The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAdjustment - 2001-07-17COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD JULY 17, 2001 MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. S. Kay, P. Kruse, P. Britton. Mr. D. Cybalski was in attendance for part of the meeting. OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. Given, Principal Planner, Mr. C. Bluhm, Planner, and Ms. D. Gilchrist, Acting Secretary -Treasurer Mr. S. Kay, Chair, called this meeting to order at 9:53 a.m. Moved by Mr. P. Britton Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment of June 19, 2001, as mailed to the members, be accepted. Carried UNFINISHED BUSINESS CONSENT 1. Submission No.: B 2001-028 Applicant: Ventra Group Inc. Property Location: 675 Trillium Drive Legal Description: Part Lots 14 & 16, Registered Plan 1471, designated as Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-6387 Appearances: In Support: None Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to create one new lot by severing a parcel of land proposed for industrial use having frontage on Trillium Drive of 105.314 m (345.52 ft.), by a depth of 214.155 m (702.6 ft.) and an area of 17,132.404 m2 (184, 417.7 sq. ft.). The lands to be retained contain an existing manufacturing use having an area of 25,513.664 m2 (274,635.78 sq. ft.). The Committee noted the comments of Planning Staff, dated July 10, 2001, in which they advised that the subject property is located on the south side of Trillium Drive, west of McBrine Drive and immediately east of the Huron Natural Area in the Huron Business Park. The site is approximately 4.26 hectares (10.53 acres) in size. The owner proposes to sever a portion of the site to create two separate lots. The property is adjacent to the Strasburg Creek Wetland complex that is designated as a Provincially significant Wetland by the Ministry of Natural Resources. As such, the City's Municipal Plan requires that an Environmental Impact Study be COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 156 JULY 17, 2001 Submission No.: B 2001-028 (Cont'd) undertaken prior to development on adjacent lands. At the June 19th, 2001 meeting, the Committee of Adjustment deferred the consent application until the July 17th, 2001 meeting so that a joint site visit with the GRCA could be arranged, an EIS prepared, reviewed and approved and a detailed plan of the requested right-of-way submitted. The right-of-way details have been submitted, the site visit took place, however the EIS is yet to be prepared. The applicant has indicated that that EIS should be addressed by the August 14th, 2001 meeting of the Committee. As such, staff recommend a further deferral of the application to provide the opportunity for the applicant to satisfy the EIS requirement. That consent application B 2001-028 be deferred to the meeting of August 14th, 2001 pending the submission and approval of an Environmental Impact Study. At the request of Planning staff, the Committee agreed to defer consideration of this application to its meeting scheduled for Tuesday, August 14, 2001. The Committee then recessed the meeting, temporarily, at 10:00 a.m., in order to consider applications for variance under Chapters 630 (Fences) and 680 (Signs) of the City of Kitchener's Municipal Code. This meeting reconvened at 10:10 a.m. NEW BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCES 1. Submission No.: A 2001-038 Applicant: Donald & Donna Cousineau Property Location: 74 Admiral Road Legal Description: Lot 18, Registered Plan 882 Appearances: In Support Contra: Written Submissions: In Support Contra: Mr. Donald Cousineau 74 Admiral Road Kitchener, Ontario None None None The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to construct a carport having a westerly sideyard of 0.45 m (1.5 ft.) rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of Planning Staff, dated 2001-07-11, in which they advised that the applicant requests permission to construct an attached carport with a sideyard setback of 0.45 metres (1.5 feet) rather than the required minimum setback of 1.2 metres (3.9 feet). From the revised drawing submitted with the application it is noted that the roof of the carport projects beyond the posts by 0.2 metres (8 inches) towards the side lot line. There will be a 0.13 metres (5 inch) seamless eaves attached to the roof projection that results in a total projection of 0.33 metres (13 inches) beyond the posts of the carport. The eaves will therefore be set back 0.12 metres (5 inches) from the side lot line. This is still within the lot line of the subject property and the contractor has stated that the eaves will be drained to the rear yard of the lot. Therefore, it appears that drainage would not pose a problem for the neighbouring property. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 157 JULY 17, 2001 Submission No.: A 2001-038 (Cont'd) The open design of a carport allows for maintenance at ground level. As well, any maintenance required for the roof can be reached from the front or rear of the structure, therefore not requiring access onto the neighbour's lands. The proposed carport would not appear to adversely affect the enjoyment of the adjoining property. The structure is not enclosed and would not have a great visual impact. The driveway for the property is currently located where the carport is to be built; therefore the location of parking for vehicles will not change. Based on the above comments, it is the opinion of staff that the requested variance would not appear to have an adverse affect on neighbouring properties and could therefore be considered appropriate development of the property and surrounding area. The requested variance meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law and can be considered minor in nature. Planning Staff recommend approval of the minor variance A 2001-038 only as generally shown on the drawings submitted with the application provided all drainage is directed onto the subject property. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a Building permit is required to construct the carport. Support columns/beams for the carport shall be clad with non-combustible material. Applicant to ensure roof drainage is not directed onto the adjacent property. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst, the Transportation Planner for the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no objections with respect to this application. Mr. P. Britton questioned staff with respect to enforcement of drainage from the proposed carport, and Ms. Given advised that enforcement would be undertaken by building inspection staff at the time of final inspection. Mr. Cousineau advised that he would have no difficulty in ensuring that the drainage from the carport remains on his property. As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion Moved by Mr. P. Britton Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse That the application of Donald and Donna Cousineau requesting permission to construct a carport with a westerly sideyard of 0.45 m (1.5 ft.) rather than the required 1.2 m (3.49 ft.) on Lot 18, Registered Plan 882, 74 Admiral Road, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: That the variance as approved in this application shall apply to the proposed carport generally as shown on the plan submitted with the application. 2. That all drainage from the proposed carport shall be directed onto the subject property. 3. That the owner shall obtain approval of a building permit prior to constructing a carport. 4. That the support columns/beams for the carport shall be clad with non-combustible material. It is the opinion of this Committee that: The variances requested in application are minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 158 JULY 17, 2001 2. Submission No.: A 2001-039 Applicant: Chris Wunder Property Location: 23 Crescent Street Legal Description: Lot 32, Registered Plan 218 Appearances: In Support Contra: Written Submissions: In Support Contra: Mr. Chris Wunder 23 Crescent Street Kitchener, Ontario None 1►= None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a one -storey addition to the rear of the existing single family dwelling to have an easterly sideyard of 1.8 m (5.9 ft.) rather than the required 4.57 m (15 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of Planning Staff, dated June 28, 2001, in which they advised that the subject land is located on the south-west side of Crescent Street, adjacent to Borden Avenue North. The property is a corner lot, and contains a two-storey single residential dwelling with a small shed in the rear yard. The dwelling was constructed under a previous Zoning By-law and has an encroachment into the required side yard setback abutting a street. However, this setback has been legalized under section 5.15 (Vacuum Clause) of Zoning By- law 85-1. A side yard setback of 4.5 metres (14.8 feet) is required where the property abuts Borden Avenue. However the existing dwelling only has a side yard setback of 1.75 metres (5.75 feet). The lot width has also been legalized under section 5.15, as 15 metres are required, while only approximately 12 metres have been provided. The applicants are proposing to extend the rear portion of the dwelling through a one -storey addition which will act as a kitchen/dinette. As the addition will be constructed flush with the existing side wall abutting Borden Avenue, the proposed setback is 1.75 metres. The applicant is requesting a minor variance to permit the extension of the 1.75 metre side yard setback to accommodate the proposed addition. Appropriately, the lot width will also be considered for a minor variance, in order to legalize this deficiency. In regards to the four tests as identified in section 45(1) of the Planning Act, staff submit the following comments: As the proposed addition will not cause a further encroachment into the side yard setback, nor cause an encroachment into the rear yard setback, and as the existing lot width will not be modified, the variance must be considered minor in nature. The use of the property will not change as a result of this addition. The use is currently permitted in the official plan, secondary plan and zoning by-law. As the lot width and side yard encroachments already exist on the property, and as the proposal will not compromise any other regulations in Zoning By-law 85-1, the variance upholds the general intent of both the official plan and the zoning by-law. Residential corner lots in the surrounding neighbourhood have shown to have side yards which encroach into the required 15 foot side yard and no properties along Crescent Street meet the lot width requirement under Zoning By-law 85-1. Similarly, the addition will not impact any existing streetscapes, will not result in the removal of any important landscaping, nor will it cause any undue impact on adjacent property owners. As such, the proposed addition is desirable for the appropriate use of the land. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 159 JULY 17, 2001 2. Submission No.: A 2001-039 (Cont' Planning Staff recommend that minor variance application A 2001-039 be approved, to permit the addition to the rear of the dwelling while legalizing both the lot width and the side yard setback, 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 for the new addition. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst, the Transportation Planner for the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no objections with respect to this application. As requested by Mr. Wunder, the Committee agreed to consider an amendment to the application as recommended by Planning Staff, with respect to the lot width of the subject property. As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion. Moved by Mr. P. Kruse Seconded by Mr. P. Britton That the application of Chris Wunder requesting permission to construct a one storey addition to the rear of an existing family dwelling with an easterly sideyard of 1.75 m (5.75 ft.) rather than the required 4.57 m (15 ft.), on a lot having a width of 12 m (40 ft.) rather than the required 15 m (49.21 ft.) on Lot 32, Registered Plan 318, 23 Crescent Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: That the variances as approved in this application shall apply to the proposed addition only as shown on the plan submitted with the application. It is the opinion of this Committee that: The variances requested in this application are minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan is being maintained on the subject property. 3. Submission No.: A 2001-040 Applicant: Cedric Doughty Property Location: 243-245 Lancaster Street West Legal Description: Lot 185, Part Lot 184, Registered Plan 318 Appearances: In Support: Mr. Cedric Doughty 243 —245 Lancaster Street West Kitchener, Ontario Contra: Written Submissions: In Support None Ms. Lisa Ellerton 769 Guelph Street Kitchener, Ontario Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 160 JULY 17, 2001 3. Submission No.: A 2001-040 (Cont' Mr. Alan Coward 249 Lancaster Street West Kitchener, Ontario Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing second driveway adjacent to the southerly sideyard, on a lot having a frontage of 19.05 m (62.5 ft.) rather than the required 29.87 m (98 ft.), and having a driveway length of 7.32 m (24 ft.) rather than the required 11.58 m (38 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of Planning Staff, dated 2001-07-12, in which they advised that the applicant requests permission to legalize an existing second driveway on a lot with a width of 19.1 metres (62.5 feet) rather than the required minimum of 30 metres (98.4 feet) and to locate the parking space 1.8 metres (6 feet) from the front lot line rather than the required 6 metres (20 feet). It is noted that for a duplex use, the second parking space may be located less than 6 metres from the street line, so a variance to this provision is not required. However, it appears as though the second parking space is not adequately sized to meet the required parking space size. The applicant advised staff that the length of the driveway measurement was taken from the front porch of the house to the sidewalk. Although a survey is not available, staff have determined from Public Work records that the front lot line is approximately 2.1 metres (7 feet) from the sidewalk which results in a driveway that is actually 5.18 metres (17 feet). Staff notes that the property currently has a driveway that complies with the requirements for a duplex. The minimum requirement for duplex use is two parking spaces, which may be arranged in tandem, and one space may be ahead of the 6 -metre setback normally required for off-street parking spaces. The original driveway to the north side of the house is wide enough for cars to manoeuvre around each other and therefore they do not need to park in tandem. In addition, the original driveway extends to the rear yard and up to a double car garage. This driveway is more than adequate to accommodate the required parking for the duplex use. Since the property is already in compliance with the by-law, the second driveway on the 19.1 metre wide lot cannot be considered to be maintaining the intent of the by-law. The second driveway is existing and has recently had the curb cut to create a proper entrance from the street. The second driveway is abutting the side property line which has a hedge approximately 1.2 metres (4 feet) high which is greater than the maximum permitted 0.91 metres (3 feet). The hedge creates a visibility hazard for vehicles exiting the property. Further, Regional staff is recommending refusal due to potential traffic hazards and encroachments. It is the opinion of staff that the application does not meet all the tests of the Planning Act, and therefore are recommending refusal. Planning Staff recommend refusal of the minor variance A 2001-040 and that the property owner cease to use the parking space, and reinstate the curb to the satisfaction of the Region. 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 no concerns with the proposed second driveway. However, if approved, the hedge running along the property adjacent property line of 249 Lancaster Street West would cause a visibility problem. If approved, they would require that this hedge be cut back 4.57 metres from the property line, 0.91 metres high. This will provide adequate sight lines in the driveway daylight triange. The Committee noted the comments of the Transportation Planner for the Regional Municipality of Waterloo in which he advised that at this location, Lancaster Street has an existing road COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 161 JULY 17, 2001 3. Submission No.: A 2001-040 (Cont' allowance width of 66 feet and a designated road allowance width of 86 feet. Therefore, a (86- 66=20/2=10) 10 foot road widening is required from this property. It may not be appropriate to acquire the road widening under this application. Regional staff cannot support an access at this location as there is insufficient room between the front of the building and the property line. Vehicles would encroach in the existing road allowance on Lancaster Street. Also, the existing hedge adjacent to the proposed access obstructs visibility for vehicles reversing out of this area such that they would have difficulty seeing northbound traffic on Lancaster Street and pedestrians on the sidewalk. The existing curb cut at this location must be removed and restored to a barrier curb to the satisfaction of the Region of Waterloo. Regional staff advise 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(s) prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no objections with respect to this application. The Committee noted the written submission of Ms. Lisa Ellerton, a neighbour of the applicant, living in the subject area who advised that she knew the previous owner of the house as she visited there often in the course of her volunteer community work. Ms. Ellerton advised that she is also aware that the previous owner parked his vehicle on the grass as it is a duplex dwelling and there is only one driveway for the house. At that time, Ms. Ellerton was not aware of anyone who questioned this, including the City. She stated in her written submission that the newly applied driveway gives a much neater appearance to the house and surrounding street than it would if cars were parked on the grass. The Committee noted the written submission of Mr. Alan Coward who lives next door to the applicant, at 249 Lancaster Street West. Mr. Coward advised that he has no objection to the application for a driveway on the subject property. The Committee acknowledged the advice in the Planning comments that the length of the proposed driveway is not at variance, as the second parking space for a duplex does not need a setback of 6 m from the front lot line. Mr. Doughty provided the Committee members with an extract from a recent survey of the subject property. In response to comments from City and Regional Staff, Mr. Doughty advised that it would be possible to extend the driveway up the side of the building another 10 or 11 ft. He also advised that he believed he would have the cooperation of his neighbour to reduce the height of the hedge along their common side lot line to 3 ft. Mr. Doughty then advised that he purchased this property in February of this year and has undertaken extensive renovations to improve the property. He noted that prior to installing this driveway, tenants parked on the grass at that side of the building. Mr. Doughty then referred to the two written submissions from neighbouring residents in support of his application. Mr. Kruse stated that the major objection of staff to this application is the visual obstruction of the hedge along the southerly side lot line, and that the Committee's main concern with driveways has always been safety. He noted Mr. Doughty's statement that he could make arrangements with his neighbour to reduce the height of the hedge. Mr. Kruse stated that he could support this application provided the height of the hedge is reduced to and maintained at 3 ft. Mr. Britton questioned staff as to the uses permitted in this zone, and Ms. Given responded that any form of residential use, to a maximum height of three storeys is permitted. Mr. Britton noted that had a semi-detached dwelling existed on his property, two driveways would be permitted. He advised that he is also in support of the application subject to the reduction in the height of the hedge. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 162 JULY 17, 2001 3. Submission No.: A 2001-040 (Cont'd Ms. Given requested that should this application be approved, the applicant be required to provide a minimum driveway length of 5.5 m. As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion. Moved by Mr. P. Kruse Seconded by Mr. P. Britton That the application of Cedic Doughty requesting legalization of a second driveway adjacent to the southerly side lot line, on a lot having a frontage of 19.05 m (62.5 ft.) rather than the required 30 m (98.4 ft.) on Lot 185 and Part Lot 184, Registered Plan 318, 243-245 Lancaster Street West, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: 1. That subject to obtaining the approval of the owners of 249 Lancaster Street West, the hedge along the southerly lot line of the subject property shall be reduced to and maintained at a height of 0.91 m (3 ft.) for a distance of 4.57 m (15 ft.) back from the property line along Lancaster Street. 2. That the driveway abutting the southerly lot line shall extend from the lot line along Lancaster Street to the stairs at the southerly side of the duplex and have a minimum depth of 5.5 m (18 ft.). It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried 4. Submission No.: A 2001-041 Applicant: Frances Furlong Property Location: 30 Chapel Street Legal Description: Part Lot A, GCT Sublot 2, Lot 4, Part Lot 3, Registered Plan 363 Mr. P. Kruse declared a pecuniary interest in this applicant as his law firm represents the applicant and did not participate in any discussion with respect to this application. Mr. S. Kay, Chair, advised that at the request of Planning Staff, consideration of this application is being deferred to the Committee of Adjustment meeting scheduled for Tuesday, September 11, 2001. 5. Submission No.: A 2001-042 Applicants: John Andreopoulos & Alex Tsatsas Property Location: 1121-1127 King Street East Legal Description: Lot 1, Part Lot 2, Registered Plan 251, Part Park Lot 25 PT ST & Lane Closed on Registered Plan 404 Appearances: In Support: None Contra: None COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 163 JULY 17, 2001 5. Submission No.: A 2001-042 (Cont'd) Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: Mr. John Ager 1135 King Street East Kitchener, Ontario The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to provide four off- street parking spaces for the existing commercial building rather than the required eight off-street parking spaces. The Committee noted the comments of Planning Staff, dated 2001-07-12, in which they advised that the applicants request permission to legalize 4 off-street parking spaces rather than the required 8 spaces for 3 tenants of a multi -tenant building. This site was the subject of a recent Committee of Adjustment application which gave approval for a parking reduction which included a small restaurant, which has vacated the site. Even at the time of that decision, there were vacant parts of the building without tenancy. The owner was advised that any new tenants would require new approvals. The applicant now advises that the new tenant which created the necessity for this application is no longer locating here. Staff have encouraged the owner to confirm the intended occupancy of the entire building so that the shortfall can be evaluated on a more comprehensive bases. The owner has requested that the application be deferred to the next meeting as they have been unable to provide this information to staff. Planning Staff recommend deferral of Submission A 2001-042 to the meeting of August 14, 2001. At the request of Planning Staff, the Committee agreed to defer consideration of this application to the Committee of Adjustment meeting scheduled for Tuesday, August 14, 2001. 6. Submission No.: A 2001-043 Applicant: Ourlaine Pashley Property Location: 59 Margaret Avenue Legal Description: Part Lot 170, Part Lot 171, Part Lot 172, Registered Plan 374 The Committee was in receipt of a facsimilie transmission from the applicant's agent advising that this application is withdrawn. This correspondence also requests a refund of the Minor Variance application fee. Ms. Given advised that a refund is being requested, as the application was submitted based on advice from Planning Staff, and that Planning Staff are prepared to refund this fee. The Committee discussed its authority to refund the fee and whether a refund is justified in this instance. Moved by Mr. P. Britton Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse That the application fee for Submission No. A 2001-043 be refunded to the applicant as the application was submitted on the advice of Planning Staff. Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 164 JULY 17, 2001 7. Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Leaal Description: Appearances: In Support Contra: Written Submissions: In Support Contra: A 2001-044 Brian Bauman 24 Maple Manor Court Lot 13. Reference Plan 58M-162 Mr. Brian Bauman 22 Foxwood Place Kitchener, Ontario 1►= None None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing covered deck having a rearyard of 5 m (16.4 ft.) rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of Planning Staff, dated 12 July 2001, in which they advised that the application seeks approval to construct a covered deck at the rear of the dwelling under construction at 24 Maple Manor Court. The by-law requires that if a deck is covered, the rearyard setback is the same as that required for the main dwelling. A portion of the covered deck would be situated 5.0 metres from the rear lot line, rather than the required 7.5 metres. The intent of the setback is to protect the privacy of neighbouring properties to the rear. In this case, the lot abuts a woodlot within which no development may occur, so there is no impact on neighbouring properties. The intent of by by-law is therefore met. If the deck were uncovered, it would be permitted to be located up to 4.0 metres from the rearyard. Further, only a portion of the deck is located within the required setback. For all of these reasons, the variance can be considered as minor. Approval of the application will permit the deck to be covered and provide outdoor amenity area, which is desirable for the appropriate development of this lot which backs onto open space. Planning Staff recommends the approval of the application in accordance with the drawings attached to the application. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building permit is required for the new house and deck. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst, the Transportation Planner for the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no objections or concerns with respect to this application. When questioned by the Committee, Mr. Bauman advised that the deck has not yet been constructed. As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion. Moved by Mr. P. Britton Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse That the application of Brian Bauman requesting permission to construct a covered deck with a rearyard of 5 m (16.4 ft.) rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.) on Lot 13, Registered Plan 58M-162, 24 Maple Manor Court, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 165 JULY 17, 2001 7. Submission No.: A 2001-044 (Cont'd 1. That the variance as approved in this application shall apply to the proposed covered deck only as shown on the plan submitted with this application. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried CONSENT 1. Submission No.: B 2001-029 Applicant: Waterloo Catholic District School Board Property Location: 345 & 367 The Country Way Legal Description: Block M, Registered Plan 1441, Block O, Registered Plan 1416, Block 96, Registered Plan 1588, Part of Block L and Block N, Registered Plan 1441, designated as Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R- 7918 Appearances In Support: Mr. M. Villemaire 82 Weber Street East Kitchener, Ontario Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to separate ownership of the two schools known as Blessed Sacrament School and Ecole Cardinal Leger. The Committee noted the comments of Planning Staff, dated July 11, 2001, in which they advised that the applicant is requesting permission to create one new lot by severing a parcel of land known municipally as 345 The Country Way and retaining a parcel of land known municipally as 367 The Country Way. The retained parcel, which is proposed to have a frontage of 140 metres (1,324.64 feet) and an area of approximately 2.367 hectares (5.84 acres), is an educational institution known as `The Blessed Sacrament Elementary School'. The lands proposed to be severed have a frontage of 129 metres (423.25 ft.) and an area of approximately 2.467 hectares (6.09 acres). This subject property is also an educational institution, known as `Conseil Scolaire De District Catholique Centre -Sud (Cardinal Leger Catholic Elementary School)'. These lands are bounded by parkland and low-density residential development. Both the severed and retained lands comply with the zoning by-law in all respects. The existing use of the severed and retained lands as elementary educational institutions, which are in conformity with the Low Rise Residential designation in the City's Municipal Plan Policy, are proposed to continue. Therefore, as this application does not seek to alter or increase the impacts to the surrounding neighbourhood, Staff recommend that this application be approved subject to the following condition: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 166 JULY 17, 2001 1. Submission No.: B 2001-029 (Cont' 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, the Traffic & Parking Analyst, the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no concerns or objections with respect to this application. Mr. Villemaire advised that the Province divided the Catholic School Board into two separate Boards of Education, one English and one French. The Province now requires the Waterloo Region Catholic District School Board to convey the subject property to the French Board. As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion. Moved by Mr. P. Kruse Seconded by Mr. P. Britton That the application of the Waterloo Catholic District School Board to convey a parcel of land having a frontage on The Country Way of 129.186 m (423.83 ft.) by a depth of 187.01 m (613.54 ft.) and having an area of 2.467 h (6.09 acres) on Block M, Registered Plan 1441 and Block O, Registered Plan 1416, 345 The Country Way, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall make satisfactory financial arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. 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 July 17, 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 2. Submission No.: B 2001-030 Applicant: Robert & Helen Simpson Property Location: 603 Guelph Street, Kitchener Legal Description: Park Part Lot 551, Registered Plan 378 Appearances: In Support: Mr. R. Simpson 603 Guelph Street Kitchener, Ontario Contra: Mr. S. Ruthardt 595 Guelph Street Kitchener, Ontario COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 167 JULY 17, 2001 2. Submission No.: B 2001-030 (Cont' Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: Mr. & Mrs. R. Ruthardt 595 Guelph Street Kitchener, Ontario The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to sever a parcel of land, for residential use, having a width on Guelph Street of 10.668 m (35 ft.) by a depth of 37.173 m (121.96 ft.) and having an area of 396.561 m2 (4,268.6 sq. ft.). The retained lands will contain the existing single family dwelling. The Committee noted the comments of Planning Staff, dated July 9, 2001, in which they advised that the subject property is located on the south side of Guelph Street, east of St. Leger Street and west of Edwin Street. The site is approximately 859 square metres in size. The owner proposes to sever a portion of the site to create two separate lots. The retained lots would have a frontage of 13.307 metres on Guelph Street, a depth of 37.113 metres, and an area of 462.023 square metres. The site is currently developed with an 1130 square foot single detached dwelling and a 250 square foot garage. The severed lands would have a frontage of 10.668 metres, a depth of 37.173 metres, and an area of 396.561 square metres. The proposed use of the severed lot is for a single residential dwelling. The applicant notes that the garage on the retained lot encroaches onto the occupation line to the east. The front yard setback of approximately 1 -foot (0.3 metres) is legal under Section 5.15 ("Vacuum Clause") of Zoning By-law 85-1. The required front yard setback under the existing By- law is 4.5 metres. With the exception of these encroachments, which are not affected by the severance, the retained lot will conform to the regulations of By-law 85-1. The severed lot will conform to the by-law, as an adequate lot width, depth and area have been provided. Any future residential development should adhere to section 5.7 of By-law 85-1 regarding front yard building setbacks. The subject lot is located within the Community Improvement Area as identified in the Community Improvement Plan. This plan is currently under review and the intent of this plan will be to encourage an increase in housing stock within the boundaries of the Community Improvement Area. As such, this proposal is in keeping with the intent of this plan. In regards to the criteria identified in section 51(24) of the Planning Act, the proposed consent is consistent with matters of provincial interest; is not premature; is in the public interest; conforms with the official plan; and is suitable for the development of a residential unit. Similarly, the proposal would not require a plan of subdivision and is in keeping with established development patterns in the surrounding area. Of the 211 properties along Guelph Street, 97 have frontages less than 13.4 metres (44 feet), of which 86 have frontages less than 12.2 metres (40 feet), of which 21 have frontages less than 10.66 metres (35 feet). Similarly, of the 94 properties along Blucher Street, 22 have frontages less than 13.4 metres (44 feet), of which 14 have frontages less than 12.2 metres (40 feet), of which 5 have frontages less than 10.66 metres (35 feet). As such, approximately 39% of the properties in the neighbourhood have frontages similar to the two proposed by this consent. One concern with the proposed severance, however, is that two large trees exist at the front of the proposed severed lot. At least one of these trees will most likely have to be removed to accommodate a new dwelling. It is recommended that every effort be made to save these trees if possible. As such, it is requested that approval of this application be subject to an agreement requiring the approval of the location of all proposed buildings prior to any grading, removal of trees or issuance of any building permits. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 168 JULY 17, 2001 2. Submission No.: B 2001-030 (Cont'd) A second concern is with the retaining wall that currently runs across the front of both proposed lots. A potential grading conflict or problem may exist between the two properties. As a result, a grading plan is required prior to the issuance of a building permit. However, this concern does not outweigh the suitability of this lot for severance. Mr. Ruthardt, of 595 Guelph Street (adjacent landowner) has informed staff and provided written comment that he is in objection to the proposed consent. He requests that the two large trees be retained, that any future driveway does not abut his property, that any new dwelling not exceed one storey in height, and that the side yard setbacks be increased to 1.8 metres (6 feet) as opposed to the current requirement of 1.2 metres (4 feet). Mr. Ruthardt has provided staff with photographs of the two trees he is requesting be preserved. Planning Staff recommend that consent application B 2001-030 be approved, subject to the following conditions: That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. 2. To make satisfactory arrangements with Engineering Services for new sanitary, water and storm (if applicable) connections to the severed and retained lands as required. 3. That the owner make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of Engineering Services for the installation, to City standards of a paved driveway ramp on the severed lands and/or retained lands. 4. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to be prepared by the City Solicitor and registered on title of the severed lands which shall include the following: a) That the owner agrees to submit a building location plan showing the proposed location of all buildings (including accessory buildings) decks and driveways and the location, species, size and condition of all existing trees on the lands to be severed and to obtain approval of same from the City's Principal Planner prior to any grading, tree removal, or the issuance of any building permits. b) That the owner agrees to implement the approved plan. No changes to the said plan shall be granted except with the prior approval of the City's Principal Planner. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building, the Traffic & Parking Analyst, the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no objections or concerns with respect to this application. The Committee noted that the written submission of Mr. & Mrs. S. Ruthardt, 595 Guelph Street, noting that their property is adjacent to the proposed severed lot and that they are opposed to the application. They note that they purchased their property because it is located between two large lots. They also noted that the permitted sideyard of 4 ft. and the narrow lot widths will locate the new home on the severed lot uncomfortably close to their home. Mr. & Mrs. Ruthardt advise in their letter of two mature trees at the front of Mr. Simpson's property and state their concern that these trees may be cut down to allow for the construction on the proposed severed lot. They request some input on the style and location of the house to be constructed and the location of the driveway for the severed lot. Mr. & Mrs. Ruthardt were in attendance to emphasize their concerns expressed in their written submission. Mr. Simpson responded that of the two trees located at the front of the property, one will have to be removed to allow for access to the property for construction. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 169 JULY 17, 2001 2. Submission No.: B 2001-030 Cont'd) Ms. Given advised that the City will impose whatever conditions are reasonable to save the vegetation on the site. She noted staff's requested condition no. 4 for a building location plan showing the location of all buildings, decks, driveways and the condition of all existing trees, their species, size and condition. Mr. Britton questioned the sideyard requirement of the zoning by-law and Ms. Given advised that a 4 ft. sideyard is required and a two storey dwelling is permitted. Mr. Britton then questioned whether the building location plan should be a condition of the severance instead of the agreement to provide one. Ms. Given agreed that it could be made a condition; however, this plan is likely to be prepared by the purchaser and not the current owner, who may not be known within one year. As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion. Moved by Mr. P. Britton Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse That the application of Robert and Helen Simpson requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a width on Guelph Street of 10.668 m (35 ft.) by a depth 37.173 m (121.96 ft.) and having an area of 396.561 m2 (4,268.6 sq. ft.) on Part Lot 551, Registered Plan 378, 603 Guelph Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owners shall make satisfactory financial arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. 2. That the owners shall make arrangements satisfactory to the City's Engineering Services for new sanitary sewer, water and storm sewer (if applicable) connections to the severed and retained lands as required. 3. That the owners shall make financial arrangements to the City's Engineering Services for the installation, to City's standards, of a paved driveway ramp on the severed and/or retained land. 4. That the owners shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to be prepared by the City Solicitor and registered on title of the severed lands which shall include the following: a) That the owner agrees to submit a building location plan showing the proposed location of all buildings (including accessory buildings) decks and driveways, and the location, species, size and condition of all existing trees on the lands to be severed, and to obtain approval of the same from the City's Principal Planner prior to any grading, tree removal, or the issuance of any building permits. b) That the owner agrees to implement the approved plan. No changes to the said plan shall be granted except with the prior approval of the City's Principal Planner. 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 July 17, 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 170 2. Submission No.: B 2001-030 (Cont' J U LY 17, 2001 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 3. Submission No.: B 2001-031 Applicant: Sunoco Inc. Property Location: 350 Westmount Road West, Kitchener Legal Description: Part Lot 2, Registered Plan 793, Part Lot 7, Registered Plan 1268 Parts 1 & 2, designated as Reference Plan 58R-4532 Appearances: In Support: None Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land, at the intersection of Westmount Road and Victoria Street, to be developed with a restaurant and a drive-thru. The severed land will have a width on Westmount Road of 74.57 m (244.65 ft) by a depth of 76.67 m (251.54 ft.) and an area of 3,829.25 m2 (41,219 sq. ft.). There will be rights-of-way over the severed and retained lands to allow each parcel to have access to and from Westmount Road and Victoria Street. The Committee noted the comments of Planning Staff, dated July 9, 2001, in which they advised that the subject lands are located at the north-east intersection of Westmount Road and Victoria Street South. The lands are occupied by an existing Sunoco gas bar at the southerly end. The owner proposes to sever the northerly portion of the property with accompanying rights- of-way in favour of each parcel in order to permit a restaurant with a drive-through (Wendy's). The following describes the proposed severance with accompanying rights-of-way: Lands to be severed comprised of Parts 4, 6 and 7 will be conveyed to Wendy's Restaurants of Canada Inc.. A right-of-way over Part 4 in favour of parts 1, 2, 3 and 5 will be provided. Lands to be retained comprised of Parts 1,2, 3 and 5 of the draft plan of survey will be retained by the Owner. A right-of-way over Parts 2 and 5 in favour of Parts 4, 6 and 7 will be provided. This property was the subject of Zone Change application ZC97/5/W/PB. Zoning By-law 2001- 129 was recently approved by City Council in order to re -zone the lands from Service Station Zone (C-7) to Convenience Commercial Zone (C-1) with special regulation 337R to permit a free- standing restaurant. The application was deferred pending a lengthly review of drive-throughs on a city-wide basis. The appeal period to By-law 2001-129 will expire early in August and assuming no appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board, the property will then formally be zoned C-1. Although there have been preliminary discussions on the development of the Wendy's site, a site plan application has not yet been submitted for the development of the lands for the Wendy's restaurant. Staff consider that it would be premature to review and comment on an application for consent when site development and design issues are not approved or finalized. There are key issues surrounding the development of the Wendy's site that require review COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 171 JULY 17, 2001 3. Submission No.: B 2001-031 (Cont'd) and approval, including access (onto Westmount Road and Victoria Street South, both Regional roads), drive-through stacking and mitigation of noise from the order menu station, and other typical items reviewed in the site plan process. In staff's opinion, it would be premature to finalize any lotting pattern or location of rights-of-way without these important site design items first approved through a formal review process. Based on the above comments, staff would recommend that the application be deferred to the September 11, 2001, Committee of Adjustment meeting. This should provide sufficient time for the submission of a site plan application, as well as the review and approval of same. Based on the request of Planning Staff, the Committee agreed to defer its consideration of this application to the Committee of Adjustment meeting scheduled for Tuesday, September 11, 2001. 4. Submission Nos.: B 2001-032 & B 2001-033 Applicant: Edmund Farrage Property Location: 16 Natchez Road Legal Description: Part Lot 122, German Company Tract, designated as Parts 1, 5 & 6 on Reference Plan RP58R-5933 Appearances: In Support: Mr. E. Farrage 185 Goulding Avenue Toronto, Ontario Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to create two new residential lots on the north side of this property, for the construction of single family dwellings. The new lots will have an approximate width of 13.95 m (45.8 ft.) on Natchez Road, a depth of approximately 44.8 m (147 ft.) and approximate area of 585.27 m2 (6300 sq. ft.). The Committee noted the comments of Planning Staff, dated July 9, 2001, in which they advised that the subject property is located on the east side of Natchez Road between Rothsay Avenue and Matthew Street and contains an existing one and a half storey single detached dwelling which was constructed in approximately 1945 and two accessory buildings. In 1987 the subject property was rezoned from Township Agricultural to Restricted Residential (R2A) to facilitate the severance of the rear of the property for three lots for single detached dwellings. Reference Plan 58R-5933 was prepared to show three parts fronting onto Matthew Street and three parts fronting onto Natchez Road. Consents for the three lots on Matthew Street were granted in 1987 and again in 1989 after the initial consents lapsed for failure of the applicant to fulfil the conditions. Consent to sever two additional lots on Natchez Road, as shown on Reference Plan 58R-5933, was never obtained by the previous owner of the subject property. The current owner proposes to sever the two parts fronting onto Natchez Road, as shown on Reference Plan 58R-5933, for two new single detached dwellings. One of the lots, shown as Part 5 on 58R-5933, will have a frontage on Natchez Road of 13.7 metres (45 feet), a depth of approximately 44.8 metres (147 feet), and an area of 594.9 square metres (6,404 square feet). The second lot, shown as Part 6 on 58R-5933, will have a frontage on Natchez Road of 13.7 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 172 JULY 17, 2001 4. Submission Nos.: B 2001-32 & B 2001-033 (Cont' metres (45 feet), a depth of approximately 43.9 metres (144 feet), and an area of 584.5 square metres (6,292 square feet). Natchez Road currently contains a mix of uses and lot sizes. Within the last year, the Committee of Adjustment approved a consent and minor variance to create an 11.3 metre lot at 30 Natchez Road for the construction of a single detached dwelling by Habitat For Humanity. The City's municipal plan recognizes that the creation of additional housing through infill and redevelopment is an appropriate response to changing housing needs and is a way to make efficient use of existing infrastructure. Each of the proposed lots will be of a sufficient size to accommodate a single detached dwelling and outdoor amenity area. As the proposed residential use and configuration of the lots will be in conformity with the "R-3" zone and will be compatible with the existing uses and pattern of development in the surrounding area, it would be appropriate to recommend approval of Consent applications B2001-032 and B2001-033. Planning Staff recommend that Consent Application B2001-032 be approved, 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 lands to be severed. 2. That the existing fence along the frontage of the proposed lot be removed. 3. That the owner makes financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Assistant General Manager of Engineering Services, for the design, extension and installation of the water main and sanitary sewer main across the frontage of the severed lands, and for the installation of all new service connections to the severed lands. 4. That the owner makes financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Assistant General Manager of Engineering Services for the installation, to the City's standards, of boulevard landscaping including street trees, and a paved driveway ramp, on the severed lands. 5. That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. Planning Staff recommend that Consent Application B2001-033, be approved, 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 lands to be severed. 2. That the existing fence along the frontage of the proposed lot, the fence which currently encloses the rear yard of 16 Natchez Road, and the concrete wall /landing to the north of the existing dwelling, be removed. 3. That the owner makes financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Assistant General Manager of Engineering Services, for the design, extension, and installation of water main and sanitary sewer main across the frontage of the severed lands, and for the installation of all new service connections to the severed lands. 4. That the owner makes financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services for the installation, to the City's standards, of boulevard landscaping including street trees, and a paved driveway ramp, on the severed lands. 5. 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, the Traffic & Parking Analyst, the Department of Planning, Housing & Community Services for the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no concerns or objections to the above applications. As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 173 JULY 17, 2001 4. Submission Nos.: B 2001-032 & B 2001-033 (Cont' Submission No. B2001-032 Moved by Mr. P. Britton Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse That the application of Edmund Farrage requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a width on Natchez Road of 13.96 m (45.81 ft.) by a depth of 44.78 m (146.93 ft.) having an area of 594.93 sq. m (6,404 sq. ft.) on Part Lot 122, German Company Tract, being Part 5, Reference Plan 58R-5933, 16 Natchez Road, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall pay to the City of Kitchener a cash -in -lieu of parkland dedication equal to 5% of the value of the land to be severed. 2. That the owner shall remove the existing fence along the frontage of the severed land. 3. That the owner shall make financial arrangements satisfactory to the City's Engineering Services for the design, extension and installation of the water main and sanitary sewer main across the frontage of the severed land, and for the installation of all new service connections to the severed land. 4. That the owner shall make financial arrangements satisfactory to the City's Engineering Services for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping including street trees and a paved driveway ramp, on the severed land. 5. That the owner shall make arrangements satisfactory to 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 July 17, 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 Submission No. B2001-033 Moved by Mr. P. Britton Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse That the application of Edmund Farrage requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a width on Natchez Road of 13.97 m (45.85 ft.) by a depth of 43.89 m (144 ft.) and having an area of 584.52 sq. m (6,292 sq. ft.) on Part Lot 122, German Company Tract, being Part 6, Reference Plan 58R-5933, 16 Natchez Road, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall pay to the City of Kitchener a cash -in -lieu of parkland dedication equal to 5% of the value of the land to be severed. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 174 JULY 17, 2001 4. Submission Nos.: B 2001-032 & B 2001-033 (Cont'd) 2. That the owner shall remove the existing fence along the frontage of the severed land, the fence which currently encloses the rearyard of 16 Natchez Road and the concrete wall/landing to the north of the existing building. 3. That the owner shall make financial arrangements satisfactory to the City's Engineering Services for the design, extension and installation of the water main and sanitary sewer main across the frontage of the severed land, and for the installation of all new service connections to the severed land. 4. That the owner shall make financial arrangements satisfactory to the City's Engineering Services for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping including street trees and a paved driveway ramp, on the severed land. 5. That the owner shall make arrangements satisfactory to 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 July 17, 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 5. Submission No.: B 2001-034 Applicant: Paul & Valerie Matusek Property Location: 174 and 176 Coach Hill Drive, Kitchener Legal Description: Part Lot 14, Registered Plan 1329 Appearances: In Support: Mr. P. Matusek 174-176 Coach Hill Drive Kitchener, Ontario Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to separate title of each half of this semi-detached dwelling so that each of the two owners can have separate title to one of the semi-detached dwelling units. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 175 JULY 17, 2001 5. Submission No.: B 2001-034 (Cont'd) The Committee noted the comments of Planning Staff, dated July 10, 2001, in which they advised that the subject lands are located on the easterly side of Coach Hill Drive with the rear lot line adjacent to Homer Watson Boulevard. The lot is approximately 2019 square metres (21733 square feet) in area and contains a semi-detached dwelling unit constructed in the early 1970's. Although the two dwellings municipally known as 174 and 176 Coach Hill Drive currently function as if each were located on a separate residential lot, the semi-detached dwelling unit is situated on one lot. A severance is required to permit the conveyance of the dwellings independently of one another to prospective purchasers. The retained lot would have an area of 1035 square metres (11,141 square feet) and the severed parcel would have an area of 984 square metres (10,592 square feet). Staff has reviewed the application for consent and has determined that it is technical in nature in that it will recognize 174 Coach Hill Drive and 176 Coach Hill Drive 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, staff have no concerns with this application for consent. Staff recommend that Consent Application B2001-034 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, the Traffic & Parking Analyst and the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no concerns with or objections to the application. The Committee considered the comments of the Department of Planning, Housing & Community Services, Regional Municipality of Waterloo, in which they advised that this property is adjacent to Homer Watson Boulevard where projected noise levels may cause concern to individuals living at this location. They requested that the owners be required to enter into an agreement with the Region, for both the severed and retained lands, to include a noise warning clause in offers to purchase, deeds and rental agreements. The Committee noted the comments of Kitchener -Wilmot Hydro Inc. in which they recommended that Consent Application B2001-034 be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. If the request to separate title proceeds, the applicant must make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener -Wilmot Hydro Inc. for the relocation of the electrical service to the land to be retained, before the severance is granted. Presently, the existing electrical service to the land to be retained, crosses the land to be severed. 2. That the applicant make arrangements for the granting of any easements required by Kitchener -Wilmot Hydro Inc. before the severances are granted. The Committee discussed with Mr. Matusek the noise warning clause required by the Region. Mr. Matusek noted that he and his wife purchased these properties in 1978 and are fully aware of the noise related to Homer Watson Boulevard. The Committee pointed out that the purpose of the noise warning clause is to warn future owners/inhabitants of the property of the noise associated with Homer Watson Boulevard. The Committee then discussed the requested conditions of Kitchener -Wilmot Hydro Inc., particularly the potential need for an easement and the fact that the decision of this Committee, should the application be approved, would have to include the granting of the easement. Mr. S. Kay stated that he would not be prepared to grant an easement without knowing the extent and location of the easement. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 176 JULY 17, 2001 5. Submission No.: B 2001-034 (Cont'd) In reference to the requested conditions of the Region and Hydro, Mr. Matusek stated that he did not know if he could meet these conditions without first discussing them with the co-owner, and if they were costly, he had a concern because he is on a disability pension. The Chair explained that in order for the application to be granted, these conditions would have to be imposed. He also noted that if Mr. Matusek decided not to proceed with the severance of these lands, the conditions would not have to be fulfilled. As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion. Moved by Mr. P. Britton Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse That the application of Paul and Valerie Matusek requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a width on Coach Hill Drive of 8.01 m (26.91 ft.) by a depth on the northerly side of 74.77 m (245.33 ft.) and on the southerly side of 54.3 m (178.17 ft.) and having an area of 984 sq. m (10,592 sq. ft.), together with easements which may be required by the Kitchener -Wilmot Hydro Inc., on Part Lot 14, Registered Plan 1329, 176 Coach Hill Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owners shall enter into an agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, for both the severed and retained lands, to include the following noise warning clause in all offers to purchase, and deeds or rental agreements: "Due to the proximity of Homer Watson Boulevard (Regional Road No. 28) projected noise levels on this property exceed the Noise Level Objectives approved by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, and may cause concerns to some individuals." 2. That the owners shall make arrangements satisfactory to Kitchener -Wilmot Hydro Inc. for the relocation of the electrical service for the land to be retained. 3. That the owners shall make arrangements for the granting of any easements which may be required by Kitchener -Wilmot Hydro, with any easements so granted being identified on a reference 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 July 17, 2003. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. 2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. 3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 177 JULY 17, 2001 6. Submission Nos.: B 2001-035 & A 2001-045 Applicant: Maple Freezers Inc. Property Location: 352 Maple Avenue, Kitchener Legal Description: Part of Lot 117, Registered Plan 666, Part of Lot "F", Registered Plan 40, and Part Lots 2, 8, 9, Municipal Compiled Plan of Lot 59, German Company Tract Appearances: In Support: Mr. Gary Auer 582 Frederick Street Kitchener, Ontario Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having a width on Maple Avenue of 39.7 m (130.24 ft.) by a depth of 139.45 m (457.51 ft.) and having an area of 0.8365 ha (2.066 ac) and having an irregular shape. The applicant also requests permission to retain a right-of-way over the severed lands in favour of the retained lands. In addition, the applicant requests legalization of the northerly sideyard on the largest building on the lands to be severed of 0.3 m (.98 ft.) rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.) and legalization of a sideyard abutting Arnold Street, for the main building on the retained lands, of 5.2 m (17.06 ft.) rather than the required 6 m (19.68 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of Planning Staff, dated July 10, 2001, in which they advise that the applicant is requesting permission to create one new lot by severing a parcel of land (previously known as 386 Maple Avenue and a portion of 352 Maple Avenue) and retaining a parcel of land (352 Maple Avenue). The lands to be severed consist of a 1662 m2 (17,900 square foot) concrete block and brick building that was originally built around 1950 and has been used for warehousing, storage of lumber and woodworking business. There is also a separate small brick building on the severed lands that is located closer to the Maple Avenue frontage (originally a separate property) and the building has been used for a plumbing business. The severed parcel would have a lot width of 39.7 metres (130.2 feet), a depth of 139.4 metres (457.5 feet) and a lot area of 0.84 hectares (2.07 acres). The lot would be irregular in shape in that there is an old rail right-of-way, driveway and storage area to the rear of the buildings leading to the north with frontage on Union Street. The applicant has further requested permission for the existing large building on the severed lands to have a side yard setback of 0.3 metres (0.98 feet) rather than the required 1.2 metres (3.94 feet) in Zoning By- law 85-1. It should be noted that this requested variance should be 0.31 metres (1.02 feet) not 0.3 metres as indicated on the application to reflect the submitted consent drawing. The lands to be retained have frontage on Maple Avenue and Arnold Street and contain a large industrial building constructed prior to 1959 with several large additions. The site has a long history of being used as a meat packing, processing and storage facility by several companies. The retained parcel would have frontage of 145.5 metres (477.4 feet) on Maple Avenue, a depth ranging between 139.4 metres (457.5 feet) to 217.1 metres (712.3 feet) along Arnold street, and an area of 2.54 hectares (6.28 acres). The side yard abutting Arnold Street for the main building is considered to be legal non -conforming as long as the property is used for meat packing, etc. only. The applicant has requested permission to legalize the side yard abutting Arnold Street at 5.2 metres (17.1 feet) rather than the required 6.0 metres (19.7 feet). It should be noted that this requested variance should be 5.26 (17.26) metres not 5.2 metres as indicated on the application since the submitted plan and previous plans in City records show the building with a 5.26 metre setback. The applicant has further requested consent for COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 178 JULY 17, 2001 6. Submission Nos.: B 2001-035 & A 2001-045 (Cont'd) a 6.0 metre (19.7 foot) wide right-of-way along the common property line on the severed lands, in favour of the retained lands, for vehicular and truck access to a loading building. Both the severed and retained lands are designated General Industrial in the North Ward Secondary Plan with a Special Policy to allow the processing of meat and poultry products. The use of the lands for industrial -related purposes is consistent with the Secondary Plan designation. The lands are zoned General Industrial (M-2), with Special Use Provision 149U to allow the processing of meat and poultry products. Both the severed and retained lands comply with the requirements of the M-2 zoning and parking, except for the two variances that have been requested. Consent In regards to the request for the consent, both of the existing buildings on the severed lands were apparently at one time on separate lots from the large meat packing plant on the retained lands and have since merged into one lot. The consent is appropriate for the use of the land in accordance with the Secondary Plan designation for this area and maintains the requirements of the Zoning By-law, except for the requested side yard variances on the severed and retained lands. In addition, the buildings on the severed lands have historically been a separate use than the meat packing plant on the retained lands and therefore are not functionally required to be one lot. The severance would facilitate an easier sale or lease of either the severed or retained lands given that they would be two separate and smaller lots. The requested right-of-way should not pose any problems as most of the non -building area is paved or gravel and most likely been historically shared between the severed and retained lands for vehicle and truck access, circulation and loading at the accessory building on the retained lands that is closest to the severed parcel. Minor Variances Of the two minor variances, the variance to the side yard setback abutting Arnold Street for the existing main building on the retained lands to be setback 5.26 metres (17.26 feet) instead of 6.0 metres (19.7 feet) can be considered minor and meets the intent of the Municipal Plan and the Zoning By-law. The existing setback to Arnold Street is considered legal non -conforming for the meat -packing use; however, the applicant wishes to legalize the setback for any permitted use. The intent of the required setback is maintained since there are no other adjacent buildings and the setback is similar to the existing front yard setbacks of buildings across the street. Furthermore, there is no sidewalk along this side of Arnold Street and adequate landscaping and walkway to the front entrance has still been provided between the building and street line. The building has existed for likely more than 50 years and if it were set back further from Arnold Street it would slightly limit the amount of space behind the building for truck loading. The second proposed variance would reduce the side yard setback for the existing large building on the severed lands to 0.3 metres (0.98 feet) rather than the required 1.2 metres (3.94 feet). This proposal appears to be a significant deviation from the required setback; however, it should be clarified that only a portion (approximately 1/3) of the left side of the building (setback 0.31 metres to 0.42 metres), and the front left corner (setback 1.16 metres) would need the variance from the required 1.2 metres. The majority of the building and the entire small, brick building complies with the side yard setback and other setback requirements in the M-2 zone. When considering the test of being `minor' and meeting the intent of the Zoning By-law, the limited amount of the existing building that requires the variance should be taken into account in addition to considering the impact on the surrounding area. Since only a portion of the existing building would need the variance then the amount and location of the impact that the variance might have should be quite limited. At the location that the building is closest to the property line, there is a secondary parking area serving the building on the adjacent property to the north. Furthermore, the building on the severed lands is only about 1.5 stories in height and there is a chain-link fence and some trees separating the existing building from the adjacent parking area. As such, the closeness of a portion of the building on the severed lands to the property line should not significantly encroach upon, or negatively effect the usability of the adjacent property. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 179 JULY 17, 2001 6. Submission Nos.: B 2001-035 & A 2001-045 (Cont'd Therefore, the variance to reduce the side yard setback on the existing large building is considered minor in nature, meets the intent of the Zoning By-law and the intent of the Municipal Plan and is appropriate for the use of the land considering that the severed lands can be considered and sold/leased as one lot that complies with the zoning and can be further used for needed industrial -related uses. Should this variance be approved, it is recommended that it would be appropriate for the owner of the severed lands to establish a maintenance easement on the adjacent property to the north to allow enough room for the proper maintaining of that portion of the building since there is not enough room on the severed lands. Thus, in considering the appropriateness of the applications on this long-standing industrial site, staff supports the application for consent subject to certain conditions and supports the minor variance to reduce the side yard abutting a street to the existing building on the retained lands subject to the variance being revised to be 5.26 metres (17.26 feet) and the minor variance to reduce the side yard setback for the existing large building on the severed lands subject to the variance being revised to be 0.31 metres (1.02 feet). Planning Staff recommend as follows: A. That Minor Variance Application A 2001-045 to reduce the minimum side yard setback abutting a street from 6.0 metres (19.7 feet) as required in Zoning By-law 85-1 to a minimum side yard setback abutting a street of 5.26 metres (17.26 feet) for the existing, main building on the retained lands and to reduce the minimum side yard setback from 1.2 metres (3.94 feet) as required in Zoning By-law 85-1 to a minimum side yard setback of 0.31 metres (1.02 feet) for the existing, larger building on the severed lands, be approved. B. That Consent Application B 2001-035 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Final approval of Minor Variance Application A 2001-045 2. That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. 3. To make satisfactory arrangements with the Assistant General Manager of Public Works to ensure separate sanitary, water and storm (if applicable) connections to each of the severed and retained lands. The Committee noted the comments of Kitchener -Wilmot Hydro Inc. in which they recommend that Submission B 2001-035 and A 2001-045 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the applicant make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener -Wilmot Hydro Inc. for adjustments to the electrical servicing to the lands to be severed before the severances are granted. 2. That the applicant make arrangements for the granting of any easements required by Kitchener -Wilmot Hydro Inc. before the severances are granted. The Committee considered the comments of the Director of Building, the City's Traffic & Parking Analyst and the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no concerns with these applications. The Committee considered the comments of the Department of Planning, Housing & Community Services for the Regional Municipality of Waterloo in which they advised that the subject lands have been identified as being potentially contaminated and are adjacent to lands which are potentially contaminated. Regional Staff do not know if the contamination suspected COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 180 JULY 17, 2001 6. Submission Nos.: B 2001-035 & A 2001-045 (Cont'd) on the lands would pose a health or safety risk to the proposed use of the property. As the lands are not located within a Regional Well Field, the Region does not have a direct corporate interest which would result in the Region requesting a Record of Site Condition be imposed on its behalf. If the Committee decides to impose a Record of Site Condition or other similar requirements, it should be imposed as a condition of the Committee, with the Committee being responsible for its release. In response to the Region's comments, Ms. J. Given provided the Committee members with wording for an additional condition that the City requests be imposed, should Submission No. B2001-035 be granted. Ms. Given read the condition aloud and advised that this condition is standard for all properties suspected of being contaminated but not located in a Regional Wellfield. The members then discussed the imposition of this additional condition; whether it would apply to both the severed and retained lands, and whether the contents of the agreement requested in the condition would be administered separately for each parcel of land. It was noted that the agreement would protect the proposed purchaser at the time of the development. It was suggested that the purchaser would likely request an assessment of the property at the time of purchase. Mr. Kruse noted that should the current owner redevelop this site at this time, a site assessment would not be required. He stated that if a health issue exists on this site, there should be policies and requirements in place. Mr. Britton suggested examining the Region's and the City's Official Plans to determine whether the policies in this regard are clear. Ms. Given reminded the Committee members that they had discussed the Region's protocol with respect to contaminated sites and had been provided with written copies of this protocol. She suggested that a conveyance changes health and safety concerns. Further, the wording of the additional requested condition does not require the current owner to do anything other than enter into the agreement, as they are not making changes to this site. Mr. G. Auer noted that should the whole property be sold, the City could not impose such a condition. He pointed out that these were previously separate properties, which existed that way for many years and the owner is not proposing to redevelop the site. The Committee then questioned Mr. Auer as to whether he wished to amend the minor variance application in accordance with the planning staff comments and he made this request. With respect to the comments of Kitchener -Wilmot Hydro Inc., Mr. Auer advised that he met on site with Hydro staff and was advised that they do not anticipate needing an easement. Mr. Auer then questioned the Committee as to whether a proposed purchaser would have to undertake a site assessment at the building permit stage if they receive a Record of Site Condition when they purchase the property and the Committee responded that they could not provide an answer to his question and that he should discuss the matter with staff. As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion. Submission No. B2001-035 Moved by Mr. P. Britton Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse That the application of Maple Freezers Inc. requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a width on Maple Avenue of 39.7 m (130.24 ft.) by a depth of 139.45 m (457.51 ft.) and having a area of 0.8365 h (2.066 acres); subject to a right-of-way having a width of 6 m (19.68 ft.) by a depth of 77.61 m (254.62 ft.) in favour of the retained lands; and subject to and/or together with any easements as may be required by Kitchener -Wilmot Hydro Inc. for the provision of electrical services to the severed and/or retained lands, on Part Lot 177, Registered Plan 666, Part Lot F, Registered Plan 40, and Part Lots 2, 8 & 9, Municipal Compiled Plan of Lot 59, German Company Tract, 352 Maple Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 181 JULY 17, 2001 6. Submission Nos.: B 2001-035 & A 2001-045 (Cont'd) 1. That the owner shall receive final approval of Submission No. A 2001-045. 2. That the owner shall make arrangements satisfactory to the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. 3. That the owner shall make arrangements satisfactory to the City's Engineering Services to ensure proper separate sanitary, water and storm (if applicable) connections to each of the severed and retained lands. 4. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener, to be prepared by the City solicitor and registered on title of both the severed and retained lands, which shall require that prior to commencement of any grading on the site, and prior to the issuance of any building permits, the owner shall undertake a site assessment for both the severed and retained lands in accordance with the Guidelines for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario. A copy of the Record of Site Condition, acknowledged by the Ministry of Environment and Energy, shall be provided to the City's Principal Planner. This agreement shall be administered separately for each of the severed and retained lands. 5. That the owner shall make arrangements satisfactory to Kitchener -Wilmot Hydro Inc. for adjustments to the electrical servicing to the lands to be severed. 6. The owner shall grant any easements required by Kitchener -Wilmot Hydro and any easements so granted shall be shown on a reference 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 July 17, 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 Submission No. A2001-045 Moved by Mr. P. Britton Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse That the application of Maple Freezers Inc. requesting legalization of the sideyard abutting Arnold Street for the main building on the retained land of 5.26 m (17.26 ft.) rather than the required 6 m (19.68 ft.) and legalization of the northerly sideyard on the largest building on the severed land of 0.31 m (1.02 ft.) rather than the required 1.2 m (3.94 ft.) on Part Lot 117, Registered Plan 666, Part Lot F, Registered Plan 40 and Part Lots 2, 8 & 9, Municipal Compiled Plan of Lot 59, German Company Tract, 352 and 386 Maple Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the variances as approved in this application shall apply to the existing buildings only as shown on the plan submitted with this application. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 182 JULY 17, 2001 6. Submission Nos.: B 2001-035 & A 2001-045 (Cont'd) It is the opinion of this Committee that: The variances requested in this application are minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried Mr. D. Cybalski entered the meeting at this time. 7. Submission Nos.: B 2001-037 & A 2001-047 Applicant: 1340443 Ontario Inc. — Ron Johnson Property Location: 52 Mansion Street Legal Description: Part Lot 28, Registered Plan 379 Appearances: In Support: None Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant's request permission to divide this property in half for the purpose of developing the property with two semi-detached dwelling units. Also, a request has been made for permission for each of the two lots to have a width of 6.02 m (19.75 ft.) rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.) and an area of 144.95 m2 (1560.27 sq. ft.) rather than the required 235 m2 (2529.6 sq. ft.). Planning comments dated July 11, 2001, advise that the applicant is requesting permission to create one new lot by severing a parcel of land and retaining another parcel of land at 52 Mansion Street. The severed and retained lands are proposed to be developed with two semi- detached dwelling units. In addition, the applicant is also requesting permission for the severed and retained parcels to have maximum lot widths of 6.02 m. (19.75 ft.) rather than the required 7.5 m. (24.6 ft.) and maximum lot areas of 144.5 sq. m. (1,554.8 sq. ft.), rather than the required 235 sq. m. (2528.6 sq. ft.). The lands at 52 Mansion Street have recently been severed from 175 Queen Street North with approval of a minor variance for lot width and lot area (132001-013 & A2001-010). At that time the applicant indicated the intent to build two semi-detached dwelling units which is a permitted use in the R-7 zoning. Subsequently, the Committee found in favour of the recommendation to approve the application. The applicant has now requested that this application be deferred to the August 14th, 2001 Committee meeting, so that the foundation for the semi-detached units can be poured. This will allow the applicant to locate and establish the precise location of the proposed lot lines so that, in the event of an approval, the newly created parcels can be registered. Therefore, staff recommends deferral of this matter to the August 14th meeting until the proposed lot line locations can be established. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 183 JULY 17, 2001 7. Submission Nos.: B 2001-037 & A 2001-047 (Cont'd) The Committee was in receipt of correspondence from Mr. Ron Johnson agreeing to the deferral of these applications; consequently, the Committee agreed to defer consideration of these applications to their meeting scheduled for Tuesday, August 14, 2001. 8. Submission Nos.: B 2001-036 & A 2001-046 Applicant: Sarah Ann Major Corfield Property Location: 1680 Fischer -Hallman Road, Kitchener Legal Description: Part of Lot 158, German Company Tract Mr. P. Kruse declared a pecuniary interest in these applications as his law firm represents the applicant and did not participate in any discussion or voting with respect to this application. Mr. P. Britton declared a pecuniary interest in this application as an abutting property owner is a client of his firm, and he did not participate in any discussion or voting with respect to this application. Messrs. Kruse and Britton left the meeting at this time, and pursuant to the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act these applications were considered by the remaining two members. Appearances: In Support: Mr. R. Lawson 370 Frederick Street Kitchener, Ontario Ms. S. Corfield 178 Bloomingdale Road Kitchener, Ontario Contra: Mr. R. Bell 1650 Fischer -Hallman Road Kitchener, Ontario Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: Mr. & Mrs. R. Bell 1650 Fischer -Hallman Road Kitchener, Ontario The applicant requests permission to sever a parcel of land having a width on Fischer -Hallman Road of 33.528 m (110 ft.) by a depth of 60.96 m (200 ft.) and an area of 2,043.8 m2 (22,000 sq. ft.). The severed lot will contain the existing single family dwelling. The retained lands have a "L" shape, a width on Fischer -Hallman Road of 24.384 m (80 ft.) and an area of 7,399.485 m2 (79,650 sq. ft.). The applicant is also requesting permission for the retained land to have a width of 24.384 m (80 ft.) rather than the required 30 m (98.43 ft.) on Fischer -Hallman Road, and permission for a lot area for the severed land of 2,043.8 m2 (22,000 sq. ft.) rather than the required 4,000 m2 (43,057 sq. ft.). The Committee noted the comments of Planning Staff, dated July 10, 2001, in which they advised that the subject lands are located on the east side of Fischer -Hallman Road (formerly Westmount Road) and include two existing single family dwellings. The dwellings on the subject lands have existed for a number of years (the rear dwelling was constructed in 1953, and the dwelling at the front was built sometime before this date). The subject lands are surrounded by single family dwellings on similar sized lots immediately north and south, and by agricultural lands immediately to the east and across Fischer -Hallman Road to the west. The lands immediately east are proposed to be developed as a Plan of Subdivision by Activa Holdings Inc. (File no. 30T-01201). COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 184 JULY 17, 2001 8. Submission Nos.: B 2001-036 & A 2001-046 (Cont'd) The owner proposes to sever the dwelling at the front of the property on a lot approximately 0.2 hectares in size (approximately 0.5 acres). The lot to be severed would measure 33.53 metres in width and 60.96 metres in depth. The lot to be retained would have a width of 24.38 metres, a depth of 163 metres and an area of 0.74 hectares. A minor variance application has also been submitted to permit the severed lot with an area of 0.2 hectacres rather than the requried 0.4 hectares, and the retained lot with a frontage of 24.38 metres rather than the required 30 metres. A minor revision will be required to the area of both lots as described above. As a result of a 4.27 metre road widening for Fischer -Hallman Road required by the Region, the actual lot area of the severed lands is reduced to 0.19 hectares. The lot area of the lands to be retained would be reduced to 0.73 hectares as a result of the road widening. The subject lands are designated Low Rise Residential in the Municipal Plan. This designation permits a full range of housing types and favours the mixing and integration of different forms of housing to achieve a low overall intensity of use. Other applicable Municipal Plan policy includes Part 2.4.1(6) (services and utilities) which permits development on individual septic systems in unserviced developed areas where it is demonstrated that development will not result in an unacceptable level of environmental impact. As stated earlier, it is understood that two dwellings have existed on the subject lands since 1953. In reviewing the property file, the City accepted that the property could be used as two legal non- conforming residences in July of 1980. Since 1980, it is unclear whether the two residences have been used continuously, and therefore whether it continues to enjoy legal non -conforming status for use as two dwellings. The severance of the front dwelling in effect does not change the existing developed situation, but merely establishes revised ownership boundaries. While a new access will be required for the retained lands, and servicing changes will be required for both the severed and retained lands (see comments below), the general physical appearance of the property can remain largely unchanged. The Region has stated that while their preference for a new access would be from Activa Holdings Inc. lands to the east, they would consider a new access to Fischer -Hallman Road at the extreme northerly limit of the property. There would appear to be sufficient area on site to create a new driveway to the dwelling on the retained lands and at the same time preserve existing mature trees along the likely driveway route. There exist other parcels of a similar size to the proposed severed lot in the immediate vicinity. In 1992, approval was given to sever 1404 Huron Road (southwest intersection of Huron Road and Fischer -Hallman Road) into two residential lots, one with and area of 0.24 hectares, the other with an area of 0.25 hectares (file no. B40/92). As is the case with the subject lands, both these lots are zoned R-1. Special regulation provision 81 R was approved in 1991 in recognition of the intent to create two residential lots on these lands. Also in 1992, approval was given to sever 929 Huron Road (northeast intersection of Huron Road and Fischer -Hallman Road) into two residential lots, one with an area of 0.33 hectares, the other with an area of 0.4 hectares (file no.'s B55/92 and A134/92). These lots are also zoned R-1. A minor variance was also approved in order to permit the 0.33 hectare lot area. Planning staff supported both severance applications and the minor variance application. The currently proposed severed and retained lots are similar in size to those lots approved in 1992. With regard to servicing issues, the owner has provided a geotechnical study prepared by Naylor Engineering which indicates that the proposed severance is possible provided the following is undertaken: • A new septic system will be required for the dwelling on the lot to be severed (it is currently located on the lot to be retained.). • A new well will be required for the dwelling on the lot to be retained (it is now serviced by a well located on the lot to be severed). • Sufficient reserve area to be provided on the lot to be retained for future use if required. In the recommendations, staff propose a condition requiring the Chief Building Official to approve the geotechnical investigation to ensure satisfactory septic services. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 185 JULY 17, 2001 8. Submission Nos.: B 2001-036 & A 2001-046 (Cont'd) When first approached by the applicant about this proposal, staff raised concern regarding the future use of the subject lands and the adjacent three residential properties fronting Fischer - Hallman Road. The lots fronting Fischer -Hallman Road are very deep, implying that the rear portion of these lots might be suitable for development in future. The only obvious method of providing an access to the rear of these lots is by way of a street extending from the Activa Holdings Inc. property. A preliminary review of how this might be achieved indicates that a crescent-shaped street, oriented parallel to the rear property line might be possible within the rear half of these four lots. Staff consider that the severance of the subject lands would likely have no adverse impact on this potential street and lotting pattern, although future lot depths might vary given the current location of the dwelling on the retained lands and accessory buildings on adjacent properties. In order to achieve this option, portions of future streets will have to be created within the Activa plan to provide for the contemplated crescent-shaped street. It may of course be some time before the affected land owners agree on the inclusion of the rear portion of their lands within the Activa plan, but staff consider it is good planning to make provision for potential development in this fashion. The requested minor variances are considered acceptable. Given the creation of residential lots in 1992 in the immediate vicinity of a similar size to the proposed lot to be severed, the proposed 0.2 hectare lot size is appropriate in this location, is adequate to accommodate private services, and does not set an undesirable precedent. The proposed lot width for the retained lands of 24.38 metres is smaller than that of existing residential lots in the immediate vicinity, but coupled with a lot size of 0.74 hectares, does not create an undersized lot. As stated earlier, the proposed severance merely creates new ownership of existing dwellings. For these reasons, staff consider that the proposed minor variances are minor in nature, are appropriate for the use of the lands, and generally conform with the intent of the Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law. A letter of objection has been received in regards to this application from the neighbour immediately north of the subject lands (1650 Fischer -Hallman). This neighbour cites concerns surrounding the proposed lot widths and area for the severed lot, traffic safety on Fischer - Hallman Road, the legality of the rear dwelling, and the aesthetic appearance of two dwellings with two separate driveways. In response to these concerns, comments regarding the appropriateness of lot width and area for both the severed and retained parcels were provided earlier. Regarding traffic safety, the Region has stated that they would consider an access onto Fischer -Hallman Road and no major concerns were cited by the Region in regard to the application. In respect of the legality of the rear dwelling, it would appear that some form of dwelling has existed in this location since 1953 according to records in the City's property file, and notwithstanding the fact that its current legal non -conforming status is unclear, the dwelling remains today and appears to be currently occupied. Finally, in regard to the appearance of the dwellings with separate driveways, the physical appearance of the property will likely remain unchanged as a result of the severance, even with the addition of a single driveway. There already exists a substantial lot area and the proposed driveway should not create a significant change to its overall appearance. Based on the above comments, Planning Staff recommend that applications B2001-036 and A2001-046 be approved subject to the following conditions: A. That Submission A2001-046, subject to the application being amended to permit the severed lands with an area of 0.19 hectares and the retained lands with an area of 0.73 hectares, and without conditions. B. That Submission B2001-036, subject to the application being amended to permit the severed lands with an area of 0.19 hectares and the retained lands with an area of 0.73 hectares, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Final approval of minor variance application A2001-046. 2. That the owner shall submit, for the review of the City's Chief Building Official, a geotechnical investigation competed by a professional engineer confirming the suitability of the severed and retained lots for a private in -ground sewage disposal system. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 186 JULY 17, 2001 8. Submission Nos.: B 2001-036 & A 2001-046 (Cont'd) 3. That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. 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 or objections with respect to these applications. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning, Housing & Community Services and the Transportation Planner for the Regional Municipality of Waterloo in which they advised that with respect to Submission No. B 2001-036, the location at Fischer -Hallman Road has an original road allowance width of 66 feet and a designated road allowance width of 100 feet. A previous widening of approximately 20 feet has been acquired on the west side of Fischer -Hallman Road which results in an 86 foot road allowance. As a result, an approximate 14 foot road widening is required from this property to obtain the full 100 foot designated road width. The exact amount of widening must be determined by an Ontario Land Surveyor. They would prefer to have access to the severed lot obtained at the rear of the lot from the proposed Activa development. If this is not possible, they will consider access to Fischer - Hallman Road at the extreme northerly limit of the property. Due to the severe grade differential from Fischer -Hallman Road to the property in this area, care will have to be undertaken to insure that the access is designated to conform with the Region's access standards. A Regional Road Entrance Permit will be required. The Owner/Applicant must prepare a detailed Grading and Drainage Control Plan which shall be submitted to the Commissioner of Engineering of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo for approval. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall show all existing and proposed connections to the Municipal Services. The plan shall also show the appropriate road allowance restoration in accordance with Region of Waterloo standards where applicable. The site must be constructed in accordance with the approved Grading and Drainage Control Plan. The Department advises 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(s) prior to the issuance of a building permit. With respect to Submission B 2001-36, the Department advises that they have no objections to the approval of the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That the applicant obtain a Regional Road Access Permit for the proposed lot: 2. That the applicant submit a Lot Grading and Drainage Plan for the entire property to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Housing and Community Services. The Lot Grading and Drainage Plan should illustrate the drainage details for the subject site, abutting properties, and road allowances to ensure compatible drainage. The Lot Grading and Drainage Plan shall also show all existing and proposed connections to Municipal Services and show the appropriate road allowance restoration in accordance with Region of Waterloo standards where applicable; and 3. That the applicant convey a 14 foot road widening allowance to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. The exact amount of widening must be determined by an Ontario Land Surveyor. The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no concerns or objections to the above -noted applications. The Committee noted the written submission of Mr. & Mrs. R. Bell, 1650 Fischer -Hallman Road, Kitchener in which they advised that they are concerned about the application to sever a parcel of land next to their property (1680 Fischer -Hallman Road) recently bought by Mr. Steve Vogel. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 187 JULY 17, 2001 8. Submission Nos.: B 2001-036 &A 2001-046 (Cont'd) Regulations state that properties facing Fischer -Hallman Road are required to have 200 feet of frontage. The unsevered property in question is presently under the requirements, at 190 feet, and should not be deceased any further. This is a very dangerous stretch of highway and many accidents have occurred in front of their house. There is a knoll as you approach their properties from the south and another hidden driveway entering onto the highway will only compound the safety problem. However, Mr. & Mrs. Bell have many more concerns than the fact that the two severed properties do not meet regulations for required frontage, and the severed property falls far short of the required area. They have always been friendly and caring neighbours, but the situation that has been thrust upon them has them very concerned and they feel the City must certainly protect their interests. They feel it is necessary to inform the Committee of the recent history relating to the two properties at 1650 and 1680, and then maybe the Committee will understand why they disagree with the severance application. The two properties were owned by the Schott family up to 1971. They were able to sever the land, and Mr. & Mrs. Bell bought the 2.5 acre property they presently live on, and they built their house in 1972. The Schott property had only 190 feet of frontage, but the severance was allowed. On their property stood a modest cement block house and a horse barn. The Schott family then sold their property in 1971 to the Berger family. The Berger family maintained the property and were excellent neighbours. Their son, Gary, gutted the interior of the barn, and set up the lower level as a garage, similar to its present condition. He became involved in a business where he cleaned up used cars for various car dealerships, and the garage was used for this purpose. He also turned the upper area into a living quarters for himself, with kitchen and bathroom facilities. It is doubtful if this was done with a building permit since a second residence on a given property was prohibited. The building of the residence did not bother the Bells and they made no mention of it. The Berger family then sold the property to the Kraishnik family. They maintained the property somewhat, and eventually rented the area above the garage which the Bells felt was illegal. Again, the Bells had no problem with the arrangement, and in fact they befriended the renters, the Fournier family. Mr. Fournier painted cars in the garage and the Bells painted one of their own vehicles together. The Kraisnick house burned down and they rebuilt the present structure which was far more upscale than the old house. The Kraishnicks sold their property (about 1980) to an American couple, the Orendorfs. They were meticulous about the property, and were excellent neighbours. They did not use the living quarters above the garage. Unfortunately, they moved back to the United States a few years later. The property was then sold to a family which had recently immigrated to Canada from Libya, the EI Ghezali family. The property gradually deteriorated. They ran a business which resulted in a lot of metal beams and equipment being strewn all over their back property. Also, old cars began to accumulate there as well. As years passed extended family began to reside, off and on, in the residence above the garage. Again, the Bells did not complain or report any breach of bylaws. The Bells advised that this past spring, Mr. Vogel bought the property. One day after signing the deal he phoned the Bells, asking if they were aware of the future residential development coming their way. After finally identifying himself as the new owner of 1680 Fischer -Hallman Road, he suggested the Bells look into severing their land. He indicated to the Bells that he had no interest residing on the property. A meeting took place at Country Hills Community Centre involving concerned residents and representatives from the City of Kitchener and Activa Holdings Inc., Mr. Vogel indicated that if the Bells decided not to sever they would lose in the end. Glen Richardson who chaired the meeting, appeared to mention that there were two residences on the Vogel property, and severance was being asked so both residences could have access to Fischer -Hallman. Although the Bells would have to obtain legal representation to search the truth, they would hazard a guess that the residence above the garage has never been approved, and should not even exist. Renters or anyone else should not be allowed to occupy it. Has a building permit ever been approved for constructing a residence above the COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 188 JULY 17, 2001 8. Submission Nos.: B 2001-036 & A 2001-046 (Cont'd) garage? Has a building permit ever been given for the work presently being done on this residence? If a "double standard" exists, the Bells expect some answers. When they built a two-storey, storage barn on their own property in 1994, the individual who gave them the building permit was suspicious that with their large family they were planning on having some of their children living on the upper floor. Only after assuring him that this was not the case was a building permit issued. The Bells feel that Mr. Vogel is speculating, and cares little about the Bell's situation. Even if the back residence is somehow legal, two residences vertically in line with each other, each with a separate entrance onto Fischer -Hallman is aesthetically damaging to the surrounding properties. Considering the fact that they all have their own wells and septic systems, the Bells feel that it would not be permissible to to build a completely new structure on the remaining L-shaped property. Lastly, the Bells feel it is obvious that their future intention is to sever off the back half of the existing property to join onto the residential development, which presently will reach the back of our properties. Mr. Lawson addressed the Committee stating that the situation involves two existing single family dwellings, one built in 1953 and one prior to that. When they were constructed they were legal, and as late as 1980, the City considers them to be legal non -conforming. He and his client maintain that they are still legal non -conforming. A new driveway, farther from Huron Road, is proposed for one of the lots, as, currently both houses exit the property via one driveway which is close to Huron Road. Mr. Lawson stated that there have been other severances in the immediate area and the lot sizes proposed in these applications are close to those existing in the area. The Chair questioned whether the applicant has considered the requirements of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and Mr. Lawson advised that the conditions were expected and can be met. Mr. R. Bell, 1680 Fischer -Hallman Road, addressed the Committee advising that he is opposed to these applications as he does not consider the variances to be minor, and there is a by-law which should apply to everyone. He stated that he and his family want to be treated fairly. He stated that he sees no justification for Planning Staff's support of these applications, stating that Planning Staff is in collusion with the property owner and is compromising Mr. Bell and his family; as he was of the opinion that the owner is only interested in making money and will never live at this property. Mr. Bell then reviewed the history of this property, as outlined in his written submission, specifically as it relates to the use of the rear building for residential purposes. Mr. Lawson pointed out that the City has a letter on file stating that the existence of two single family dwellings on this property is legal non -conforming. Ms. Given advised that the Staff comments point out that Staff are not certain whether the two single family dwellings on this property are legal non -conforming; however, she stated that the use of the property for two single family dwellings is not the basis of the Staff recommendation. The Staff recommendation has been made because Staff are of the opinion that approval of these applications is good planning. Mr. Bell continued to comment on the Staff report noting that the appearance of this property has been unkept for the past 50 years. He questioned the grade of the driveway and then referred to the recent history of the severances in this area, specifically as they relate to the size of the previously severed lots. Mr. Bell again discussed the second dwelling, stating that it is a barn which is an inferior shack; noting that the owners have started to improve on this building and questioning where the authority came from to allow the owners to undertake these improvements. Mr. Bell then referred to statements in the Planning Staff report with respect to potential access to the rear of this property from the Activa subdivision. Mr. Lawson remarked that the potential for access from the Activa subdivision will not be available until some time in the future; however, Staff thought this option should be explored. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 189 JULY 17, 2001 8. Submission Nos.: B 2001-036 & A 2001-046 (Cont'd) Mr. Bell concluded by stating that he has lived in this area for a long time and he doubted whether or not the property owner would ever live at this property. There are four properties in this area which are quite uniform and this proposal is totally incongruent to the other properties. He again questioned why Staff are supporting this proposal stating that they are in collusion with the owner. Mr. Lawson addressed the Committee stating that is irrelevant to the planning merits of these applications that the owner may make a profit and may not live at the property. He pointed out that Mr. Bell is the only objector and there are other neighbours more directly affected by these applications. Currently this property is in a poor state of repair and Mr. Lawson noted that the owners purchased this property at the end of May and haven't had an opportunity to complete the cleanup of the property. The Chair responded to Mr. Bell's submission by stating that if there were no provisions for some flexibility to the by-law, this Committee would not exist. In certain circumstances there should be flexibility to the rigidity of the by-law. He stated that the Staff recommendation is not based on whether the rear building is a legal non -conforming dwelling, but is based on consideration as to whether it is reasonable to allow this property to be divided into two lots. He also pointed out that whether the owner makes a profit on this proposal is not Planning consideration; also, owner occupation of the property is not a Planning consideration. The Chair then thanked those in attendance for their participation. Submission No. B2001-036 Moved by Mr. D. Cybulski Seconded by Mr. S. Kay That the application of Sarah Ann Major Corfield requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a width on Fischer -Hallman Road of 33.528 m (110 ft.) by a depth of approximately 56.69 m (186 ft.) (after road widening) and an area of approximately 1900 m2 (20,452 sq. ft.) (after road widening) on Part Lot 158, German Company Tract, 1680 Fischer -Hallman Road, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: That the owner shall receive final approval of Submission No. A 2001-046. 2. That the owner shall submit, for review by the City's Chief Building Official, a geotechnical investigation completed by a professional engineer, confirming the suitability of the severed and retained lots for private in -ground sewage disposal systems. 3. That the owner shall make arrangements satisfactory to the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. 4. That the owner shall obtain approval of a Regional Road Access Permit for the lands to be retained. 5. That the owner shall submit a Lot Grading and Drainage Control Plan for the entire property, satisfactory to the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Housing & Community Services, illustrating the following: a) Drainage details for the severed and retained lands, abutting properties and road allowances, to ensure compatible drainage; b) All existing and proposed connections to municipal services; and, c) Appropriate road allowance restoration in accordance with Region of Waterloo Standards, where applicable. 6. That the owner shall convey to the Region of Waterloo, without cost and free of encumbrance, a 14 ft. road widening allowance, across the frontage of the severed and COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 190 JULY 17, 2001 8. Submission Nos.: B 2001-036 & A 2001-046 (Cont'd) retained lands; with the exact amount of the widening to be determined by an Ontario Land Surveyor. 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 July 17, 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 Submission No. A2001-046 Moved by Mr. D. Cybulski Seconded by Mr. S. Kay That the application of Sarah Ann Major Corfield requesting permission for the severed land to have an area of 1900 m2 (20,452 sq. ft.) (after road widening) rather than the required 4,000 m2 (43,057 sq. ft.) and permission for the retained land to have a width of 24.384 m (80 ft.) rather than the required 30 m (98.43 ft.) on Part Lot 158, German Company Tract, 1680 Fischer -Hallman Road, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 12:20 p.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 17th day of July, 2001. Dianne H. Gilchrist Acting Secretary -Treasurer Committee of Adjustment