City access through to
Ottawa Street from Craig Drive. This access is close to the subject property. It sees a
tremendous amount of foot traffic winter and summer for people wanting to get to Ottawa Street
or the trail through the bush which runs behind the even-numbered houses on the street. More
vehicular traffic will definitely pose a danger to pedestrians. Last, but not least, this street has
seen a number of younger families move in as the older owners move out. Due to its crescent
location, it has become a desirable street for families with little children because of the safety
aspect.
It is nice to be able to allow the children to play in relative safety without worrying about the
danger of excess traffic. With the increase in vehicular traffic coming and going, this will become
a major concern for parents. Therefore, I respectfully ask the Committee to reject this application
in the interests of maintaining a safe environment for our children and adults to come and go
freely without worry of being injured and also not to create any unnecessary traffic hazards.
The Chair advised those in attendance that all who wished to speak to the matter would be given
an opportunity. He reminded everyone that the issue of use was not before the Committee as the
residential care facility is a permitted use under the current zoning and asked delegations to
restrict their comments relevant to any concerns they may have regarding the requested variance
for parking. He further requested delegations not to repeat similar comments of another but
rather put forward any new information they may be able to add. The Chair then invited all those
who wished to address the Committee to come forward.
The Chair enquired if Mr. Grimm had reviewed the staff comments and had anything further to
add. Mr. Grimm advised that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation and had
nothing further to add.
Mr. G. Naylor advised that a meeting had been held the previous week with residents of the
neighbourhood, hosted by Mr. L. Robertson. He noted that the meeting was well attended with
many questions being asked and answered. Mr. Naylor acknowledged that accepting a
residential care facility into a neighbourhood is often difficult; however, he felt the neighbourhood
meeting had gone well.
In response to questioning by Mr. B. Dahms, it was pointed out that the subject property met
zoning regulations relative to maintaining a distance separation from other group homes; the
original garage had been converted to living space and another garage had been constructed; it
was intended to use the garage for one of the required parking spaces and the second would be
in the driveway; in addition to 2 full time staff there may be a third at times resulting in the
possibility of 3 vehicles parked on site; only one variance is really required, which could be either
for parking in tandem or for permission to park ahead of the building line; staff are recommending
the latter; there is no intention to convert the existing garage to living space at this time, however,
Mr. Naylor is not willing to commit to saying never; should plans be developed in future to convert
the garage a further application to the Committee of Adjustment would be required; approving a
variance relative to the setback from the lot line would not prevent 2 vehicles from legally parking
in the driveway as the variance is relative to location and not the number of vehicles; and, the size
and location of the existing garage meets all regulations of the Zoning By-law.
Mr. S. Waters referred to the number of support staff and visitors which, in his opinion, would
increase traffic and affect on-street parking. He pointed out that a fire hydrant is located in front
of the subject property and suggested vehicles would be parking in front of other homes along the
street. He questioned realistically how many staff and/or visitors may be expected at one time
and where they would park. Mr. Naylor advised that there would be a potential for 3 support staff
and, in the case of visitors, most do not stay at the home but rather pick up their child and go
elsewhere to visit. Those who do visit at the home would park on-street similar to any other
visitors to neighbouring properties.
Mr. L. Robertson advised that he lived directly across the street from the subject property. He
stated that, in his opinion, the by-law standards relative to parking requirements for a group home
of this size were inadequate. He commented that traffic would be generated by support staff,
supervisors and counselors who regularly attend the home. Mr. Robertson suggested that
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT99APRIL 3, 2001
4.Submission No.:
A 2001-019(Cont’d)
additional traffic would be generated by food delivery vehicles, maintenance vehicles (grass
cutting, snow shovelling and in-house repairs), buses to take the residents to off-site schooling
facilities and by visitors to the residence. He further suggested that shifting of vehicles would take
place as staff change-overs and/or accommodation of other vehicles occurs and felt this would
cause vehicles to be left parked on-street for convenience. Mr. Robertson stated that the
neighbourhood is on a quiet cul-de-sac with little traffic and during winter months, as snow builds
up, there is insufficient room to park vehicles on-street. He noted that the street is often one of
the last to be ploughed and that an island is located in the curve of the road in front of the
residence. In this regard, he provided a map showing the streetscape and advised that in winter
months there is often only room to permit one vehicle to drive down the street. He commented
that having a business on the street would cause extreme parking problems especially in winter.
Mr. Robertson further noted that the neighbourhood has a high percentage of pedestrian traffic
generated by schools, walkways and trails in the area. Many young families live in the
neighbourhood and there is concern for their children’s safety. He further pointed out that this is
an older street with residents who have lived there for 30 years and felt approving this variance
would be detrimental to the neighbourhood streetscape.
Mr. L. Bond advised that he had specifically chosen this neighbourhood in which to purchase a
home because of its quiet nature and low traffic. He noted he had 2 young children who would be
at risk given the potential increase in traffic and was disappointed a traffic study had not been
done with respect to this application.
Mr. J. Kuepfer also stated that he had purchased his home based on the neighbourhood
streetscape and low traffic volume. He pointed out that there are no curbs on the street and it
would be difficult to protect property from damage due to parked vehicles.
Mr. S. Waters stated that he was concerned that overflow traffic may end up parking in front of
the fire hydrant located in front of the subject property, creating a safety hazard for all residents
on the street.
Mr. T. Bruyea agreed with earlier comments regarding snow build-up and indicated he often has
difficulty getting out of his driveway. He suggested that vehicles parking in front of the residents
would create visibility concerns and make it difficult for him to back out of his driveway. He also
noted that there are large trees which effect visibility.
Mr. J. Hennebry advised that the residence is on a curve in the street and the curve presents a
blind corner. He noted that he has almost been in collision several times because of drivers who
are unfamiliar with the street and had concern for safety relative to increased traffic from the
subject property.
The Chair, having heard comments from all those who wished to address the Committee, then
requested Mr. Grimm or Mr. Naylor to respond to the concerns raised.
Mr. Naylor stated that the residential care facility would function as a family environment with its
purpose being to assist its residents to move back into a family setting. Staff of the home do the
grocery shopping and take the children with them, as any other family would do, so there would
be no food delivery vehicles on site. The residents are also assigned chores, as in other families,
to do the grass cutting and snow shovelling to assist in teaching them normal family functions. In
addition, and again similar to any other family, maintenance repairs are undertaken by contracted
companies. The intent is to have 6 residents, all of whom can be accommodated in a bedroom of
their own without converting the garage to living space. The support staff drive the children to
schools, unless within walking distance, so no buses would be picking up and dropping off the
children. One supervisor is on duty during the day who is responsible for the running of the home
and social workers assigned to each resident would make one visit per month lasting
approximately 1 hour. Mr. Naylor explained how the staff rotated in shifts advising that effort is
made to provide consistency in the program to normalize, as much as possible, the environment
in which the residents live. Education programs are in place which require placement in the
public school system or if special needs are required appropriate arrangements are made
through the School Board to provide classes at an off-site facility. He stated that the program is
constructed in such a way as to develop the residents to their fullest ability and provide them with
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT100APRIL 3, 2001
4.Submission No.:
A 2001-019(Cont’d)
life skills necessary to allow them to successfully re-integrate into the community. Mr. Naylor
again commented that visitors do not usually visit at the facility but rather pick up their child and
go elsewhere or, if transportation is needed, staff provide it.
In response to Mr. Britton, Mr. Naylor again reviewed the shift arrangements. He stated that on
weekends 2 staff are on duty from 8:00 a.m. Saturday to 11:00 p.m. Sunday. One staff person
sleeps over and the other leaves at 11:00 p.m. on Saturday evening. The rest of the week a
supervisor is on duty from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and staff work rotating afternoon shifts from 3:00
p.m. to 11:00 p.m.
Mr. Britton requested staff to comment on how the shift changes would compare to normal traffic.
Mr. R. Parent reiterated that he was unaware of any traffic or parking issues directly related to a
residential care facility. He noted that by-laws are in place to help limit parking concerns and
provide staff with the tools to manage enforcement. Mr. Britton enquired if shift changes at 11:00
p.m. on Saturday and Sunday would create any conflict relative to traffic. Mr. Parent pointed out
that traffic from any home could come and go at any time and did not believe the shift changes
would create any conflict. Mr. Britton further enquired if there were any parking restrictions on the
street and Mr. Parent responded that to his knowledge there were none.
In response to further questioning from Mr. Britton, Mr. Naylor advised that none of the residents
currently drive vehicles and are encouraged to use public transit when appropriate. Mr. Britton
enquired if vehicles have traditionally been parked in the driveway and, as a neighbour who has
lived on the street for some time, Mr. Hennebry responded that only rarely has he seen vehicles
parked in the driveway. Mr. Britton enquired if there were any regulations to prevent parking in
the driveway and Ms. Given advised there were none.
Mr. Britton then questioned Mr. Naylor as to what he would see as ideal in terms of parking and
Mr. Naylor stated that he was quite comfortable with what can be provided on this site, being
essentially 3 parking spaces. Mr. Britton inquired if the distance separation requirements made it
difficult to find locations for these facilities and Mr. Grimm responded that it was problematic. He
also noted that it was difficult to find suitable homes with sufficient bedroom space.
In response to Mr. D. Cybalski, Ms. Given advised that if the use continued as a single family
dwelling no variance to parking would be required and it is the proposed change in use which
requires 2 parking spaces. She further advised that the 6 m setback requirement also applies to
single residential uses. It is anticipated in this instance that the owner would park their vehicle in
the garage; however, often this does not take place or they have a second vehicle which has to
be parked in the driveway. Ms. Given referred to a similar variance application for a single
residential use which was appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board and the Board allowed the
variance. In this case, the homeowner had converted the garage to a deck and required a
variance to permit his vehicle to be parked ahead of the building line. Staff have explored
eliminating this setback requirement; however, feel it still has relevance with respect to home
businesses.
Mr. Cybalski requested staff to comment on the variance relevant to the 4 tests under the
Planning Act. Ms. Given commented that the first test questions if the variance is minor and
pointed out that this does not relate to numeric measurement but rather the overall impact the
variance would have. She stated that parking is permitted in driveways; no visible change is
required to the property; and, the proposed use complies with the Zoning By-law. Accordingly,
staff feel the first test is met. The second test requires that the intent of the Zoning By-law be
maintained. She explained that the intent is to lessen visual impact to streetscape and, while
vehicles are not prohibited from being parked in the driveway, it is hoped that they will meet the 6
m setback. The number of required parking spaces can be accommodated on this site and, in
fact, the number of spaces available exceeds what is required. Accordingly, staff also feel the
intent of the Zoning By-law is met. The third test requires that the intent of the Municipal Plan be
maintained and she stated that policies have been incorporated into the Plan to provide for group
homes throughout the municipality within residential zones, provided Zoning By-law regulations
are met. Again, parking can be met on site and staff feel the application is within the policies of
the Plan; therefore, satisfying this test. The final test questions the desirability of the application
for the appropriate development of the property. In this regard, she advised that the size of the
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT101APRIL 3, 2001
4.Submission No.:
A 2001-019(Cont’d)
dwelling accommodates the needs of the proposed use and, again, parking requirements can be
met and exceed what is required. Accordingly, staff are of the opinion that the application also
passes the test of desirability. In conclusion, Ms. Given recognized that it is becoming
increasingly difficult to find suitable locations for this type of use within the municipality and, given
the use is permitted and the property complies with the distance separation requirement, staff are
in support of the application.
Mr. D. Cybalski expressed the opinion that the Committee’s responsibility is really only to
evaluate the merits of the requested setback in parking, not the use or impact to traffic.
Mr. P. Britton enquired if staff had a preference between tandem parking or a parking setback
and Ms. Given advised that both would be supported as either would achieve the desired result.
She noted that, while both could be applied, a vehicle can be parked to the side of the driveway
negating the need for tandem parking and staff normally recommend the least number of
variances. In addition, it was pointed out that approving only a setback variance would not create
an enforcement issue should 2 vehicles be parked in the driveway.
Mr. B. Dahms referred to comments by Mr. Naylor indicating the residence is intended to house 6
residents and his unwillingness to commit to ensuring the existing garage is never converted to
living space. Mr. Dahms requested, should approval be granted, that the Committee consider
imposing conditions of approval which would restrict the number of residents to 6 and the garage
from being converted to living space.
In response to Mr. Britton, Ms. Given advised that should plans be made in future to convert the
garage to living space a further application would have to be submitted to the Committee and the
number of parking spaces required would not increase if the number of residents changed from 6
to a maximum of 8.
Mr. P. Britton advised that he was prepared to support the application based on the fact the
proposed use conforms with the Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan policies. In his experience, he
noted it is not uncommon for vehicles to be parked in a driveway and believed the variance as
requested would have minor impact to the streetscape. He noted that he posed specific
questions to staff to determine if similar situations were treated with consistency and based on the
responses finds that staff are being consistent. Accordingly, he advised that he would put
forward a motion to approve the application as recommended by staff. The remaining members
of the Committee were in agreement with Mr. Britton’s comments.
Moved by Mr. P. Britton
Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski
That the application of Lilly Lalka requesting permission to locate one parking space required
for a small residential care facility ahead of the building line with a setback of 1.9 m (6.23 ft.),
rather than the required 6 m (19.68 ft.), on Lot 81, Registered Plan 1055, 97 Craig Drive,
BE APPROVED.
Kitchener, Ontario,
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
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT102APRIL 3, 2001
CONSENT
1.Submission No.:
B 2001-017
Applicant:
Trussler Farms Ltd.
Property Location:
Trussler Road and Huron Road
Legal Description:
Part Lots 148 & 149, German Company Tract
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, May 1, 2001.
2.Submission No.:
B 2001-018
Applicant:
William and Nancy Tilt
Property Location:
970 Doon Village Road
Legal Description:
Part Lot 2, Biehn’s Tract, designated as Part 1 on Reference Plan
58R-10991
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, May 1, 2001.
ADJOURNMENT
On motion, the meeting adjourned at 11:55 a.m.
Dated at the City of Kitchener this 3rd day of April, 2001.
J. Billett
Secretary-Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment