HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2001-08-14COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
FOR THE
CITY OF KITCHENER
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD AUGUST 14, 2001
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Messrs. P. Kruse, P. Britton and D. Cybalski.
OFFICIALS PRESENT:
Ms. J. Given, Principal Planner and Ms. J. Billett, Secretary-Treasurer.
Mr. P. Kruse, Vice-Chair, called this meeting to order at 9:35 a.m.
Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski
Seconded by Mr. P. Britton
That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment of July 17, 2001, as mailed to
the members, be accepted.
Carried
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
MINOR VARIANCE
1.Submission No.:
A 2001-042
Applicant:
John Andreopoulos, Alex Tsatsas, and Vas Patistas
Property Location:
1121-1127 King Street East
Legal Description:
Lot 1 and Part Lot 2, Registered Plan 251, Part Park Lot 25 and
Part Streets and Lane Closed, Registered Plan 404
Appearances:
In Support:Ms. E. Andreopoulos
573 George Street
Woodstock, ON N4S 4J6
Contra:None
Written Submissions:
In Support:None
Contra:Mr. John Ager
Miami North Nutrition Centre
1135 King St. East
Kitchener, ON N2G 2N3
This application was previously considered by the Committee at its meeting held on July 17, 2001
at which time the Committee agreed to defer the application to this meeting to allow the owners
an opportunity to supply the City’s Business and Planning Services with information relative to
intended occupancy of the entire building of the subject property.
The Committee was previously advised that the applicant is 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 further noted the comments of Business & Planning Services dated July 12, 2001
as documented in the minutes of the July 17, 2001 meeting. In addition, the Committee noted
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT192AUGUST 14, 2001
1.Submission No.:
A 2001-042 (Cont’d)
revised comments of Business & Planning Services dated August 9, 2001 in which they advised
that this site was the subject of a recent Committee of Adjustment application which gave
approval for a parking reduction which included a personal service (Victoria’s 110 square metres),
an office (19 square metres) and a small restaurant (60 square metres which has vacated the
site). The approval for 4 spaces covered 189 square metres of occupied building according to the
owner’s information. 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 they wish to bring additional tenants into the building, creating the
necessity for this application, dealing with the whole of the building.
Staff are endeavouring to assist in the resolution of this matter but have had great difficulty
verifying the floor areas both of existing tenants and vacant areas. The following information was
provided to staff on August 3, 2001:
2
Basement: Unit 1 (vacant but occupancy desired) 235 square feet/21.8 m
2
Unit 2 (vacant but occupancy desired)606 square feet/56 m
2
landlord storage880 square feet/82 m
2
Main Floor:Personal Service (Victoria’s) 1100 square feet/102 m
2
Office (Gnostic Association)700 square feet/65 m
2
Total Gross Floor Area3521 square ft/327 m
Based on the total gross floor area of the building as 327 square metres, the total parking
requirement based on “plaza parking” is 15 spaces (@1/22 square metres). Staff find that
although there was some historic legal, non-conformity on the property before the fire, this
shortfall cannot be deemed to be minor nor maintaining the intent of the by-law. Traffic staff were
not even supportive of the original variance, to reduce the parking from 9 to 4 for 198 square
metres.
However, if the owners agree to limit the area to be leased to exclude the current storage area
and to limit the occupants to those with a lesser requirement, staff can see arguments in support
of the variance to meet the four Planning Act tests. If the landlord storage area remains without
occupancy, 245 square metres of leasable floor area remain. Of that, 198 square metres were
approved with 4 spaces (A 2001-014) for the 3 tenants existing at the time.
The individual parking requirements for certain uses are lower than the plaza parking requirement
of 1 space per 22 square metres set out in the by-law. For example, personal services are 1/40
square metres and office uses are 1/28 square metres, both of which are reasonable uses for the
vacant spaces. By comparison, if the individual parking requirements were applied to the two
existing uses rather than the plaza parking requirement, Victoria’s would require 2.5 spaces, the
office 2.3 spaces, totalling 4.8 (5) spaces. While the by-law suggests that the lesser of the plaza
parking requirement or individual requirement shall apply for some zones, it does not say so for
the CR Zones. The principle, however, remains the same.
Provided the building is limited to a total leasable floor area of 245 square metres and all uses are
restricted to those that do not exceed the individual requirement of 1/28 square metres, staff find
the variance to be minor. The intent of the by-law, to meet the parking needs of the uses is
satisfied by limiting the uses to those having lower requirements. Approval of the variance is
desirable as it permits the leasing of some additional space which has been restored following a
fire, acknowledging that for some uses, the existing parking supply was legal, non-conforming.
Further, as a condition of approval, staff are requesting the paving of the rear yard and
demarcation of the parking spots, which should improve the current situation on site. The
owners are further reminded that parking in the laneway is not permitted and should be strictly
abided by to ensure encroachment onto the neighbouring property does not occur. The intent of
the mixed use designation in the Municipal Plan is met by providing commercial space.
Business and Planning Services recommends approval of a Submission A 2001-042 as amended
to permit a maximum of 245 square metres of gross leasable commercial space to be occupied at
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT193AUGUST 14, 2001
1.Submission No.:
A 2001-042 (Cont’d)
1121-1127 King Street East with 4 parking spaces provided that no use is permitted which has an
individual parking requirement greater than 1 space per 28 square metres of gross floor area,
subject to the following condition:
1.That the owner shall demarcate the four (4) parking spaces on site in accordance with a
detailed plan to be approved by the City’s Principal Planner prior to October 15, 2001. No
extension to this completion date shall be granted unless approved in writing by the
Principal Planner prior to the completion date set out in this decision.
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 comments with respect to this
application.
The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst in which he advised that
Traffic & Parking staff have reviewed the application and cannot support the deficiency of 4
parking spaces. With limited on-street parking, and the lack of public parking, there are few
alternative parking areas for staff and customers. As a result, Traffic & Parking staff are not
recommending approval of this application.
The Committee noted the comments of Planning, Housing & Community Services, Region of
Waterloo in which they advised that at this location, King Street has an existing road allowance
width of 60 feet and a designated road allowance width of 86 feet. Therefore, a 13 foot road
widening (86-60=26/2=13) is required from this property; however, it may not be appropriate to
acquire the road widening under this application.
Regional staff further advised that any development on the subject lands is subject to the
provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 99-038 or any successor thereof, and
may require the payment of Regional Development Charges for this development prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
The Committee noted the written submission of Mr. J. Ager in which he advised that he is the co-
owner of Miami North Nutrition Centre located at 1135 King Street East and states his objection
to the reduction in parking spaces requested under this application. Mr. Ager’s letter does not
provide explanation for the objection.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the
application as amended to permit a maximum of 245 square metres of gross leasable commercial
space to be occupied with 4 parking spaces, provided no use is permitted which has an individual
parking requirement greater than 1 space per 28 square metres of gross floor area. The Chair
inquired if Ms. Andreopoulos had anything further to add. Ms. E. Andreopoulos responded that
she had reviewed the staff comments and was in agreement with the recommendations
contained therein.
In response to questions, Ms. J. Given advised that provided the uses on the subject property
have equal to or less than 1 space per 28 square metres of gross floor area there will be no
further need for a minor variance application to be submitted for this property and this will be
monitored through the occupancy permit process.
As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion.
Moved by Mr. P. Britton
Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski
That the application of John Andreopoulos, Alex Tsatsas and Vas Patistas requesting permission
2
to occupy a maximum of 245 m of gross leasable commercial space with 4 parking spaces,
provided that no use is permitted which has an individual parking requirement greater than 1
space per 28 square metres of gross floor area, on Lot 1 and Part Lot 2, Registered Plan 251,
and Part Park Lot 25 and Part Streets and Lane Closed, Registered Plan 404, 1121-1127 King
BE APPROVED
Street East, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following condition:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT194AUGUST 14, 2001
1.Submission No.:
A 2001-042 (Cont’d)
1. That the owner shall demarcate the four (4) parking spaces on site in accordance with a
detailed plan to be approved by the City’s Principal Planner prior to October 15, 2001. No
extension to this completion date shall be granted unless approved in writing by the
Principal Planner prior to the completion date set out in this decision.
It is the opinion of the Committee that:
1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan
is being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
CONSENT
1.Submission No.:
B 2001-028
Applicant:
Ventra Group Inc.
Property Location:
675 Trillium Drive
Legal Description:
Part Lots 14 & 16, Registrar’s Compiled Plan 1471, designated as
Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-6387
Appearances:
In Support:None
Contra:None
Written Submissions:
In Support:None
Contra:None
The Chair advised that the Committee was in receipt of a letter from Mr. L. Wolynetz dated
August 10, 2001 requesting that this application be deferred to the first meeting following
September 13, 2001.
Accordingly, the Committee agreed to defer this application to the Committee of Adjustment
meeting scheduled for Tuesday, October 2, 2001.
2. Submission No.:
B 2001-031
Applicant:
Sunoco Inc.
Property Location:
350 Westmount Road West
Legal Description:
Part Lot 2, Registered Plan 793, Part Lot 7, Registered Plan 1268,
designated as Parts 1 & 2 on Reference Plan 58R-4532
Appearances:
In Support:Mr. J. Willmer
Planning & Engineering Initiatives Ltd.
379 Queen Street South
Kitchener, ON N2G 1W6
Contra:None
Written Submissions:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT195AUGUST 14, 2001
2.Submission No.:
B 2001-031 (Cont’d)
In Support:None
Contra: None
This application was previously considered at the Committee’s meeting held on July 17, 2001 at
which time the Committee agreed to defer the application to this meeting to allow a site plan
application to be submitted, reviewed and approved.
The Committee was previously 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-through. The severed land will have a width on Westmount Road of 74.57
2
m (244.65 ft.), by a depth of 76.67 m (251.54 ft.) and an area of 3,829.25 m (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 previously noted the comments of Business and Planning Services dated July 9,
2001 in which they requested deferral of the application, as documented in the minutes of the
July 17, 2001 meeting. The Committee noted revised comments of Business and Planning
Services dated August 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). Parts 4, 6 and 7 of the draft plan of survey are
proposed to be conveyed to Wendy’s Restaurants of Canada Inc. A right-of-way over Part 4 in
favour the retained land is proposed. Parts 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the draft plan of survey are proposed
to be retained by the owner. A right-of-way over Parts 2 and 5 in favour of the severed land is
proposed.
This property was the subject of Zone Change Application ZC 97/5/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 regulations 286U and 337R to
permit a free-standing restaurant and not permit a dwelling unit. The application was deferred
pending a lengthy review of drive-throughs on a City-wide basis. The appeal period to By-law
2001-129 expired on August 6, 2001 and no appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board were
received.
The subject consent application was deferred from the July 17, 2001 Committee meeting until
such time as a site plan application was submitted and approved. The site plan was submitted
and issues such as building location, 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 site design and development items were reviewed and approved in principle on
August 8, 2001.
Based on comments received from the City’s Traffic section through the circulation of the
associated site plan application, the draft reference plan should be amended as shown on the
attached sketch to indicate revised configurations for the rights-of-way for access (Parts 2 and 4)
and Part 5 as being redundant.
The retained lands are already serviced, however the necessity for three servicing easements
has been identified as a result of staff’s review. These easements may be required for a sanitary
sewer connection along the Westmount Road frontage, a water connection to Victoria Street and
for stormwater management over Part 3, all over the retained lands (Sunoco) in favour of the
severed lands (Wendy’s). The attached drawing indicates the approximate location of the
requested servicing easements as well as showing the revised rights-of-way (Parts 2 and 4). The
owner has been advised that staff will require a draft reference plan be provided that indicates the
above.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT196AUGUST 14, 2001
2.Submission No.:
B 2001-031 (Cont’d)
The Low Density Residential designation that applies to the subject site allows for a mixture of
compatible uses such as convenience commercial. The consent application would facilitate the
proper and orderly development of the subject lands with an additional commercial use on
currently vacant land and at the intersection of two Regional roads. The retained lands would
satisfy the minimum lot area and other requirements of the C-1 zoning for an automobile service
station. The severed lands would satisfy the requirements of the C-1 zoning. Furthermore, there
is sufficient space to provide the appropriate number of parking spaces required by the Zoning
By-law on both the severed and retained lands.
Based on the above comments, staff recommend that application B 2001-031, as amended to
include easements for sanitary, water and stormwater management in addition to the modification
of the rights-of-way (Parts 2 and 4) as shown on the attached drawing, be approved subject to the
conditions identified below.
Business and Planning Services recommends that Consent Application B 2001-031, as amended
to grant easements for sanitary, water and stormwater management services in favour of the
severed lands and as amended to revise Parts 2 and 4, as indicated on the sketch attached to
these comments dated August 9, 2001, be approved, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the easement documents be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor.
2. That a joint maintenance agreement, to be approved by the City Solicitor, be registered
against title of both the severed and retained lands, to ensure that rights-of-way for access
and easements for servicing to both properties are maintained in perpetuity.
3. That a draft reference plan showing the proposed rights-of-way and servicing easements
be approved by the City’s Principal Planner.
4. 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 they have no concerns or
comments with respect to this application.
The Committee noted the comments of the Planning, Housing & Community Services, Region of
Waterloo, in which they advised that the purpose of the application is to create a new commercial
lot which is to be severed from an existing gas bar at the corner of Westmount Road and Victoria
Street. The lands are also subject to zoning application 97/5/W/PB in which the Region stated
the following (June 29, 2001):
“Regional staff have requested and received a certified affidavit from Chung and
Vanderdoelen Engineering Limited based on a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
on the subject lands. The results of the assessment conclude that the site has never
operated as a landfill and is not directly adjacent to any known landfill sites. This satisfies
the Region’s requirement of a Record of Site Condition as stated in our comments of June
12, 2000.”
Other Regional requirements relating to access, lot grading and stormwater management will be
addressed through the site plan approval stage. Therefore, the Region has no objection to the
application.
The Committee noted the written submission of Sunoco Inc. dated August 8, 2001 in which they
advised that they are requesting an amendment to the application to include the recommendation
of the Business and Planning Services to increase the area of the right-of-way to and from
Victoria Street and to request easements for water, sanitary and storm water management.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the
application subject to an amendment to grant easements for sanitary, water and storm water
management services in favour of the severed lands and to provide for revision of the draft
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT197AUGUST 14, 2001
2.Submission No.:
B 2001-031 (Cont’d)
reference plan relative to the configuration for the rights-of-way for access over Parts 2 and 4 and
the deletion of Part 5. The Chair inquired if Mr. Willmer was prepared to amend the application
as per the recommendation of staff and Mr. Willmer advised that he had reviewed the staff report
and was in agreement with the recommendations contained therein. Accordingly, Mr. Willmer
advised that he was prepared to amend the application.
As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion.
Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski
Seconded by Mr. P. Britton
That the application of Sunoco Inc. requesting permission to convey a parcel of land to be
developed with a restaurant and drive-through, having frontage on Westmount Road of 74.57 m
2
(244.65 ft.), by a depth of 76.67 m (251.54 ft.) and an area of 3,829.25 m (41,219 sq. ft.);
together with the granting of a right-of-way for access over Part 4 as shown on revised sketch
dated August 9, 2001, in favour of the retained lands; granting of a right-of-way for access over
Part 2 as shown on revised sketch dated August 9, 2001, in favour of the severed lands; and,
granting of easements in favour of the severed lands for sanitary, water and storm water
management services; on Part Lot 2, Registered Plan 793, Part Lot 7, Registered Plan 1268,
designated as Parts 1 and 2 on Reference Plan 58R-4532, 350 Westmount Road West,
BE GRANTED
Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions:
1. That the easement documents shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor.
2. That a joint maintenance agreement, to be approved by the City Solicitor, shall be
registered against title of both the severed and retained lands, to ensure that rights-of-way
for access and easements for servicing to both properties are maintained in perpetuity.
3. That a draft reference plan showing the proposed rights-of-way and servicing easements
shall be approved by the City’s Principal Planner.
4. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the
payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1.A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the
municipality.
2.The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the
retained lands.
3.The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and
the Regional Official Policies Plan.
Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-
noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision.
Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall
lapse two years from the date of approval, being August 14, 2003.
Carried
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT198AUGUST 14, 2001
CONSENT & MINOR VARIANCE
1. 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:Mr. R. Johnson, Secretary-Treasurer
1340443 Ontario Inc.
145 Casselholme Crescent
New Dundee, ON N0B 2E0
Contra:None
Written Submissions:
In Support:None
Contra:None
This application was previously considered by the Committee at its meeting held on July 17, 2001
at which time the Committee agreed to defer the application to this meeting to allow the applicant
an opportunity to confirm the proposed lot line locations. In this regard, the Committee was in
receipt of a draft reference plan outlining the proposed lot line locations.
The Committee was previously advised that the applicant is requesting 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
2
(19.75 ft.), rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.) and an area of 144.95 m (1,560.27 sq. ft.),
2
rather than the required 235 m (2,529.6 sq. ft.).
The Committee noted previous comments of Business and Planning Services dated July 11,
2001, as documented in the minutes of the July 17, 2001 meeting. In addition, the Committee
noted revised comments of Business and Planning Services dated August 3, 2001 in which they
advised that the lands at 52 Mansion Street have recently been severed from 175 Queen Street
East with approval of a minor variance for lot width and lot area for a semi-detached dwelling
(B2001-013 & A2001-010). At that time the applicant expressed 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.
Staff considers this consent application to be appropriate, as approving the severance would not
fundamentally change the nature of the land use from the earlier recommendation. Ultimately,
the approval of this application would simply allow the applicant to register the severed and the
retained lands in separate ownership. The proposed severance at 52 Mansion Street is also in
conformity with Municipal Plan infill policy.
The variance on lot width from the required 7.5 m (24.605 ft.) to a lot width of 6.02 m (19.75 ft.)
can be considered minor and meets the intent of the Municipal Plan and the Zoning By-law.
Further, the reduction in lot width is appropriate for the intended development because the 1.2
metre (3.93 ft.) side yard setbacks will be complied with in the proposal. This proposal also
complies with the Zoning By-law in most other respects, such as the proposed setbacks, rear
yards, and parking availability, which are all within acceptable limits, notwithstanding the
proposed variances.
Relief from the by-law has also been requested from a required total lot area of 235 sq. m.
(2,528.6 sq. ft.) per dwelling unit, to a lot area of 144.95 sq. m. (1,552.4 sq. ft) for each of the
severed and retained parcels. Given that the whole lot has already been created as a result of an
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT199AUGUST 14, 2001
1. Submission Nos.:
B 2001-037 & A 2001-047 (Cont’d)
approved consent and minor variance, this variance can be considered technical in nature, as the
lot area available for each unit remains the same. Staff have no concerns with the variance.
The Municipal Plan’s Low Density Multiple Residential designation seeks to maintain the
character of the neighbourhood while introducing integrated redevelopment. The redevelopment
of this property remains consistent with this policy. This is particularly relevant given that the
neighbourhood is considered to be an area of transition and that the proposal offers the potential
for additional housing stock within physical proximity to the downtown core. Thus, in considering
all relevant factors and the proposal in its totality, staff supports the application for minor variance
for lot width and lot area for both the severed and the retained lands.
Business and Planning Services recommends as follows:
A. That Minor Variance Application A 2001-047 be approved without conditions.
B. That Consent Application B 2001-037 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1.That Minor Variance Application A2001-047 receive final approval.
2.That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment
of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building, the Traffic & Parking Analyst, the
Region of Waterloo and the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they
have no concerns or comments with respect to these applications.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the
applications subject to certain conditions and inquired if Mr. Johnson had anything further to add.
Mr. R. Johnson advised that he had reviewed the staff report and had nothing further to add.
As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion.
Minor Variance A 2001-047
Moved by Mr. P. Britton
Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski
That the application of 1340443 Ontario Inc. (Panam Capital Corporation) requesting permission
to divide the subject lands for the purpose of developing two semi-detached dwelling units each
having a lot width of 6.02 m (19.75 ft.), rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.) and an area of
22
144.95 m (1,560.27 sq. ft.), rather than the required 235 m (2,529.6 sq. ft.), on Part Lot 28,
BE APPROVED
Registered Plan 379, 52 Mansion Street, Kitchener, Ontario, .
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan
is being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT200AUGUST 14, 2001
1. Submission Nos.:
B 2001-037 & A 2001-047 (Cont’d)
Consent B 2001-037
Moved by Mr. P. Britton
Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski
That the application of 1340443 Ontario Inc. (Panam Capital Corporation) requesting permission
to convey a parcel of land having frontage on Mansion Street of 6.02 m (19.75 ft.), by a depth of
2
12.04 m (39.5 ft.) and an area of 144.95 m (1,560.27 sq. ft.), on Part Lot 28, Registered Plan
BE GRANTED
379, 52 Mansion Street, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions:
1. That Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 2001-047, shall receive final approval.
2. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the
payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1.A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the
municipality.
2.The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the
retained lands.
3.The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and
the Regional Official Policies Plan.
Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-
noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision.
Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall
lapse two years from the date of approval, being August 14, 2003.
Carried
NEW BUSINESS
MINOR VARIANCE
1.Submission No.:
A 2001-048
Applicant:
Gabriel Calota
Property Location:
90 Bush Clover Crescent
Legal Description:
Part Block 7, Registered Plan 58M-18, designated as Part 38 on
Reference Plan 58R-10622
Appearances:
In Support:Ms. S. Ramos
Decora Homes Inc.
735 Bridge Street West
Waterloo, ON N2V 2H1
Contra:None
Written Submissions:
In Support:None
Contra:None
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT201AUGUST 14, 2001
1.Submission No.:
A 2001-048 (Cont’d)
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing
front porch having an easterly side yard of 0.99 m (3.25 ft.), rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of Business and Planning Services in which they advised
that the subject property at 90 Bush Clover Crescent is located on the north side of Bush Clover
Crescent. This property backs onto Hackberry Street to the west and Fischer-Hallman Road to
the east. The house on the subject property is a two-storey single detached residential dwelling
with attached garage. The lot is an irregular shape, located on the corner of the Crescent. It has
a frontage of approximately 7.1 metres (23.2 ft.) with an approximate depth of 46.38 metres (152
ft.). While the corner of the house is within the 1.2 metre (3.94 ft.) side yard requirement, the
concrete porch which was poured at a depth of 1 metre (3.281 ft) from the building face,
encroaches into the side yard setback by .2 of a meter (.65 feet).
In considering the effect of the proposed reduction in side yard to the neighbouring property, staff
considers the impact to the neighbour’s privacy to be a primary issue. Staff believes that the
neighbour’s privacy would not be impeded to any greater extent than if the 1.2 metre (3.94 ft.)
setback requirement, permitted in By-law 85-1, had been complied with initially at the time of
construction. There is a window some distance back along the wall of the house adjacent to the
concrete porch but the porch is in line with a solid garage wall. This porch location reduces the
likelihood of a visual intrusion into the neighbouring house. Therefore, the overall impact to 94
Bush Clover Crescent is considered minimal.
Based on the above comments, it is the opinion of staff that the subject variance is acceptable
and the impact of the variance would be minor as the request maintains the general intent of the
Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law.
Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission A 2001-048 without
condition.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building, the Traffic & Parking Analyst, the
Region of Waterloo and the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they
have no concerns or comments with respect to this application.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the
application and inquired if Ms. Ramos had anything further to add. Ms. S. Ramos advised that
she had reviewed the staff reports and had nothing further to add.
As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion.
Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski
Seconded by Mr. P. Britton
That the application of Gabriel Calota requesting permission to legalize an existing front porch
having an easterly side yard of 0.99 m (3.25 ft.), rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.), on Part
Block 7, Registered Plan 58M-18, designated as Part 38 on Reference Plan 58R-10622, 90 Bush
BE APPROVED
Clover Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario, .
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1.The variance requested in this application is minor in nature.
2.This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3.The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan
is being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT202AUGUST 14, 2001
2.Submission No.:
A 2001-049
Applicant:
Doug Snyder
Property Location:
1 Crescent Street
Legal Description:
Lot 27, Registered Plan 218
Appearances:
In Support:Mr. D. Snyder
1 Crescent Street
Kitchener, ON N2H 1H7
Contra:None
Written Submissions:
In Support:None
Contra:Mr. and Mrs. G. Racicot
21 Dane Street
Kitchener, ON N2H 3H6
Dr. J. Bricker
Dr. E. Bricker
17 Dane Street
Kitchener, ON N2H 3H6
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a 9.14 m x
7.32 m (30 ft. x 24 ft.) detached garage to the rear of the property having a maximum lot
coverage of 16%, rather than the permitted 10%. The applicant intends to remove the existing
attached garage.
The Committee noted the comments of Business and Planning Services in which they advised
that the subject land is located on the south-west side of Crescent Street, adjacent to Dane
Street. The property is a corner lot, and contains a two-storey single residential dwelling with a
small attached garage 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 Dane Street.
However the existing dwelling only has a side yard setback of 2.9 metres (9.5 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 existing garage encroaches into the required side yard
setback (left side of the property). However, the proposed demolition of this garage will eliminate
the encroachment.
The applicant is requesting permission to construct a new garage in the rear yard to replace the
existing garage. The garage is intended to accommodate two automobiles and various
motorcycles. As an accessory use, the proposed garage complies with all required setbacks.
However, the size of the garage (66.9 square metres) exceeds the permitted lot coverage. A lot
coverage of 10% is permitted for accessory buildings, however the proposed garage will have a
lot coverage of 16%. As such the applicant is requesting a minor variance to allow for the
increase in lot coverage.
Similar to a recent application at 23 Crescent Street, the existing lot width, although legalized by
the Vacuum Clause of By-law 85-1, will require a minor variance to retain this legality in respect to
the proposed addition. Staff recommend that the application be amended to also include a
request for a minor variance to retain a legalized lot width.
Through a conversation with staff, the applicant has noted that the proposed garage will be
designed to reflect the appearance of the existing dwelling. Similarly, the backyard is currently
void of any vegetation and is graded such that it is not amenable to the use by families or young
children. As a result, the proposal will create a more defined and functional backyard, and will
improve the overall appearance of the site.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT203AUGUST 14, 2001
2.Submission No.:
A 2001-049 (Cont’d)
The applicant also noted that the lack of on-street parking and narrow lot width has made it
difficult to accommodate all of the vehicles on site. As such, a smaller garage would not rectify
this deficiency.
In regard to the four tests as identified in section 45(1) of the Planning Act, staff submit the
following comments:
Under Zoning By-law 85-1, the applicant could build a garage that is approximately 42 square
metres in size. Therefore, the proposal will only reduce the amount of open space in the rear
yard by 27 square metres. Similarly, the total permitted lot coverage on this site is 55% (dwelling
and accessory buildings). The proposed total lot coverage is only 30%. As the backyard is
currently not desirable for use, permitting the proposed lot coverage will not adversely affect the
lot in question. Similarly, as the lot width will not be modified, both variances must be considered
minor in nature.
The use of the property will not change as a result of this addition. Accessory uses on this
property are currently permitted in the Municipal Plan, Secondary Plan and Zoning By-law. As
the proposal will not compromise any other regulations in Zoning By-law 85-1, the variance
upholds the general intent of both the Municipal Plan and the Zoning By-law.
It is intended that the proposed garage will be designed in accordance with the appearance of the
existing dwelling as well as surrounding dwellings. As the current site conditions do not present
an attractive appearance, the proposed garage will not cause any undue impact on adjacent
property owners, but rather will improve the existing streetscape. As such, the proposed addition
is desirable for the appropriate use of the land and will be in keeping with the general character of
the neighbourhood.
Business and Planning Services recommends that Minor Variance Application A 2001-049 be
approved, to permit the addition of an accessory garage with a 16% lot coverage, in accordance
with the plan attached to this application.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building
permit is required to construct a new garage and demolish the old garage.
The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst, the Region of Waterloo
and the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no concerns or
comments with respect to this application.
The Committee noted the written submission of Jennifer and George Racicot in which they
advised that they would appreciate consideration for an appeal against the proposed garage site
at 1 Crescent Street, Kitchener. Currently, the owners have requested to build a structure above
the allowed 10% By-law. Unfortunately, our work schedule does not allow attendance at the
meeting.
Due to the site’s proximity to our home and the noise that we expect to associate with garage
work, we are very concerned about quality of living and re-sale property value.
It has been explained to us personally by the owner at Crescent Street that he has previously
rented out commercial garage space to work on vehicles/motorcycles on the side. He said that it
has become too expensive, and his hope is to build this new site on his property so as to profit
more from this extra work. While we would support this venture if it were a standard residential
garage, we can only assume from our conversations that he plans to do commercial work in this
facility. He already has a garage on his property. If he wants a regular residential garage, why
does he need this permit?
The owner has been very sensitive to our concerns. When my husband and I saw the stakes in
the ground for the proposed site, I went to them and asked for information. We were devastated
to see how close to our home, and how large this was going to be. They described a very
aesthetic building (red brick to match our homes, etc.), and cinder blocks to address the concern
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT204AUGUST 14, 2001
2.Submission No.:
A 2001-049 (Cont’d)
of noise. However, despite their efforts to make this work, there are certain realities that cannot
be ignored:
1.This building will be 6 – 8 feet from our dining room, living room and bedroom windows
(we currently have their open yard facing the side of our home).
2. Despite what the building is made out of, he will no doubt have the doors open in the
spring/summer/fall; the noise will be an issue for three-quarters of the year. We hope to
start our family next year, and while the noise is a big concern now, it will be an ever
increasing one when our children are trying to nap, etc.
3. If this is something that he will be doing in his “off” hours, it stands to reason that much of
this work will be done when we are at our home the most – Saturdays and Sundays.
4. We have invested over $20,000 in exterior and interior home improvements since
purchasing a year and a half ago; the aesthetic appeal of our house will be lessened with
such a large structure facing the street, next to our home; the garage will look more like it
belongs to our house since it will be facing the same way and so close in proximity.
Obviously re-sale and a return on our investment is a critical concern.
Last evening, Sunday August 12, during the dinner hour, we heard very loud revving noises. We
were in our backyard enjoying a family barbecue with 12 guests attending. When we looked to
see where the revs were coming from, we saw an older vehicle in his driveway, hood up, with
several guys “tinkering” on the vehicle. This continued well into the late evening with high voltage
floodlights set up to facilitate work in the dark. Again, this has only legitimized our fears about the
noise level and week-end work. Currently, the car is up on blocks in his driveway.
It should also be mentioned that before he investigated with the City re: zoning permits, he cut
down a very large maple tree that must have been over 60 years old. It was a tribute to the street
because their backyard is open to the public; it has been missed. In his current plans, he hopes
to tear away a part of the current boulevard and possibly another tree to facilitate a new driveway
to the new garage. Obviously, as more trees are removed, and a commercial style structure is
erected, the residential nature of the street will be altered.
We trust the Committee will fairly consider the rights of all parties involved. No doubt it is difficult
for you to establish why someone is requesting a building, but common sense dictates that if he
already has a garage and he now wants a larger one, what is he planning to do in that space?
We hope that the insight re: his past commercial garage work will help shed light on his
intentions.
The Committee noted the written submission of Dr. John Bricker and Dr. Erin Bricker in which
they advised that they are homeowners on the south side of Dane Street. It has recently come to
our attention and concern that a 2-car cement block garage building plan has been submitted for
permit for the residence of 1 Crescent Street. We have several oppositions to the approval of this
permit, and they are as follows:
1. The proposed area of the building site plan is larger than what is allocated for the lot size.
The building will lie in very close proximity to the neighbouring house at 21 Dane Street.
2. It will take down a mature tree that is part of the aesthetic look and charm of our
neighbourhood to accommodate a new driveway.
3. There is an unmentioned use for this structure that the resident may possibly use this
garage as a freelance repair shop for automobiles and motorcycles. Already on several
occasions there have been “driveway repairs” which have caused noise disturbances on
the block from the loud revving of engines, often after dark. Although no formal complaints
have been made in the past, we feel that the larger structure would encourage more of
these repairs, thereby increasing the noise and as neighbours we will be forced to file a
complaint.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT205AUGUST 14, 2001
2.Submission No.:
A 2001-049 (Cont’d)
4. As a family with a young child, we are very concerned about the possible noise pollution
that a 2-car garage structure will bring, since its sole purpose will not be for storage but for
repairs of automobiles, motorcycles and/or snowmobiles.
In closing, as involved members of the community, we are very content in our neighbourhood.
We enjoy its old-fashioned quality and beauty. We have invested into improving the cosmetic
and curbside appeal of our home to reflect the original style of the house. It would be very
unfortunate to destroy the quaint appeal of our neighbourhood with a structure that does not
conform to the aesthetic look of the homes in the area. We wish to cause no ill will towards our
neighbours but we do feel strongly that the proposed structure would only cause not only a
possible noise disturbance but also a depreciation of market value in our surrounding area.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the
application. The Chair then referred to the written submissions of two neighbouring property
owners expressing concerns relative to the use of the garage and requested comment from Mr.
Snyder.
Mr. D. Snyder advised that during the weekend a friend had car trouble which he offered to assist
with and the car has since been removed from his property. On occasion he advised that he
does small repairs and wants to build a larger garage so that these repairs could be done inside
rather than in the driveway. He further noted that he is not a registered mechanic.
In response to the Chair, Ms. J. Given advised that she had discussed use of the garage with the
applicant who gave assurances that it was intended only for his own use. She stated that it is
permissible to do repairs provided they are not done as a commercial business and enforcement
would be monitored on a complaint basis.
In response to questions, Mr. Snyder stated that he did not intend to use the garage for repairs to
augment his income nor for the purpose of resale of any vehicles. He pointed out that currently
he can only park one vehicle in the driveway and the property is on a slope. In constructing the
new garage and driveway he intends to reduce the slope of the property. Mr. P. Britton advised
as to why a detached garage, which appears to be roughly the same size as the house, is
planned and Mr. Snyder advised that he intends to build a rear yard deck in place of the existing
garage, as well as erect fencing. The property is currently open to the street and his proposal will
allow the backyard to be enclosed. He further noted that he has similar concerns to those of his
neighbours relative to the ability to raise a family and the resale value of his property.
In response to further questions, Mr. Snyder advised that increasing the depth of the garage is
not viable as there would not be enough lot clearance for the driveway; he intends to lower the
grade of the property to 2 ft. to provide a more gradual slope; existing access is from Dane Street;
no other trees will be removed; most homes on the street have garages and most are detached
located at the rear of the homes.
Mr. P. Britton expressed concern with the scale of the proposed garage in relation to the
surrounding neighbourhood and the use intended.
In response to the Chair, Ms. Given advised that no on site visit had taken place and she was
unable to advise on how the garage would fit within the surrounding area. She noted, however,
that the applicant is proposing to construct a building of good quality and as aesthetically pleasing
as possible.
Mr. P. Britton stated that he would prefer having benefit of an on site visit with the applicant and
adjoining neighbours, and inquired if Mr. Snyder would have any objection to deferring the
application to the next meeting. Mr. Snyder indicated his only concern was in having time to
complete the building before the construction season ends.
Mr. P. Kruse inquired what use, if any, was being made of the backyard. Mr. Snyder stated that
the yard is not used and currently is only an open grassed area with no trees or plantings.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT206AUGUST 14, 2001
2.Submission No.:
A 2001-049 (Cont’d)
Mr. P. Kruse stated that he was inclined to approve this application, noting that the applicant is
proposing to improve upon a lot that is not particularly aesthetically pleasing at this time. The
applicant has expressed concerns of raising a family and intends to build a deck and fencing. In
his opinion, Mr. Kruse stated that he did not feel the garage would have a negative impact and
pointed out that if use of the garage was abused, complaints would be lodged and staff would
have to investigate.
In response to Mr. P. Britton, Mr. Snyder indicated that construction would take approximately two
months. Mr. Snyder further stated that he would be prepared to scale down the size of the
garage if need be. He further pointed out that he was somewhat surprised by the letters
submitted as he had discussed his proposal with at least one of the neighbours and tried to
address their concerns.
Mr. P. Britton stated that he would still like to arrange an on site meeting, suggesting that talking
with the neighbours may help to resolve their issues of concern.
Moved by Mr. P. Britton
Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski
That Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 2001-049 as applied for by Doug Snyder for
BE DEFERRED,
lands known municipally as 1 Crescent Street, Kitchener, Ontario, to the
th
September 11 Committee of Adjustment meetingto allow an opportunity for an on site meeting
to take place with the applicant, neighbouring property owners, staff and Committee members.
Carried
3.Submission No.:
A 2001-050
Applicant:
Bernie Cushway
Property Location:
743 Fairway Court
Legal Description:
Part Lot 15, Registered Plan 1798, designated as Part 4 on
Reference Plan 58R-10294
Appearances:
In Support:Mr. D. Sawatzky
Tropical Sunrooms
1486 Victoria Street North
Kitchener, ON N2B 3E2
Contra:None
Written Submissions:
In Support:None
Contra:None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a sunroom
addition having a size of 3.65 m x 3.65 m (12 ft. x 12 ft.), to the rear of the existing single family
dwelling having a rear yard of 6.5 m (21.33 ft.), rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of Business and Planning Services in which they advised
that the subject land is located on the southerly side of a cul-de-sac known as Fairway Court
(Registered Plan No. 1798). The property has 9.01 metres (29.56 feet) of frontage on Fairway
Court and a lot area of 294.22 square metres (3,165.59 square feet).
The applicant wishes to construct a 13.32 square metre (143.32 square foot) attached tropical
sunroom in the rear yard of the property. The sunroom would have dimensions of 3.65 x 3.65
metres (12 ft. x 12 ft.) and would stand 2.43 metres (8 feet) above finished grade so as to be
continuous with the main floor living space. As it currently exists, the sunroom would exceed the
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT207AUGUST 14, 2001
3.Submission No.:
A 2001-050 (Cont’d)
permitted minimum rear yard depth by 1.0 metre (3.28 feet) from the southerly face of the
proposal to the rear property line.
The proposed sunroom can be considered appropriate and desirable since the sunroom has
been designed in general consistency with the existing dwelling. The south elevation of the
sunroom is flush with the south wall of the dwelling, maintaining continuity with the existing form.
Additionally, the proposal’s impact on the surrounding environment is minor in nature. Impacts to
the adjacent property owner to the west are minimal because side yard setbacks are maintained
with the existing dwelling. The proposal only accounts for a small percentage of the rear lot, shall
be less than one storey and the location would visually front the intersection of two abutting rear
yards, resulting in minimal nuisance to surrounding property owners.
The application for minor variance is considered minor in nature and appropriate for the
development of the subject land. The application also maintains the general intent of both the
Zoning By-law and the Municipal Plan by maintaining its use and designation. Accordingly,
Business and Planning Services recommends that Minor Variance Application A 2001-050 be
approved, to reduce the minimum rear yard requirement from 7.5 metres (24.6 feet) to 6.5 metres
(21.32 feet) to permit the construction of the proposed sunroom in the rear yard of the subject
lands generally in accordance with the plan and elevations 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 sunroom.
The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst, the Region of Waterloo
and the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no concerns or
comments with respect to this application.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments noting that staff are recommending approval of the
application and inquired if Mr. Sawatzky had anything further to add. Mr. D. Sawatzky advised
that he had reviewed the staff reports and had nothing further to add.
As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion.
Moved by Mr. P. Britton
Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski
That the application of Bernie Cushway requesting permission to construct a 3.65 m x 3.65 m (12
ft. x 12 ft.) sunroom addition to the rear of the existing single family dwelling having a rear yard
setback of 6.5 m (21.33 ft.), rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.), on Part Lot 15, Registered
Plan 1798, designated as Part 4 on Reference Plan 58R-10294, 743 Fairway Court, Kitchener,
BE APPROVED
Ontario, , subject to the following conditions:
1. That the variance as approved in this application shall be generally in accordance with the
plan and elevations submitted with Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 2001-
050.
2. That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to construction of the new sunroom.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1.The variance requested in this application is minor in nature.
2.This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3.The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan
is being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT208AUGUST 14, 2001
4.Submission No.:
A 2001-051
Applicant:
Long Thang Nguyen
Property Location:
300 Blackwell Drive
Legal Description:
Lot 214, Registered Plan 1448
Appearances:
In Support:Mr. L. Nguyen
300 Blackwell Drive
Kitchener, ON N2N 2T2
Contra:None
Written Submissions:
In Support:None
Contra:None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to locate one of the
required parking spaces for a home business (hairdressing) in the existing driveway with a
setback of 2.13 m (7 ft.) from the front lot line, rather than the required 6 m (19.68 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of Business and Planning Services in which they advised
that the proposed home business is a hair salon (personal service) and is permitted in the R-3
zone in a single detached dwelling provided all regulations of the by-law are met. The applicant's
sister has advised staff that there will be no employee for the business and the business attracts
no more than one customer to the property at any one time. The by-law permits a maximum of
three clients or customers to the property at any one time.
The subject property has an attached 1-1/2-car garage that would accommodate the legal off-
street parking space for the dwelling. The driveway located in front of the garage is wide enough
to accommodate two vehicles, therefore the required parking space for the business would be
accessible independently from the dwelling parking space but would be located in front of the 6
metre setback from the front lot line.
The intent of the Zoning By-law regulation regarding required parking spaces is to encourage an
aesthetically appealing streetscape by requiring a setback for all required parking spaces.
However, the By-law does not prevent other vehicles from parking in the driveway, so the intent
of the by-law is not compromised.
Based on the above comments, it is the opinion of staff that the impact of the variance would be
minor and the request maintains the general intent of the Zoning By-law and the Municipal Plan.
The applicant should be advised that an Occupancy Permit would be required for the home
business use.
Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Minor Variance Application A 2001-
051.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building
permit is required for any construction necessary to accommodate the home business.
The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst, the Region of Waterloo and
the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no concerns or
comments with respect to this application.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the
application and inquired if Mr. Nguyen had anything further to add. Mr. L. Nguyen advised that he
had reviewed the staff reports and had nothing further to add.
As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT209AUGUST 14, 2001
4.Submission No.:
A 2001-051 (Cont’d)
Moved by Mr. P. Britton
Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski
That the application of Long Thang Nguyen requesting permission to locate one of the required
parking spaces for a home business (hair salon) in the existing driveway having a setback of 2.13
m (7 ft.) from the front lot line, rather than the required 6 m (19.68 ft.), on Lot 214, Registered
BE APPROVED
Plan 1448, 300 Blackwell Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following
condition:
1.That the owner shall obtain a building permit for any construction necessary to
accommodate the home business.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1.The variance requested in this application is minor in nature.
2.This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3.The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan
is being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
5.Submission No.:
A 2001-052
Applicant:
Delux Investments Ltd.
Property Location:
254-256 Mill Street
Legal Description:
Lot 3 & Part Lot 2, Subdivision of Lot 18, German Company Tract
& Part Lot 4, Registered Plan 366
Mr. P. Kruse declared a pecuniary interest in this application as his law firm acts on behalf of the
applicant and did not participate in any discussion or voting with respect to this application.
Mr. Kruse left the meeting and Mr. P. Britton chaired the meeting during consideration of this
application and in accordance with the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, this application was
considered by the remaining two members.
Appearances:
In Support:Ms. P. Young
Kruse, Lawson & Haller
P.O. Box 2215
Kitchener, ON N2H 6M1
Contra:None
Written Submissions:
In Support:None
Contra:None
The Committee was advised that the applicant requests legalization of an existing concrete block
building in the rear yard which has a southeasterly side yard of 1.0059 m (3.3 ft.), rather than the
required 1.2 m (4 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of Business and Planning Services in which they advised
that the subject property has split zoning, the front portion being CR-1 (158U) and is presently
occupied with a single family dwelling, while the rear of the property is zoned M-2 (159U) and
contains the subject concrete block building.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT210AUGUST 14, 2001
5.Submission No.:
A 2001-052 (Cont’d)
The concrete block building in the M-2 portion of the property was constructed in approximately
1969 under By-law 4830, which required a 1.2 metre (4ft.) side yard setback. A survey of the
property was completed in 1974 which identified the deficient side yard setback of 1.0 metres (3.3
ft.).
Considering that the building has been in place since approximately 1969, the variance of 0.2
metres (0.65 ft.) is noted as being minor in nature as there is still adequate side yard area to allow
for any exterior maintenance of the building that may be required. The building complies with the
By-law in all other aspects.
The reduced side yard setback of 1.0 metres (3.3 ft.) maintains the general intent and purpose of
both the City’s Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law. Accordingly, Business and Planning Services
recommends approval of Submission A 2001-052.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building, the Traffic & Parking Analyst, the
Region of Waterloo and the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they
have no concerns or comments with respect to this application.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the
application and inquired if Ms. Young had anything further to add. Ms. P. Young advised that she
had reviewed the staff reports and had nothing further to add.
As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion.
Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski
Seconded by Mr. P. Britton
That the application of Delux Investments Ltd. requesting permission to legalize an existing
concrete block building in the rear yard having a southeasterly side yard setback of 1.0059 m (3.3
ft.), rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.), on Lot 3 and Part Lot 2, Subdivision of Lot 18, German
BE
Company Tract and Part Lot 4, Registered Plan 366, 254-256 Mill Street, Kitchener, Ontario,
APPROVED
.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1.The variance requested in this application is minor in nature.
2.This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3.The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan
is being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
CONSENT
1.Submission No.:
B 2001-038
Applicant:
Waterloo Catholic District School Board
Property Location:
245 Lorne Avenue
Legal Description:
Part Lot 21 to 27, Plan 25, Part Lot 6, Plan 371, Part Lots 64 & 66 of
Subdivision of Lot 18, German Company Tract
Appearances:
In Support:Mr. M. Villemaire
82 Weber Street East
Kitchener, ON N2H 1C7
Contra:None
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT211AUGUST 14, 2001
1.Submission No.:
B 2001-038 (Cont’d)
Written Submissions:
In Support:None
Contra:None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to convey a parcel of
land to have a width of 63.45 m (208.17 ft.), by an average depth of 6.8 m (22.3 ft.) and an area
2
of 334.25 m (3,597.95 sq. ft.), located at the southeast corner of the subject property (St.
Bernadette’s School), as a lot addition to the rear of an abutting townhouse development which
fronts onto Heiman Street.
The Committee noted the comments of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that
the subject lands are located on the easterly side of Lorne Avenue between Mausser Avenue and
Heiman Street and are currently developed with a separate elementary school.
The applicant proposes to sever a parcel of land at the southeast corner of the site, having a
width of approximately 3.7 metres (12.2 feet) at the easterly end, a width of approximately 6.8
metres (22.4 feet) at the westerly end, a length of approximately 63.4 metres (208.2 feet), and an
area of 318.08 square metres (3,423.8 square feet). The severed parcel of land is proposed to
be a lot addition to the abutting property to the south, municipally known as 146 Heiman Street.
The property at 146 Heiman Street received site plan approval in June 2000 to permit the
development of the site with 14 townhouse dwelling units. A copy of the approved site, attached
to this report, shows the location of the proposed severed parcel of land and its relationship to the
proposed development on the site. Due to the location of the existing fence on the School Board’s
lands, the proposed severed parcel already appears to belong and function as part of the Heiman
Street property.
Staff has reviewed the application for consent and has determined that the consent is technical in
nature in that it will recognize the way the School Board property and the Heiman Street property
currently interact in the field. As both properties will continue to comply with all regulations in the
Zoning By-law and will continue to function appropriately, Business & Planning Services has no
concerns with this application for consent.
The proposed severed parcel of lands contains many large trees and other vegetation. As part of
the site plan approval, the owner of the lands at 146 Heiman Street, is required to submit a tree
preservation plan prior to the commencement of any grading on the site. The site plan
agreement, which will contain this condition of site plan approval, has not yet been registered on
title to 146 Heiman Street. Staff propose to register the site plan agreement after the severance
has been finalized so that the lands proposed to be added to 146 Heiman Street are also subject
to the conditions of site plan approval.
Business and Planning Services recommends that Consent Application B 2001-038 be approved,
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the lands to be severed be added to the abutting lands, municipally known as 146
Heiman Street, and title be taken in identical ownership as the abutting lands. Any
subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed shall comply with Sections 50(3)
and/or (5) of the Planning Act, 1995.
2. That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any
outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building, the Traffic & Parking Analyst, the
Region of Waterloo and the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they
have no concerns or comments with respect to this application.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the
application subject to certain conditions and inquired if Mr. Villemaire had anything further to add.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT212AUGUST 14, 2001
1.Submission No.:
B 2001-038 (Cont’d)
Mr. M. Villemaire advised that he had reviewed the staff comments and was in agreement with
the recommendations contained therein.
In response to a question from Mr. P. Britton, Mr. Villemaire advised that a small triangular piece
of land beside the proposed lot addition has not been included as the school does not own that
piece of land.
In response to a further question from Mr. P. Britton, Ms. J. Given advised that the tree
preservation plan required prior to grading taking place would be included as a condition of site
plan approval.
As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion.
Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski
Seconded by Mr. P. Britton
That the application of the Waterloo Catholic District School Board requesting permission to
convey a parcel of land located at the southeast corner of the subject property (St. Bernadette’s
School) as a lot addition to the rear of an abutting townhouse development known municipally as
146 Heiman Street, having a width of 63.45 m (208.17 ft.), by an average depth of 6.8 m (22.3 ft.)
2
and an area of 334.25 m (3,597.95 sq. ft.), on Part Lot 21 to 27, Plan 25, Part Lot 6, Plan 371,
and Part Lots 64 and 66 of Subdivision of Lot 18, German Company Tract, 245 Lorne Avenue,
BE GRANTED
Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions:
1. That the lands to be severed shall be added to the abutting lands known municipally as
146 Heiman Street and title shall be taken in identical ownership as the abutting lands.
Any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed shall comply with Sections
50(3) and /or (5) of the Planning Act, 1995.
2. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the
payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement
charges.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1.A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the
municipality.
2.The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the
retained lands.
3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and
the Regional Official Policies Plan.
Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-
noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision.
Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall
lapse two years from the date of approval, being August 14, 2003.
Carried
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT213AUGUST 14, 2001
2.Submission No.:
B 2001-039
Applicant:
Estate of Bernardus Verhagen
Property Location:
112 Carson Drive
Legal Description:
Lot 22, Registered Plan 865
Appearances:
In Support:Ms. M. Moretti
153 Oriole Street
Waterloo, ON N2J 2B3
Contra:None
Written Submissions:
In Support:None
Contra:None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a lot for
residential use to have a width on Carson Drive of 15.24 m (50 ft.), by a depth of 46.28 m (151.85
2
ft.) and an area of 705.3 m (7,592.5 sq. ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of Business and Planning Services in which they advised
that the subject property is located on the north side of Carson Drive, near Natchez Road. The
site is approximately 1,593.9 square metres in size. The owner proposes to sever the large side
yard of the site in order to create two separate lots. The retained lot would have a frontage of
24.29 metres, a depth of 46.28 metres, and an area of 888.57 square metres. The site is
currently developed with a single detached dwelling and a small shed. The severed lands would
have a frontage of 15.24 metres, a depth of 46.28 metres, and an area of 705.3 square metres.
The proposed use of the severed lot is for a single residential dwelling. Both the severed lot and
the retained lot will conform to the by-law, as an adequate lot width, depth and area have been
provided.
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 Municipal 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.
In general, this street was originally designed with large lot widths - widths which can actually
accommodate two lots. Certain properties, such as 122 and 128 Carson Drive (the adjacent
properties to the west of 112 Carson Drive) appear to have been severed in a similar manner. All
homes along the south side of Carson Drive, between Natchez Road and Lichty Crescent, have
lot widths similar to what will result from this proposed severance.
Engineering Services has noted that the existing building (retained lot) is fully serviced and will
not be impacted by the severance. The lot to be severed, however, will require sanitary and
water connections and the applicant will be required to pay for a boulevard tree and a paved
ramp onto the site.
As a means of encouraging infill development, and in keeping with the apparent evolution of this
street, staff suggest that this proposal is proper planning for the City.
Business and Planning Services recommends that Consent Application B 2001-039 be approved,
subject to the following conditions:
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.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT214AUGUST 14, 2001
2.Submission No.:
B 2001-039 (Cont’d)
2.That the owner make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of Engineering Services,
for the installation of all new service connections to the severed lands.
3.That the owner make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of Engineering Services
for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping including street trees, and a
paved driveway ramp, on the severed lands.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building, the Traffic & Parking Analyst, the
Region of Waterloo and the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they
have no concerns or comments with respect to this application.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the
application subject to certain conditions and inquired if Ms. Moretti had anything to add. Ms. M.
Moretti advised that she had reviewed the staff report and was in agreement with the
recommendations contained therein.
As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion.
Moved by Mr. P. Britton
Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski
That the application of the Estate of Bernardus Verhagen requesting permission to convey a
parcel of land for residential use having frontage on Carson Drive of 15.24 m (50 ft.), by a depth
2
of 46.28 m (151.85 ft.) and an area of 705.3 m (7,592.5 sq. ft.), on Lot 22, Registered Plan 865,
BE GRANTED
112 Carson Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the
payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
2. That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of Engineering
Services for the installation of all new service connections to the severed lands.
3. That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of Engineering
Services for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping including street
trees and a paved driveway ramp on the severed lands.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1.A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the
municipality.
2.The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the
retained lands.
3.The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and
the Regional Official Policies Plan.
Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-
noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision.
Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall
lapse two years from the date of approval, being August 14, 2003.
Carried
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT215AUGUST 14, 2001
3.Submission No.:
B 2001-040
Applicant:
Southstaton Holdings Limited
Property Location:
Woolwich Street
Legal Description:
Part of Lots 66, 124 and 125, German Company Tract, designated as
Parts 10, 11, 31, 35 and 38 on Reference Plan 58R-12700
Mr. P. Britton declared a pecuniary interest in this application as his firm acts on behalf of the
applicant and did not participate in any discussion or voting with respect to this application.
Mr. Britton left the meeting and in accordance with the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, this
application was considered by the remaining two members.
Appearances:
In Support:Ms. A. Kutler
MHBC Planning Limited
171 Victoria Street North
Kitchener, ON N2H 5C5
Contra:None
Written Submissions:
In Support:None
Contra:None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to give a right-of-way to
the property municipally known as 250 Woolwich Street, to provide them with access to and from
Woolwich Street.
The Committee noted the comments of Business and Planning Services in which they advised
that this application is a result of the abandonment of a previously approved right-of-way
(application B-20/99) from Woolwich Street to lands in the ownership of Joseph and Ingrid Peter
in 1999 (immediately south of the right-of-way). It is understood that as a result of the registration
of the subdivision under the Land Titles Act, the previously established right-of-way had to be
abandoned. The right-of-way was abandonned on November 20, 2000. The owner is seeking to
re-establish this right-of-way. The Peter’s lands are effectively land locked and require access
across adjacent lands. The Peter’s have traditionally gained access across the lands to the
north, however in advance of a Plan of Subdivision being developed on the Southstaton Holdings
Ltd. lands immediately to the north, a formal right-of-way needs to be established.
This current requested right-of-way establishes a new right-of-way across Parts 10, 11, 31, 35
and 38, Plan 58R-12700, save and except Parts 2 and 3, Plan 58R-12948. The current
application is slightly different from that approved in 1999 (B-20/99) in that Parts 11, 31 and 35
have been added, and Part 36 has been deleted. However, staff consider there are no
substantive changes with the new application, and the requested right-of-way are appropriate and
provide an adequate access to the Peter’s lands. The right-of-way provides a means of access to
the Peter’s lands, and in advance of the completion of a Plan of Subdivsion north of the Peter’s
property by Southstaton Holdings Ltd., the right-of-way is necessary and appropriate.
Immediately subsequent to the registration of a Plan of Subdivision over the lands where the
right-of-way is located, a quit-claimed deed will need to be granted as the right-of-way will be
redundant and will impede orderly development of these lands. The registration of a quit-claim
deed will need to be a condition of any future subdivision agreement between the City and the
subdivider.
Based on the above comments, Business and Planning Services recommends that application B
2001-040 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owners of Parts 1 to 13, Lots 66, 124 and 125, German Company Tract
(Southstaton Holdings Ltd.) and Part of lots 124 and 125, German Company Tract
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT216AUGUST 14, 2001
3.Submission No.:
B 2001-040 (Cont’d)
(Joseph Peter) enter into an agreement, to be approved by the City Solicitor, which will
ensure that the right-of-way for access and a joint maintenance agreement for both
properties are maintained in perpetuity (or until such time as access to a public street is
provided), and provide confirmation that said agreement has been registered against the
title of both properties.
2.That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any
outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building, the Traffic & Parking Analyst, the
Region of Waterloo and the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they
have no concerns or comments with respect to this application.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the
application subject to certain conditions and inquired if Ms. Kutler had anything further to add.
Ms. A. Kutler advised that she had reviewed the staff reports and was in agreement with the
recommendations contained therein.
As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion.
Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski
Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse
That the application of Southstaton Holdings Limited requesting granting of a right-of-way over
Parts 10, 11, 31, 35 and 38 on Reference Plan 58R-12700, save and except Parts 2 and 3 on
Reference Plan 58R-12948, in favour of lands under the ownership of Joseph and Ingrid Peters
legally described as Part of Lots 124 and 125, German Company Tract, for the purpose of
providing Joseph and Ingrid Peters with access to and from Woolwich Street; on Part Lots 66,
124 and 125, German Company Tract, designated as Parts 10, 11, 31, 35 and 38 on Reference
Plan 58R-12700, save and except Parts 2 and 3 on Reference Plan 58R-12948, Woolwich
BE GRANTED
Street, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owners of Parts 1 to 13, Lots 66, 124 and 125, German Company Tract
(Southstaton Holdings Limited) and Part of Lots 124 and 125, German Company Tract
(Joseph Peter) shall enter into an agreement, to be approved by the City Solicitor, which
will ensure that the right-of-way for access and a joint maintenance agreement for both
properties are maintained in perpetuity (or until such time as access to a public street is
provided), and shall provide confirmation that said agreement has been registered against
the title of both properties.
2. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the
payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
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.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT217AUGUST 14, 2001
3.Submission No.:
B 2001-040 (Cont’d)
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 August 14, 2003.
Carried
ADJOURNMENT
On motion, the meeting adjourned at 10:45 a.m.
Dated at the City of Kitchener this 14th day of August, 2001.
J. Billett
Secretary-Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment