Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2001-06-19COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD JUNE 19, 2001 MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. S. Kay, P. Britton and B. Isaac. OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. Given, Principal Planner and Ms. J. Billett, Secretary-Treasurer. Mr. S. Kay, Chair, called this meeting to order at 9:40 a.m. Moved by Mr. B. Isaac Seconded by Mr. P. Britton That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment of May 29, 2001, as mailed to the members, be accepted. Carried UNFINISHED BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE Submission No.: 1.A 2001-023 Applicant: Adanac Door & Hardware Inc. Property Location: 1248 Victoria Street North Legal Description: Part of Lot 122, German Company Tract Appearances: In Support:Mr. P. Hagarty 22 Water Street South Kitchener ON N2G 4K4 Contra:None Written Submissions: In Support:None Contra:None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing industrial building having a westerly side yard of 0.625 m (2.05 ft.), rather than the required 3 m (9.84 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 north side of Victoria Street North, near the Natchez Road intersection and backs onto the C.N. Railway. The property has a frontage of 2 28.85 metres (94.65 feet) on Victoria Street and is 3,278 m (35,290 square feet) in size. The property contains a one storey industrial plaza with a second storey on the front portion of the 2 building with a total gross floor area for the entire building of approximately 1481 m (15,937 square feet). The applicant has indicated that the building is currently leased for the following uses: office, warehouse, manufacturing, wholesale hardware and wholesale flooring. The building consists of a number of large additions (some built in 1971 and some built prior to 1971) to the original building. The rest of the property is mainly used for parking and loading with a right-of-way along the east side (right side) that is shared with the adjacent property to the east at 1258 Victoria Street North. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT150JUNE 19, 2001 Submission No.: 1. A 2001-023 (Cont’d) The left sideyard setback for the existing building varies from 1.12 metres (3.66 feet) at the front of the building to 0.625 metres (2.05 feet) at the rear of the building. This setback does not meet the minimum sideyard setback for the subject property, as required in Zoning By-law 85-1. Therefore, the applicant is proposing a minor variance to reduce the minimum left sideyard setback of 3.0 metres (9.84 feet) to a minimum left sideyard setback of 0.625 metres (2.05 feet) for the existing building on the subject property. 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 property is currently designated ‘General Industrial’ in the City’s Municipal Plan and zoned ‘Service Industrial (M-3) Zone’ which both permit industrial-related uses, including all of the uses identified in the existing building. The subject property meets all of the regulations of the M-3 zoning, except for the left sideyard setback. The M-3 zoning requires a minimum left sideyard setback of 3.0 metres (9.84 feet). The intent of the setback requirement is to provide an appropriate separation of certain industrial-related uses, to provide adequate building separation for Building Code issues, to ensure that there is no building/roof encroachment and to allow room for maintenance of the building. The proposed variance to the sideyard setback would still maintain at least 0.625 metres (2.05 feet) which should be adequate for maintenance purposes, will not yield any encroachment as there is a flat roof and the building/use would still be setback far enough so as to not result in any greater impact on the adjacent building or property to the west. Although the applicant is proposing to reduce the sideyard setback requirement from 3.0 metres (9.84 feet) to 0.625 (2.05 feet) metres, given that the intent of the Zoning By-law would still be maintained and the proposed reduction should not result in any greater impact on the neighbouring property, the effects of the application may be considered minor in nature. Furthermore, the requested variance is desirable as it will provide the applicant the opportunity to continue to lease the existing building to permitted local businesses (instead of potentially having to redevelop a portion or all of the building). In conclusion, the application to reduce the left sideyard setback requirement for the existing structure at 1284 Victoria Street North is considered to be minor in nature, maintains the general intent of both the Zoning By-law and the Municipal Plan and is appropriate for the use of the land. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that minor variance application A 2001-023 to reduce the minimum left sideyard setback of 3.0 metres (9.84 feet) as required in Zoning By-law 85-1 to a minimum left sideyard setback of 0.625 metres (2.05 feet) for the existing building at 1284 Victoria Street North, be approved. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building, Traffic & Parking Analyst and the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no concerns with respect to this application. The Committee noted the comments of the Planning, Housing & Community Services Department, Region of Waterloo, in which they advised that they 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 CN Railway Properties Inc., in which they advise that any future development adjacent to the railway right-of-way would be expected to comply with our environmental and safety standards. Any proposed alterations to the existing drainage pattern affecting Railway property must receive prior concurrence from the Railway and be substantiated by a drainage report to the satisfaction of the Railway. The Owner shall maintain, at his own expense, any existing fencing along the mutual property line. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT151JUNE 19, 2001 Submission No.: 1. A 2001-023 (Cont’d) The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the application and inquired if Mr. Hagarty had anything further to add. Mr. Hagarty advised that he had reviewed the staff comments and was in agreement with the recommendation contained therein. Mr. P. Britton referred to the comments from CN, noting that they appear to deal with future development on the subject lands and, accordingly, he was of the opinion that they are not relevant to the proposed variance. As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion. Moved by Mr. B. Isaac Seconded by Mr. P. Britton That the application of Adanac Door & Hardware Inc. requesting permission to legalize an existing industrial building, having a westerly side yard of 0.625 m (2.05 ft.), rather than the required 3 m (9.84 ft.), on Part of Lot 122, German Company Tract, 1248 Victoria Street North, 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 CONSENT Submission No.: 1.B 2001-023 Applicant: Estate of Joseph Kowalevski Property Location: 260 & 264 Frederick Street Legal Description: Part of Lot 3, Registered Plan 429 Appearances: In Support:Mr. R. Moser 19 Huntley Crescent Kitchener ON N2M 2R4 Contra:None Written Submissions: In Support:None Contra:None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to divide the subject 2 lands by severing a parcel of land and retaining a parcel of land, having an area of 429.5 m (4,623.25 sq. ft.). Both parcels of land contain an existing single residential dwelling. The lands to be severed (264 Frederick Street) will have frontage on Frederick Street of 12.17 m (39.92 ft.), by a depth of 33.53 m (110.02 ft.) and an area of 408.54 m (4,397.6 sq. ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the subject lands are located on the northwest corner of Frederick Street and Pequegnat Avenue. The westerly 12.8 metres (42 feet) of the subject lands contains a two- COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT152JUNE 19, 2001 Submission No.: 1. B 2001-023 (Cont’d) storey single detached dwelling that was constructed in approximately 1910. The easterly 12.2 metres (40 feet) of the subject lands also contains a two-storey single detached dwelling that was constructed in approximately 1910. Although the two dwellings municipally known as 260 and 264 Frederick Street currently function as if each were located on a separate residential lot, the lots on which the dwellings were once located have merged in title. The applicant is requesting consent in order to permit the conveyance of the dwellings independently of one another to prospective purchasers. Staff has reviewed the application for consent and has determined that the consent is technical in nature in that it will recognize 260 Frederick Street and 264 Frederick Street as two separate parcels of land. Both the lands to be severed and the lands to be retained will continue to comply with all regulations in the Zoning By-law. Accordingly, the Department of Business and Planning Services has no concerns with this application for consent. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Consent Application B2001-023 be approved, subject to the following condition: 1. 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 and the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no concerns with respect to this application. The Committee noted the comments of the Planning, Housing & Community Services Department, Region of Waterloo, in which they advised that Frederick Street, at this location, has an original road allowance of 46 feet and a designated road allowance width of 66 feet. Therefore, as noted on the reference plan submitted with the application, the Region requires a 10 foot road allowance widening across the entire frontage of both the severed and retained parcels of land and a 10 foot daylighting triangle at the intersection of Frederick Street and Pequegnat Avenue. The required road allowance widening and daylighting triangle is illustrated as Parts 36 & 37 on Registered Plan No. 58R-401. Regional staff have no objection to this application subject to the above-noted requirement; however, any future 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 Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the application subject to certain conditions and inquired if Mr. Moser had anything further to add. Mr. Moser advised that he had reviewed the staff comments and had nothing further to add. Mr. P. Britton referred to the Regional comments in which a 10 foot road allowance widening across the entire frontage of the subject property is required, together with a 10 foot daylighting triangle and questioned the Committee’s jurisdiction to impose such conditions on retained lands. Ms. J. Given advised that there was past precedent in which the Committee had agreed not to impose such condition on retained lands and it was for the Committee to decide the reasonableness of imposing conditions. The Chair referred to the reference plans submitted with the application that appear to show the widening and daylighting triangle, and questioned why a reference plan would have already been created. Mr. J. Given responded that there were a number of properties on Frederick Street that have early reference plans of this nature and could only assume that, in earlier years, some initiative had been taken to deal with this matter. In response to further questioning, Ms. Given advised that the property is zoned commercial-residential, consisting of medium to low rise residential and primarily office use. She further commented that it would be difficult to determine, at this time, if site plan approval would be required if the building were converted. The Chair stated that he had difficulty imposing the conditions requested by the Region on a property that, historically, was two separate properties and is only being severed as a result of the COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT153JUNE 19, 2001 Submission No.: 1. B 2001-023 (Cont’d) lands merging on title. He pointed out that no new lot is really being created. Mr. Britton agreed with the comments of the Chair, noting that this is a technical severance to reinstate the lands as two separate lots. He further noted that Frederick Street has historically been resurfaced and improved rather than widened and there has been significant neighbourhood concern with respect to widening the street. Accordingly, he felt that it would be unlikely that Frederick Street would be widened in the area of the subject property for some time and it would not be appropriate to impose these conditions. Moved by Mr. P. Britton Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac That the application of the Estate of Joseph Kowalevski requesting permission to convey a parcel of land containing an existing single residential dwelling, having frontage on Frederick Street of 12.17 m (39.92 ft.), by a depth of 33.53 m (110.02 ft.) and an area of 408.54 m (4,397.6 sq. ft.), BE on Part of Lot 3, Registered Plan 429, 260 & 264 Frederick Street, Kitchener, Ontario, GRANTED , subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. 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. 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 June 19, 2003. Carried The Committee then recessed the meeting, temporarily, at 9:50 a.m., in order to consider applications for variance under Chapter 630 (Fences) of the City of Kitchener’s Municipal Code. This meeting reconvened at 10:05 a.m. NEW BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE Submission No.: 1.A 2001-031 Applicant: Conestoga College Property Location: 55 New Dundee Road Legal Description: Part Lots 7 & 8, Registered Plan 1666, designated as Part 7 on Reference Plan 58R-8400 and Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-9944 Appearances: In Support:Mr. A. SferrazzaMr. K. Mullan Moffat Kinoshita ArchitectsConestoga College 21 Hunter Street East299 Doon Valley Drive Hamilton ON L8N 1M2Kitchener ON N2G 4M4 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT154JUNE 19, 2001 Submission No.: 1.A 2001-031 (Cont’d) Mr. P. Holowaty Campus Living Centres Inc. 55 New Dundee Road Kitchener ON N2G 3W5 Contra:None Written Submissions: In Support:None Contra:None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to reduce the number of required parking spaces for a hotel/student residence for Conestoga College from 266 parking spaces to 252 spaces. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business and Planning Services in which they advised that the application seeks approval to construct an additional 48 units to the existing 218 units of a hotel/college residence. The proposed development will require 266 parking spaces. However, due to physical constraints of the site, only 252 spaces can be provided. As such, the applicant is requesting a variance which would reduce the parking requirements by 14 spaces. The property/building is currently owned by Conestoga College and will operate as a student residence for 8 months of the year. During the 4 summer months, the building will operate as a hotel. By-law 85-1 requires one parking space be required for every hotel unit on site. It is the opinion of the applicant that not all student residents will make use of a parking space. Mr. P. Holowaty, Vice President of Operations for Campus Living Centres, provided an estimate that approximately 25% of students currently require a parking space, and expects this number to drop to 20% next year (due to an increased fee for parking). If 25% of students require parking, this would result in a need for 133 spaces, or 106 spaces if only 20% require parking. During the summer months (May to August), the facility functions as a hotel, but is no longer marketed as such. The building is no longer a franchise of Rodeway Suites and Choice Hotels, which will likely cause a decrease in the number of hotel patrons who use the facility. Similarly, approximately 100 students will continue to occupy approximately 60 suites throughout the summer months. No banquet facilities are provided on site. After discussions with the Guest Service Manager of a prominent local hotel, she stated that approximately 70% of hotel residents typically require a parking space. This is due to the number of travellers who arrive from the airport in Toronto, or guests who travel via chartered bus lines. As such, permitting this facility to provide parking for only 95% of its total units should not cause any undue impacts. The Traffic and Parking Division noted that it may be possible to redesign the parking layout to increase the number of spaces on site. However, following the direction of the Traffic and Parking Division, the applicant was unable to devise a layout that would increase the number of parking spaces. As such, it is recommended that through the site plan process, the applicant should further explore alternative parking layouts, if possible, in order to increase the number of spaces to be provided. In regards to the 4 tests as set out in Section 45 of the Planning Act, the following comments are offered: Considering that the site is currently used for a hotel/residence purpose, that the demand for student housing in the area is increasing, and that surrounding properties currently service the travelling public, it should be concluded that the expansion of a hotel is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT155JUNE 19, 2001 Submission No.: 1.A 2001-031 (Cont’d) Having considered the aforementioned comments and statistics, it should be concluded that the request is minor in nature, as the parking to be provided will adequately serve the needs of the facility. The parking requirement in By-law 85-1 for hotels is intended to apply to facilities which supply “living accommodations to transient persons.” The hotel in question differs from the typical hotel, as it accommodates persons primarily on an eight-month school term. As such, a variance from the parking requirement to permit the development of a non-typical hotel would uphold the general intent of the By-law. A hotel is a permitted use in the C-6 zone. Under the Service Commercial land use designation, hotels are listed as a possible use. Similarly, Policy 8.5.2 permits a reduction in a parking requirement “if it can be demonstrated that such reductions will not negatively affect the community.” It has been demonstrated that an overflow of parking likely will not occur. As such, approval of this variance will maintain the general intent of the Municipal Plan. Overall, it is the opinion of staff that this application meets the 4 tests for a minor variance as set out in the Planning Act. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission A 2001-031. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building, Traffic & Parking Analyst and the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advise that they have no concerns with respect to this application. The Committee noted the comments of the Planning, Housing & Community Services Department, Region of Waterloo, in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed the application and have no concerns with respect to this application; 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 Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the application and inquired if the applicants had anything further to add. Mr. A. Sferrazza advised that he had reviewed the staff comments and had nothing further to add. As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion. Moved by Mr. P. Britton Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac That the application of Conestoga College requesting permission to reduce the number of required parking spaces from 266 parking spaces to 252 spaces for an additional 48 units to be added to the existing hotel/student residence, on Part of Lots 7 & 8, Registered Plan 1666, designated as Part 7 on Reference Plan 58R-8400 and Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-9944, BE APPROVED 55 New Dundee Road, 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 ADJUSTMENT156JUNE 19, 2001 Submission No.: 2.A 2001-032 Applicant: Sherwood Homes Limited Property Location: 486 Hearthwood Drive Legal Description: Lot 21, Registered Plan 58M-135 Appearances: In Support:Ms. B. Mausser Sherwood Homes Limited 6783 Wellington Road 34 ON N3C 2B4 Contra:None Written Submissions: In Support:None Contra:None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct an elevated deck and stairs, 4.27 m x 4.88 m (14 ft. x 16 ft.) and 4 m (13.12 ft.) in height, having a rear yard setback of 3.5228 m (11.56 ft.), rather than the required 4 m (13.12 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business and Planning Services in which they advised that the subject land is located on the easterly side of Hearthwood Drive, in Stage 1 of the Hearthwood Subdivision (registered Dec. 21, 1999; 58M-135). The property has 16.0 metres (52.5 feet) of frontage on Hearthwood Drive and a lot area of 495.99 square metres (5339 square feet). A single-family dwelling is currently under construction on the property. The applicant wishes to construct a 20.8 square metre (224 square foot) attached deck in the rear yard of the property. The deck would have dimensions of 4.3 metres in depth and 4.9 metres in width and would stand 2.7 metres (8.8 feet) above finished grade. Application for minor variance is required to reduce the minimum rear yard requirement from 4.0 metres (13 feet) to 3.5 metres (11.5 feet) to permit the construction of the proposed deck, as it is greater than 0.6 metres above the finished grade level. The proposed deck can be considered appropriate and desirable since the deck has been designed in consideration of the basement walkout sliding door. The future owner of the dwelling wishes to have a deeper deck rather than a wider deck to avoid construction of the deck over top of the basement walkout sliding door. Additionally, the adjacent properties are currently owned by the developer, therefore, no existing property owners would be negatively impacted by the proposed deck. Future owners are still adequately separated to maintain privacy in the respective yards. The application for minor variance is considered minor in nature and appropriate for the development of the subject land. The application also maintains the general intent of both the Zoning By-law and the Municipal Plan. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that minor variance application A 2001-032 be approved to reduce the minimum rearyard requirement from 4.0 metres (13 feet) to 3.5 metres (11.5 feet) to permit the construction of the proposed deck in the rear yard of the subject lands generally in accordance with the plan attached to this application. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building permit is required to construct the new deck. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst and the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no concerns with respect to this application. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT157JUNE 19, 2001 Submission No.: 2.A 2001-032 (Cont’d) The Committee noted the comments of the Planning, Housing & Community Services Department, Region of Waterloo, in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed the application and have no concerns with respect to this application; 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 Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the application subject to obtaining a building permit and inquired if Ms. Mausser had anything further to add. Ms. Mausser advised that she had reviewed the staff reports and was in agreement with the recommendation contained therein. As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion. Moved by Mr. B. Isaac Seconded by Mr. P. Britton That the application of Sherwood Homes Limited requesting permission to construct an elevated deck and stairs, 4.27 m x 4.88 m (14 ft. x 16 ft.) and 4 m (13.12 ft.) in height, having a rear yard setback of 3.5228 m (11.56 ft.), rather than the required 4 m (13.12 ft.), on Lot 21, BE APPROVED Registered Plan 58M-135, 486 Hearthwood Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions: 1. That the variance as approved in this application shall be generally in accordance with the drawings submitted with Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 2001-032. 2. That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to construction of the new deck. 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 Submission Nos.: 3.A 2001-033 to A 2001-037 inclusive Applicant: Lotco Limited/Grandview Homes Property Location: 81 & 91 Templewood Drive; 900 & 901 Rush Meadow Court; 8 Marl Meadow Drive Legal Description: Part of Blocks 7, 8 & 10, Registered Plan 1831 and Part of Blocks 1 & 2, Registered Plan 1834; designated as Parts 17, 22, 34, 35 & 154 on Reference Plan 58R-12889 Mr. P. Britton declared a pecuniary interest in these applications as his firm has acted on behalf of the original subdivider of the subject lands, 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, this application was considered by the remaining two members. Appearances: In Support:Ms. P. Gesinghaus Mr. G. Bostajian Lotco Limited/Grandview Homes 24 Executive Place Kitchener ON N3H 3W5 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT158JUNE 19, 2001 Submission Nos.: 3. A 2001-033 to A 2001-037 inclusive (Cont’d) Contra:None Written Submissions: In Support:None Contra:None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to locate access driveways for each of these corner lots a distance of 9 m (29.53 ft.) from the intersection of the property lines abutting the streets, rather than the required 12 m (39.37 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business and Planning Services in which they advised that the applicant is requesting permission for identical variances for access driveways for five corner lots. The request is for a setback for each driveway to be located 9 m (29.53 ft.) from the intersection. The current regulation that falls under By-law 4830 requires a 12.19 m (40 ft.) setback from the intersection. As part of a review of regulations governing small lot singles undertaken last year, a part of the Residential Streetscapes Review, Planning and Traffic staff reviewed this requirement in depth. Zoning By-law 85-1 was recently amended incorporating a setback of 9.0 metres (29.53 feet) from the corner as part of its revised regulations for all streets. However, these residential lots in the Brigadoon community are still zoned under former Zoning By-law 4830, which necessitates the need for approval of a minor variance for these lots. As such, staff find that these variances are in line with the current standards in By-law 85-1 to be minor, desirable for the appropriate development of the lands and maintains the By-law’s intent, for safe intersection movements. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submissions A- 2001-033 to A-2001-037 as submitted. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building, the Traffic & Parking Analyst and the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no concerns with respect to these applications. The Committee noted the comments of the Planning, Housing & Community Services Department, Region of Waterloo, in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed the application and have no concerns with respect to these applications; 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 Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the applications and inquired if Mr. Bostajian had anything further to add. Mr. Bostajian advised that he had reviewed the staff comments and provided a brief overview of the requested variances. In response to questioning, Ms. J. Given advised that within the municipality as a whole, the majority of lands are subject to driveway access regulations under the current Zoning By-law 85- 1, which requires a 9 m setback. The subject lands, however, remain subject to regulations under the former Zoning By-law 4830, which requires a 12 m setback. She pointed out that during a review of regulations last year, Planning and Traffic staff had reviewed the driveway access requirement in depth and Traffic staff are in agreement with the principle of a 9 m setback. She further noted that these lands had intentionally been left under Zoning By-law 4830 as no development had occurred and it is only recently that construction has taken place. The Chair commented that when the subdivision was planned, the 12 m setback was a requirement, and questioned if the lots could be developed with the required setback. Ms. J. Given advised that, historically, staff recognize the 12 m setback has proven to be an COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT150JUNE 19, 2001 Submission Nos.: 3. A 2001-033 to A 2001-037 inclusive (Cont’d) unreasonable requirement and pointed out that the Committee has dealt with many variances relative to this regulation. She stated that the assumption had been that driveways would be developed with single widths; however, this has not been the case. She further pointed out that there would be no additional impact resulting from approval of the requested variances. Minor Variance A 2001-033 Moved by Mr. S. Kay Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac That the application of Lotco Limited/Grandview Homes requesting permission to locate the driveway access a distance of 9 m (29.53 ft.) from the intersection of the property lines abutting Templewood Drive and Rush Meadow Street, rather than the required 12 m (39.37 ft.), on Part of Block 8, Registered Plan 1831, designated as Part 17 on Reference Plan 58R- BE APPROVED 12889, 81 Templewood Drive, 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 Minor Variance A 2001-034 Moved by Mr. S. Kay Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac That the application of Lotco Limited/Grandview Homes requesting permission to locate the driveway access a distance of 9 m (29.53 ft.) from the intersection of the property lines abutting Templewood Drive and Rush Meadow Street, rather than the required 12 m (39.37 ft.), on Part of Block 7, Registered Plan 1831, designated as Part 35 on Reference Plan 58R- BE APPROVED 12889, 91 Templewood Drive, 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 Minor Variance A 2001-035 Moved by Mr. S. Kay Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac That the application of Lotco Limited/Grandview Homes requesting permission to locate the driveway access a distance of 9 m (29.53 ft.) from the intersection of the property lines abutting Rush Meadow Street and Rush Meadow Court on Part of Block 1, Registered Plan 1834, designated as Part 34 on Reference Plan 58R-12889, 900 Rush Meadow Court, BE APPROVED Kitchener, Ontario, . COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT151JUNE 19, 2001 Submission Nos.: 3. A 2001-033 to A 2001-037 inclusive (Cont’d) 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 Minor Variance A 2001-036 Moved by Mr. S. Kay Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac That the application of Lotco Limited/Grandview Homes requesting permission to locate the driveway access a distance of 9 m (29.53 ft.) from the intersection of the property lines abutting Rush Meadow Street and Rush Meadow Court, on Part of Block 2, Registered Plan 1834, designated as Part 22 on Reference Plan 58R-12889, 901 Rush Meadow Court, 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 Minor Variance A 2001-037 Moved by Mr. S. Kay Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac That the application of Lotco Limited/Grandview Homes requesting permission to locate the driveway access a distance of 9 m (29.53 ft.) from the intersection of the property lines abutting Templewood Drive and Marl Meadow Drive, on Part of Block 10, Registered Plan 1831, designated as Part 154 on Reference Plan 58R-12889, 8 Marl Meadow Drive, Kitchener, BE APPROVED 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. 4. 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 Submission No.: 1.B 2001-027 Applicant: Estate of Anna Zembala Property Location: 320 Guelph Street & 348 Weber Street West Legal Description: Part Lots 7 & 8, Registered Plan 373 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT152JUNE 19, 2001 Submission No.: 1. B 2001-027 (Cont’d) Mr. S. Kay declared a pecuniary interest in this application as his law firm acts on behalf of the applicant and did not participate in any discussion or voting with respect to this application. Mr. Kay left the meeting and Mr. B. Isaac chaired the meeting during consideration of this application and, in accordance with the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, this application was considered by the remaining two members. Appearances: In Support:Mr. D. Bogdon Kay, Bogdon 177 Victoria Street North Kitchener ON N2H 5C5 Contra:None Written Submissions: In Support:None Contra:None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to divide these lands by severing a parcel of land containing an existing duplex having frontage on Guelph Street of 13.88 2 m (45.53 ft.), by a depth of 62.33 m (204.51 ft.) and an area of 775.9 m (8,352 sq. ft.). The lands to be retained contain an existing fourplex fronting onto Weber Street West, having an area of 2 2,175.44 m (23,417 sq. ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the subject property, known municipally as 348 Weber Street West and 320 Guelph Street, is a large irregular shaped residential lot with two detached dwellings. The subject lands on Weber Street have a frontage of 35.0 metres (114.84 feet) and a depth of 63.5 metres (208 feet). These lands contain a street-fronting four-unit multiple family dwelling, with a detached garage located at the rear of the property. The lands located on Guelph Street, which contain a street-fronting duplex with a detached garage, have a frontage of 13.9 metres (45.60 feet) and a depth of approximately 62.33 metres (204.51 feet). The surrounding area is characterized by residential development. Both the severed and retained lands achieve a mix of housing types that maintain a relatively low overall intensity of use consistent with Municipal Plan policy. In addition, the severed and retained lands comply with all Zoning By-law requirements. Accordingly, Planning staff supports this application for consent. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that application B2001-027 be approved subject to the following condition: 1. 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, Traffic & Parking Analyst and the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no concerns with respect to this application. The Committee noted the comments of the Planning, Housing & Community Services Department, Region of Waterloo, in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed the application and advise that, at this location, Weber Street has an existing road allowance width of 52 feet and a designated road allowance width of 86 feet. Therefore, a 17 foot road allowance widening is required from this property. The road widening is required for future asphalt, bicycle lanes, sidewalks and utility installations. As well, the owner shall enter into an agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to provide the following clause be COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT153JUNE 19, 2001 Submission No.: 1. B 2001-027 (Cont’d) included in the offers of purchase and sale, deeds or rental agreements for the residential units at 348 Weber Street: “Due to its proximity to Weber Street, projected noise levels on this property exceed the Noise Level Objectives approved by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and may cause some concern to individuals.” In summary, Regional staff have no objection to this application subject to the above noted requirements. The Region further advised that any future development on the lands subject to this consent application will be subject to the provisions of 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 CN Railway Properties Inc., in which they advised that any future development adjacent to the railway right-of-way would be expected to comply with our environmental and safety standards. 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.” Mr. D. Bogdon provided a brief history of the subject lands noting that the property on Guelph Street containing an existing duplex was acquired and built on in the early 1920’s. The abutting property on Weber Street containing a fourplex was acquired in 1940. Mr. Bogdon referred to the Regional comments and pointed out that Weber Street has already been substantially widened in the area of the subject property and suggested that any further widening would be remote. He stated that the subject lands are two historic properties with no development proposed and, accordingly, felt the road allowance was unnecessary. He further suggested that the clause relative to noise was not a reasonable restriction given the existing environment of the surrounding area and commented that anyone moving to Weber Street would certainly realize that, by its very nature, noise levels on the street would be higher. Mr. P. Britton voiced concern with the Committee’s jurisdiction to impose conditions on retained lands. He stated that given the subject lands are historic properties and no development is planned that it would not be appropriate to impose the conditions requested by the Region. In addition, he noted that the CN comments refer to future development and, as such, felt these were not applicable to the proposed severance. Moved by Mr. P. Britton Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac That the application of the Estate of Anna Zembala requesting permission to convey a parcel of land containing an existing duplex having frontage on Guelph Street of 13.88 m (45.53 ft.), by a 2 depth of 62.33 m (204.51 ft.) and an area of 775.9 m (8,352 sq. ft.), on Part Lots 7 & 8, BE Registered Plan 373, 320 Guelph Street and 348 Weber Street West, Kitchener, Ontario, GRANTED , subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. It is the opinion of this Committee that: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT154JUNE 19, 2001 Submission No.: 1. B 2001-027 (Cont’d) 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. 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 June 19, 2003. Carried Submission No.: 2.B 2001-028 Applicant: Ventra Group Inc. Property Location: 675 Trillium Drive Legal Description: Part Lots 14 & 16, Registrar’s Compiled Plan 1471, designated as Part 1, on Reference Plan 58R-6387 The Chair advised that the Committee was in receipt of an E-mail transmission from Mr. M. Code advising that the applicant is in agreement with Planning staff’s recommendation to defer the application to the next meeting of the Committee. Accordingly, it was agreed that this application would be deferred to the Committee’s next meeting scheduled for July 17, 2001. ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 10:25 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 19th day of June, 2001. J. Billett Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment