HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2001-09-11COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
FOR THE
CITY OF KITCHENER
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Messrs. P. Kruse, D. Cybalski and B. Isaac.
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. B. Isaac
That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment of August 14, 2001, as mailed
to the members, be accepted.
Carried
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
MINOR VARIANCE
Submission No.:
1.A 2001-041
Applicant:
Frances Furlong
Property Location:
30 Chapel Street
Legal Description:
Part Lot A, German Company Tract, Registered Plan 363 and
Subdivision of Lot 2, Lot 4 and Part Lot 3, German Company Tract
At the request of Mr. R. Lawson, Kruse, Lawson & Haller on behalf of his client, Ms. F. Furlong,
the Committee agreed to defer this application to its meeting to be held on Tuesday, December
11, 2001, to allow the applicant an opportunity to undertake discussions with a neighbouring
property owner relative to possible acquisition of land.
Submission No.:
2.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:Mr. and Mrs. G. Racicot
21 Dane Street
Kitchener, ON N2H 3H6
Dr. E. Bricker
17 Dane Street
Kitchener, ON N2H 3H6
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT219SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
Submission No.:
2. A 2001-049 (Cont’d)
Written Submissions:
In Support:Mr. and Mrs. D. Snyder
1 Crescent Street
Kitchener, ON N2H 1H7
Mr. C. Power
5 Crescent Street
Kitchener, ON N2H 1H7
Mr. J. Windsor
32 Dane Street
Kitchener, ON N2H 3H7
Contra:Mr. and Mrs. G. Racicot
21 Dane Street
Kitchener, ON N2H 3H6
Dr. E. Bricker
Dr. J. Bricker
17 Dane Street
Kitchener, ON N2H 3H6
This application was previously considered by the Committee at its meeting held on August 14,
2001 at which time it was agreed to defer the application to allow an opportunity to arrange an on-
site meeting to take place between the applicant, neighbouring property owners, staff and
Committee members.
The Committee was previously 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 attached
garage.
Previous comments of Business and Planning Services, Director of Building, Traffic & Parking
Analyst, Grand River Conservation Authority, and the Region of Waterloo, as documented in the
minutes of the August 14, 2001 meeting were further considered this date. No further written
comments were forthcoming from these agencies.
Previous comments from Jennifer and George Racicot and John and Erin Bricker, as
documented in the August 14 minutes were also further considered this date. No further written
comments from either party was provided.
An on-site meeting was arranged for August 23, 2001, following which Mr. P. Britton, member of
the Committee of Adjustment, provided a written report for the Committee’s information. In Mr.
Britton’s report he outlined a summary of the issues and findings, as follows:
Discussions with the adjacent neighbour confirmed the following issues:
·
proximity of the detached garage to the neighbour’s house;
·
use of the garage for maintenance and repair purposes;
·
overall scale of the garage and impact on the character of the area;
·
the impact of the garage on the streetscape.
The applicant confirmed a desire to construct a deck immediately adjacent to the house, following
the removal of the existing attached garage. In the applicant’s view, this would enhance the
privacy and usability of the rear yard. The findings were listed as follows:
·
regardless of the variance, the detached garage could be located (with adjustments) in a
similar location as proposed;
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT220SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
Submission No.:
2. A 2001-049 (Cont’d)
·
the applicant confirms the use of the garage is not for commercial purposes;
·
the main issue is the scale of the garage relative to the character of the area and impacts on
streetscape;
·
the width of the garage exceeds the width of many houses on the street; the size of the
garage in combination with its location, could be considered to be overwhelming, particularly
given the size of the existing houses and the fact most detached garages in the
neighbourhood are located to the rear of existing houses; this is not possible, given the
subject property is a corner lot; and,
·
an expanded garage attached to the existing house would be more in keeping with the
character of the area, existing streetscape and separation distances between units; such a
solution would be contrary to the applicant’s desire to construct a deck, however, privacy
concerns could otherwise be overcome by enclosing the rear yard with a fence.
The Committee noted a written submission from Doug and Stephanie Snyder, dated September
6, 2001, in which they advised that they would like to propose the following amendment to their
original application for a variance on the building of their garage. The original application size
was for a 30 ft. x 24 ft. garage. Instead, we propose a 26 ft. x 22 ft. size. Included in this
proposal is a request for the following amendments:
·
to allow us to set the pad of the garage to only 1 foot from the property line bordering 5
Crescent Street (the 1 foot overhang/facia would be flush with the property line); the owner of
5 Crescent Street does not have a problem with this; and,
·
we recognize that the City requires a 20 foot driveway from the front of the building to the
property line; our property line is approximately 3 ft. from the sidewalk; we ask that we be able
to include the 3 ft. of City property between our property line and the sidewalk to be included
in our 20 ft. of driveway; therefore, we request a variance to allow only 17 ft. of driveway within
our own property limits.
We would also like to note that the above amendments have been requested for two reasons
being a reduction in the size of the garage and the garage will be setback 3 ft. further than the
original proposal (and 2 ft. back from the front of the Racicot residence at 21 Dane Street). Both
of these have been done to attempt to address some of the concerns the neighbours have.
We ask the Committee and our neighbours to rest assured that we are doing everything possible
to address the concerns of all involved. We are making every attempt to make this the most
aesthetically pleasing garage we can. This includes bricking the front street facing side in red
brick to blend in with the neighbourhood; upgraded doors, windows and light fixtures. We are
also lowering the grade of the property so that the building sits level with the sidewalk which will
also give the appearance of a smaller structure. We too, want to preserve the look and nature of
our surroundings. In no way is it our intention to build a structure that would have a negative
impact on our neighbours’ homes, our neighbourhood or our own home. We understand
completely our neighbours’ concerns and are trying to do what we can to be sensitive to everyone
involved. We have no intention of selling and very much want to make this into a home that fulfills
our needs and the needs of our future family. The intention of this garage is strictly personal. It in
no way will be used for commercial purposes. We hope our neighbours understand this and can
be confident that the noise level will not increase with this new structure.
We would like to note that we have spoken with our real estate agent about this issue. We
expressed the concerns regarding property values and asked his opinion. He told us that based
on what we told him about our efforts to make the structure very aesthetically pleasing in order to
preserve the nature of the neighbourhood, he sees no detrimental effect at all. In fact in his view,
the structure would increase our property value and whenever someone does something to
increase the value of their home it acts favourably on the value of surrounding properties as well.
In conclusion, we would like to say that we value the opinions of our neighbours and would never
intentionally do anything to negatively impact our relationship with any of them. As stated, we
plan on staying in this neighbourhood we love and have the desire to make our property into
something that fulfills all of our needs now and for the future. While we respect that not everyone
can understand why we have a need for a building such as this it is part of the vision for our
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT221SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
Submission No.:
2. A 2001-049 (Cont’d)
property and our future which includes the ability to build a fenced in yard between our house and
the new garage that will be safe and secure for our future children.
The Committee also noted written submissions from Mr. Charles J. Power, owner of 5 Crescent
Street, and Mr. Jeremy Windsor, owner of 32 Dane Street, in which they expressed support for
this application.
The Committee was also in receipt of a revised sketch from Ms. J. Given, Principal Planner,
showing the amended size and location of the new garage as outlined in Mr. and Mrs. Snyder’s
written submission.
In response to the Chair, Mr. G. Racicot stated that regardless of the revisions requested by Mr.
Snyder, the building wall will still be the same distance from their home, visible from the dining
room window.
The Chair then inquired if Mr. Snyder had anything further to add and Mr. Snyder responded that
he did not.
Ms. J. Given provided clarification of the variances that are being requested as a result of the
revised plan as follows:
·
a 0.3 m (1 ft.) easterly sideyard setback rather than 1.2 m (4 ft.);
·
a maximum lot coverage of 12.6% rather than the permitted 10%; and
·
setback of the legal parking space at 5.18 m (17 ft.) rather than 6.1 m (20 ft.).
In addition, Ms. Given advised that no part of the structure, including eaves, would be allowed to
encroach onto the neighbouring property. She further advised that building staff will require all
drainage to be directed onto the subject property, the wall to be located less than 1.2 m from the
property line to have no openings, be constructed with non-combustible cladding and have a 1
hour fire resistance rating. Ms. Given also noted that Traffic staff verbally advised they cannot
support the parking space setback as the standard setback is 5.49 m (18 ft.) and any less than
that may result in vehicles overhanging the sidewalk.
In response to the Chair, Ms. Given advised that Planning staff view the revised plan as an
improvement to the overall scale of the building; however, suggested that every attempt should
be made to ensure the building is located the greatest distance possible from the neighbouring
property. She stressed that no encroachment or drainage would be allowed onto the
neighbouring property and, with respect to the concerns of Traffic relative to the driveway,
suggested the only remedy given the lot configuration would be to reduce the depth of the
building.
Mrs. Racicot stated that the size of the garage was still a concern in relation to the size of existing
homes in the area and its close proximity to her home. She pointed out that she was unclear as
to the total distance between the structure and her home, noting that the revised plan appears to
indicate 6 ft. Mrs. Racicot then provided photographs of the properties and surrounding area
which were reviewed by the Committee. Mrs. Racicot expressed concern with the impact to the
streetscape given the property is a corner lot and requested that the size of the garage be limited
to 10% lot coverage. She further stated that she and her husband would be willing to accept a
larger structure provided it was attached to Mr. Snyder’s home thereby alleviating their concerns
of proximity. She noted, however, that Mr. Snyder has indicated he is not willing to construct an
attached garage.
The Chair pointed out that even if the applicant were to limit the structure to 10% lot coverage, it
may still be of a size and in a location not agreeable to the Racicots and they would not be able to
take any action. Mr. Snyder advised that if he was restricted to 10% lot coverage he would build
a garage 18 ft. x 26 ft. in size. He pointed out that the structure is being placed with 6 ft. between
the garage and the Racicot’s home and, further pointed out that he could put up a fence on his lot
line but has no plan to do so at this time.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT222SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
Submission No.:
2. A 2001-049 (Cont’d)
The Chair inquired if Mr. Snyder would have concern with reducing the depth of the structure to
21 ft. to alleviate concerns of Traffic with respect to the driveway. Mr. Snyder indicated that he
could do so but had concern with clearance of his vehicle.
In response to the Chair, Ms. Given advised that a 21 ft. x 26 ft. garage would have an area of
546 sq. ft., resulting in approximately 12% lot coverage.
In response to questions, Mr. Snyder stated that he would comply with no overhanging of the
structure onto the neighbouring property and no trees would be removed as a result of the new
driveway. Mr. Snyder provided a sample picture of the type of garage he intends to build, noting
that it will be of good quality.
The Chair inquired if Mr. Snyder was prepared to amend his application to reflect the revision
proposed this date, including a reduced depth of 21 ft., and Mr. Snyder agreed to amend his
application accordingly.
Ms. J. Given pointed out that the calculations made this date are a rough estimate and suggested
that should the application be approved the wording “approximately 12% lot coverage” be
incorporated. In addition, she requested that a condition be included to require the existing
driveway to be removed by November 15, 2001 to the satisfaction of the Principal Planner,
together with conditions relative to drainage, encroachment and Building staff requirements.
The Chair commented that given the applicant could circumvent the Committee by building a
structure at 10% lot coverage, the amendments proposed this date reducing the lot coverage
from 16% to approximately 12% may be the best compromise.
The Racicots raised further concern with drainage and grading. Ms. J. Given pointed out that
these issues would be addressed through the building permit process and the applicant would
have to comply.
Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski
Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac
That the application of Doug Snyder requesting permission to construct a detached garage to the
rear of the subject property, no larger than 6.4 m x 7.92 m (21 ft. x 26 ft.) in size, with a rear yard
setback of no less than 1.83 m (6 ft.), and having a maximum lot coverage of approximately 12%,
rather than the permitted 10%; an easterly sideyard setback of 0.3 m (1 ft.), rather than the
required 1.2 m (4 ft.); and a 5.49 m (18 ft.) setback from the front lot line for a parking space,
rather than the required 6 m (19.68 ft.), on Lot 27, Registered Plan 218, 1 Crescent Street,
BEAPPROVED,
Kitchener, Ontario, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to construction of the new garage.
2. That the wall to be constructed less than 1.2 m (4 ft.) from the property line shall have no
openings, shall be constructed of non-combustible cladding and shall have a 1 hour fire
resistance rating.
3. That the owner shall ensure that no part of the structure, including eaves, encroaches on
the neighbouring property.
4. That all roof drainage shall be directed onto the subject property.
5. That the existing driveway shall be removed to the satisfaction of the City’s Principal
Planner, by November 15, 2001. No extension to this deadline shall be granted unless
approved in writing by the City’s Principal Planner prior to the deadline date set out in this
decision.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT223SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
Submission No.:
2. A 2001-049 (Cont’d)
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
The Committee then recessed the meeting temporarily, at 10:10 a.m., in order to consider applications
for minor variance to the City’s Fence and Sign By-laws. This meeting reconvened at 10:30 a.m.
NEW BUSINESS
MINOR VARIANCE
Submission No.:
1.A 2001-053
Applicant:
Sandra Brenner
Property Location:
19 Clarence Place
Legal Description:
Part of Lot 7 in Block “A”, Registered Plan 425
Appearances:
In Support:Mr. R. Wagner
Pioneer Craftsmen
1244 Victoria Street North
Kitchener, ON N2B 3C9
Ms. S. Brenner
19 Clarence Place
Kitchener, ON N2H 2L1
Contra:None
Written Submissions:
In Support:None
Contra:Ms. M. Williamson
240 Frederick Street
Kitchener, ON N2H 2M8
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to extend a legal non-
conforming use to allow construction of an attached carport and exterior stairs for an existing
multiple dwelling. The carport will have an easterly sideyard of 0.88 m (2.9 ft.) and a rear yard of
0.53 m (1.75 ft.); and, the stairs will have a rear yard of 2.74 m (9 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of Business and Planning Services in which they advised
that the subject property is located on the south side of Clarence Place between Lancaster Street
and Gordon Avenue and currently contains a multiple dwelling having four dwelling units which
was constructed in the early 1900’s.
The owner of the subject lands would like to construct a carport at the rear of the existing building
which would have a width of 5 metres (16.5 feet), a length of 5.3 metres (17.5 feet) and an area
of approximately 25 square metres (270 square feet). The carport would be setback a minimum
distance of 0.88 metres (2.9 feet) from the easterly side lot line and setback from the rear lot line
a minimum distance of 0.53 metres (1.75 feet). A new enclosed stairway is also proposed to be
constructed at the rear of the dwelling which would have a width of 2 metres (6.75 feet) and a
length of 4.3 metres (14.25 feet). The new enclosed stairway would be located a minimum
distance of 2.7 metres (9 feet) from the rear lot line and not extend out past the side walls of the
existing dwelling.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT224SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
Submission No.:
1. A 2001-053 (Cont’d)
The subject property is zoned “Residential Five Zone (R-5) with a special use provision that
prohibits the use of the property for a multiple dwelling. The use of the property as a multiple
dwelling with four dwelling units was previously permitted by By-law 4830. As the multiple
dwelling use of the property has continued uninterrupted since 1994, when the zoning of the
property was amended to prohibit multiple dwellings, the existing multiple dwelling can be
considered a legal non-conforming use. As such, permission to expand a legal non-conforming
use is required in order to allow the construction of a carport and enclosed stairway.
Building has advised that the Building Code will not permit the construction of a carport located
less than 1.2 metres (4 feet) from a property line on a building containing more than two dwelling
units. The applicant can build an enclosed garage in this location, which would have no window
openings and be constructed with non-combustible materials having a one-hour fire resistance
rating. In discussing this issue with the agent for the applicant, staff was advised that the owner is
agreeable to amending their application to request permission to build a garage rather than a
carport.
In theory, legal non-conforming uses are meant to disappear over time. However, there are
certain instances where an extension or enlargement of such use is appropriate provided the
extension or enlargement does not contribute to the perpetuation of the non-conforming use. In
reviewing this application for permission to permit the construction of an enclosed stairway and
attached garage, staff offers the following comments.
The proposed enclosed stairway is desirable as it will provide a sheltered means of accessing the
dwelling units in the building during inclement weather. Also, as the enclosed stairway is
proposed to replace an existing external stairway at the rear of the multiple dwelling, staff are of
the opinion that the enclosed stairway is an appropriate enlargement at the rear of the dwelling
and will not perpetuate the non-conformity of the subject property.
In reviewing the request for permission to allow the construction of the attached garage, staff has
concerns with the setback of the garage from the rear lot line and the loss of rear yard amenity
area. Typically, multiple dwellings, where permitted in the “R5” zone, are required to be located a
minimum distance of 7.5 metres (24.6 feet) from a rear lot line. The purpose and intent of the rear
yard setback is to provide a sufficient rear yard amenity area and maintain privacy between
neighbouring property owners. However, staff does acknowledge the fact that the garage would
be permitted to be located a minimum of 0.6 metres (2 feet) from a side or rear lot line if it were
detached from the main dwelling.
An attached or detached garage is a desirable and appropriate development of any residential
property. Accordingly, staff are of the opinion that the attached garage would not contribute to the
perpetuation of the legal non-conforming use of the subject property. The impact of the attached
garage on the rear yard amenity area and neighbouring property owners would not be any
greater than the impact of the construction of a detached garage provided the attached garage
maintains a 0.6 metre (2 foot) setback from the rear lot line. Staff is therefore recommending a
setback of 0.6 metres (2 feet) from the rear lot line for maintenance purposes of the attached
garage and the wood privacy fence along the rear property line.
Staff has received correspondence from the neighbouring property owner to the south expressing
concern with respect to accepting drainage from the subject property. The owner will be required
to submit building plans and elevation drawings at the time of building permit application to
demonstrate that drainage from the attached garage will not adversely impact abutting properties.
Business and Planning Services recommends that Application A 2001-053, as amended,
requesting permission to expand a legal non-conforming use to allow the construction of an
attached garage and enclosed stairway generally as shown on the drawing attached to the
application be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the attached garage be located a minimum distance of 0.6 metres (2 feet) from the
rear lot line.
2. That all drainage be directed onto the subject property.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT225SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
.Submission No.:
1 A 2001-053 (Cont’d)
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building
permit is required for new construction and to convert from a fourplex to a triplex. The Building
Code does not permit the construction of a carport less than 4 ft. to the property line on buildings
with more than 2 dwelling units. The applicant must construct a garage and the wall located less
than 4 ft. to the property line shall have no openings, be of non-combustible construction and
have a 1 hour fire rating. There shall be no combustible roof eaves within 4 ft. of the property line
and roof drainage shall not be directed onto the adjacent property.
The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst, the Grand River
Conservation Authority and the Region of Waterloo in which they advised they have no concerns
or comments with respect to this application.
The Committee noted an e-mail transmission from Ms. Marilyn Williamson, owner of 240
Frederick Street, in which she raised concerns with respect to drainage from the subject property
as well as the property at 234 Frederick Street and requested that these concerns be taken into
consideration. Ms. Williamson’s e-mail transmission indicated that she would be in attendance at
the meeting this date; however, Ms. Williamson did not attend.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending the application be
amended to require a garage to be constructed rather than a carport. The Chair inquired if the
applicant was prepared to amend the application and Mr. Wagner advised that Ms. Brenner had
originally intended to build a garage but had been advised by Planning staff to build a carport.
Accordingly, as it was originally intended to be built as a garage, Mr. Wagner advised the
applicant was in agreement with amending the application.
Ms. J. Given further pointed out that staff are recommending the application be amended to
slightly increase the rear yard setback to 0.6 m (2 ft.). She noted that staff had concerns with
maintaining the rear wall which may have been the reason for encouraging a carport to be
constructed as a carport is more open and more easily maintained. Building staff, however,
advised that a carport is contrary to Building Code regulations with respect to multiple dwellings
and a garage would have to be constructed.
As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion.
Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski
Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac
That the application of Sandra Brenner requesting permission to expand a legal non-conforming
use to allow the construction of an attached garage and enclosed stairway for an existing multiple
dwelling, with the garage having an easterly sideyard setback of 0.88 m (2.9 ft.) and a rear yard
setback of 0.6 m (2 ft.), and the enclosed stairway having a rear yard setback of 2.74 m (9 ft.), on
BE
Part of Lot 7 in Block ‘A’, Registered Plan 425, 19 Clarence Place, Kitchener, Ontario,
APPROVED,
subject to the following conditions:
1.That the variances as approved in this application shall be generally in accordance with
the drawings submitted with Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 2001-053.
2. That the attached garage shall be located a minimum distance of 0.6 m (2 ft.) from the rear
lot line.
3. That the wall to be constructed less than 1.2 m (4 ft.) from the property line shall have no
openings, shall be of non-combustible cladding, and shall have a 1 hour fire resistance
rating.
4. That there shall be no combustible roof eaves within 1.2 m (4 ft.) of the property line.
5. That the owner shall ensure that all roof drainage is directed onto the subject property.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT226SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
Submission No.:
1. A 2001-053 (Cont’d)
1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan
is being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission No.:
2.A 2001-054
Applicant:
Edmund Farrage
Property Location:
313 – 317 Mill Street
Legal Description:
Part Lots 46 and 47, Subdivision of Lot 18, German Company Tract
Appearances:
In Support:Mr. E. Farrage
185 Goulding Avenue
Toronto, ON M2R 2P3
Contra:None
Written Submissions:
In Support:None
Contra:None
The Committee was advised that the lands involved in this application were the subject of a
previously approved Minor Variance Application (A 2000-025) requesting permission for
development of 17 townhouse units, with 10 units (Blocks 1 and 2) having a maximum height of
7.3 m (24 ft.) and 7 units (Block 3) having a maximum height of 9.7 m (32 ft.). The purpose of this
application is to request permission to relocate one of the townhouse units from Block 2 to Block
3 due to a change in GRCA floodline mapping, with the relocated unit to have a maximum height,
consistent with the 7 units previously approved for Block 3, of 9.7 m (32 ft.), rather than the
permitted 7.01 m (23 ft.)
The Committee noted the comments of Business and Planning Services in which they advised
that the subject property is 0.376 hectares in size, and located near the intersection of Mill Street
and Heiman Street. The lands are designated as Low Density Multiple Residential in the Mill
Courtland – Woodside Park Neighbourhood Secondary Plan contained within the City’s Municipal
Plan. The lands are zoned R-7 with special regulation provisions 1R and 117R, according to
Zoning By-law 85-1. Provision 1R requires that a Fill, Construction, and Alteration to Waterways
Permit be obtained from the G.R.C.A. prior to the erection of a building on the property. Provision
117R describes special regulations which apply to multiple dwellings on the subject property,
including a minimum rear yard setback of 4.5 metres, a maximum building height of 7.0 metres,
and a visual barrier to be required along both the northerly and southerly lot lines.
On May 2, 2000 the Committee of Adjustment granted as part of its approval, a minor variance
(A2000-25) to increase the maximum height restriction from 7.0 metres to 9.75 metres for 7 units
in Block C (now Block 3). A minor variance was required to permit the 7 units within Block 3 to be
three stories in height, as basements are not permitted within these units due to the block’s
location within Shoemaker Creek Regulatory Floodline. This reach of Shoemaker Creek is a Two-
Zone Policy Area, meaning that the floodplain is divided into a floodway and a flood fringe. A
portion of the subject property, including Block 3, lies within the flood fringe. New development is
permitted within the flood fringe provided that all habitable floor space is above the Regulatory
Flood Elevation (ground level).
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT227SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
Submission No.:
2. A 2001-054 (Cont’d)
Prior to site plan approval the G.R.C.A required the applicant to determine the exact extent of the
floodplain on the property through the completion of a site-specific geodetic survey to delineate
the Regulatory Floodline Elevation. Upon completion it was found that portions of Block B (now
Block 2) were within the floodplain. Basements would not be permitted for those units within the
floodplain. As a result of the survey findings, the applicant modified the plan to increase Block 3 to
eight units thereby reducing Block 2 from 6 units to 5 units. This modification allows all units
within the flood fringe to be located within the same block.
Application for minor variance has been received to increase the maximum building height for the
most northerly unit in Block 3, from 7.0 metres to 9.75 metres. This unit is shown as hatched on
the attached plan. Approval of the minor variance would facilitate the construction of a three-
storey townhouse unit with a peaked roof similar to the other units within the same block.
The G.R.C.A. floodline mapping for this area was completed in 1994, after the special regulation
provision limiting height to two stories on site was enacted. The height restriction was
incorporated into the Zoning By-law to address neighbouring residents concerns regarding the
number of units that potentially could be developed on the subject property, and the density of the
development given that the zoning designation permitted multiple dwellings. The intent of the
two-storey height restriction was to limit the density of the development and number of dwelling
units. The height increase for this unit within Block 3 will not increase the density on the site as
the number of units will remain at 17 as approved. Additionally, approval of this application will be
of aesthetic value as the remaining 7 units in Block 3 were previously granted a minor variance
for a maximum height of 9.75 metres.
The surrounding area is comprised primarily of residential development of varying heights. Single
detached dwellings are located immediately west of the subject property, while a three-storey, 38-
unit apartment building lies immediately east of the site. The subject property is zoned R-7, with
special regulations. The standard R-7 zone permits multiple dwellings to have a maximum height
of 24.0 metres. Other properties abutting the site have an R-5 zoning designation, which permits
a maximum height of 10.5 metres. A minor variance permitting a maximum height of 9.75 metres
for an eighth unit in Block 3 maintains the intent of the Zoning By-law. The proposed
development provides an appropriate transition in height and density between the single
detached dwellings and the 3 storey, 38-unit apartment building.
The Mill Courtland – Woodside Park Neighbourhood Secondary Plan designates the subject
property as Low Density Multiple Residential. The intent of this designation is to recognize
existing multiple dwellings and permit the development and integration of higher density multiple
residential uses while maintaining the overall low rise characteristics of the neighbourhood. The
proposed minor variance is in keeping with the intent of the Municipal Plan.
The proposed minor variance is minor in nature, appropriate for the development of the lands,
and maintains the intent of the Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan. Accordingly, the Department
of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Minor Variance Application A2001-
054.
Business and Planning Services recommends that Minor Variance Application A2001-054,
seeking a maximum building height of 9.75 metres for 8 townhouse units in Block 3, be approved
only in accordance with the site plan to be finally approved under application number
SP99/21/M/FS.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building, the Traffic & Parking Analyst and
the Region of Waterloo in which they advised that they have no concerns or comments with
respect to this application.
The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they
advised that we have reviewed the site plan (Planning & Engineering Initiatives Limited, August
14, 2001) submitted in support of the minor variance application. Since the previous minor
variance application, the floodline elevation on the property has remained consistent. The
change that effects this application is that the floodline elevation has been re-surveyed and the
accurate deliniation of the floodline elevation on the property is now shown on the August 14,
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT228SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
Submission No.:
2. A 2001-054 (Cont’d)
2001 plan. We have been in discussions with the owner with respect to floodplain implications.
The current minor variance application in conjunction with a re-surveyed floodline will allow the 7
units in Block 3 within the floodplain to be developed in accordance with floodplain policy. On this
basis, we recommend approval of the minor variance application conditional upon submission
and approval of a permit application pursuant to the Grand River Conservation Authority’s Fill,
Construction and Alteration to Waterways Regulation (Ontario Regulation 149, as amended by
69/93, 669/94 and 142/98).
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the
application subject to site plan approval and inquired if Mr. Farrage had anything further to add.
Mr. E. Farrage advised that a new survey had been conducted on the subject property which
showed that the floodline had receded westerly. Accordingly, he is now requesting permission to
relocate one of the units from Block 2 to Block 3. The additional unit to be added to Block 3 will
require a variance in height to be consistent with the 7 units previously approved, being 9.7 m (32
ft.). Mr. Farrage further advised that the new survey also shows that the floodline has moved
northward affecting one of the units in Block 1. He noted that under the regulations of the GRCA
this unit would not be permitted to have a full basement and he intended to comply with this
regulation.
As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion.
Moved by Mr. B. Isaac
Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski
That the application of Edmund Farrage requesting permission to construct 8 townhouse units in
Block 3 of the proposed residential development having a maximum height of 9.7 m (32 ft.),
rather than the permitted 7.01 m (23 ft.), on Part Lots 46 and 47, Subdivision of Lot 18, German
BE APPROVED
Company Tract, 313 – 317 Mill Street, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the
following conditions:
1. That approval of Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 2001-054, shall be in
accordance with the site plan as finally approved under Site Plan Application SP
99/21/M/FS.
2. That the owner shall submit, and receive approval of, a permit application pursuant to the
Grand River Conservation Authority’s Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways
Regulation (Ontario Regulation 149 as amended by 69/93, 669/94 and 142/98).
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1.The variance requested in this application is minor in nature.
2.This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3.The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan
is being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission No.:
3.A 2001-055
Applicant:
Cherie Coombes
Property Location:
18 Oprington Drive
Legal Description:
Lot 91, Registered Plan 1713
Appearances:
In Support:Ms. D. Topouzova
18 Oprington Drive
Kitchener, ON N2M 1C6
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT229SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
Submission No.:
3. A 2001-055 (Cont’d)
Contra:None
Written Submissions:
In Support:None
Contra:None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to locate one required
parking space for a home business (personal service) setback 2.3 m (7.55 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 subject property is located on the east side of Oprington, south of Victoria Street and
north of Benesfort Drive. A single detached dwelling with an attached 1.5 car garage is currently
situated on the lands.
The applicant is requesting relief from section 6.1.1.1b(i) of the Zoning By-law which requires that
all required off-street parking spaces be located a minimum of 6.0 metres from the street line.
The applicants wish to operate a "personal service" home business within the dwelling, and as
such, are required to supply the following parking spaces, in accordance with 5.13.2 (i):
·
1 space for the dwelling;
·
1 space for the home business; and
·
1 space for any non-resident employee.
As such, the applicant would be required to provide a minimum of 2 spaces and a maximum of 3
spaces. The applicant has not indicated that any employees will utilise the site - thus, 2 parking
spaces will be required. Currently, the site contains 3 parking spaces (1 in the garage and 2 in
the driveway). However, the driveway spaces are currently not located 6 metres from the street
line, and as a result, relief is requested to permit one space to be located 2.3 metres from the
front lot line.
In addition, it is unclear if the parking space in the garage can be accessed without obstruction
from either parking space within the driveway (creating a tandem parking situation). As such, the
applicant will also require relief from Zoning Definition 4.2.170(a) which requires that all required
parking spaces be accessible without "the necessity of moving any other motor vehicle". Staff
recommend that the application be amended to reflect this requirement.
In regard to the four tests as identified in section 45(1) of the Planning Act, staff submit the
following comments:
The driveway currently allows for 2 vehicles to be parked at any one time. The granting of these
variances will not increase the potential number of vehicles to be located on site, nor will it result
in the widening of the driveway. As no physical change to the property will occur, the variances
must be considered minor in nature.
The use of the property will not change as a result of the variances requested. The use is
currently permitted in the Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law. Home businesses and personal
services (as a home business) are also permitted to occur in the subject location. As the
variances will allow a permitted use to occur, and since no other regulations of Zoning By-law 85-
1 will be compromised, the variances uphold the general intent of both the Municipal Plan and the
Zoning By-law.
All dwellings along Oprington Drive currently provide parking within a driveway that is directly
adjacent to the street. The granting of these variances will not alter the ability of the driveway in
question to provide parking, it will simply increase the frequency to which those spaces are
utilised. As no undue impacts will result from permitting the home business parking to occur in
tandem within 6 metres of the street line, the proposed variances are desirable for the appropriate
use of the land.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT230SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
Submission No.:
3. A 2001-055 (Cont’d)
The applicant is advised, however, that an occupancy permit must be obtained prior to the
commencement of the home business. All requirements of the Zoning By-law must be met
before an occupancy permit is issued.
Business and Planning Services recommends that Minor Variance Application A 2001-055 be
approved, to allow one (1) of the required parking spaces to be located 2.3 metres from the street
line, and to allow the required parking spaces to be located in tandem.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building
permit is required for any construction required to accommodate the home business.
The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst, the Grand River
Conservation Authority and the Region of Waterloo 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 an amendment to allow the required parking spaces to be located in
tandem. The Chair inquired if Ms. Topouzova was in agreement with amending the application
as requested by staff. Ms. D. Topouzova advised that she was in agreement with amending her
application with respect to tandem parking.
The Chair pointed out to Ms. Topouzova that staff indicate an occupancy permit must be obtained
prior to commencement of the home business.
As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion.
Moved by Mr. B. Isaac
Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski
That the application of Cherie Coombes requesting permission to locate one of the required
parking spaces for a home business (personal service) setback 2.3 m (7.55 ft.) from the front lot
line, rather than the required 6 m (19.68 ft.), and to allow the required parking spaces to be
located in tandem, rather than side by side, on Lot 91, Registered Plan 1713, 18 Oprington Drive,
BE APPROVED
Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following condition:
1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to any construction required to
accommodate the home business.
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
Submission No.:
4.A 2001-056
Applicant:
The Palisades Kitchener Retirement Residence Inc.
Property Location:
64 Benton Street
Legal Description:
Part Lot 10 to Part Lot 15 inclusive, Registered Plan 394, designated
as Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-1378
Appearances:
In Support:None
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT231SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
Submission No.:
4. A 2001-056 (Cont’d)
Contra:None
Written Submissions:
In Support:None
Contra:None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to enlarge an existing
legal non-conforming use (apartment building) by constructing additions to the ground floor and
roof top (penthouse) increasing the maximum gross floor area from 3.87 to 4.07.
The Committee noted the comments of Business and Planning Services in which they advised
that the subject property is located at the corner of Benton Street and Church Street. The
property contains an existing 15-storey apartment building with 81 units which was originally
constructed in 1976. The property is surrounded by a mixture of land uses, including established
institutional and residential uses.
The reason for the application is to permit an increase of the existing non-conforming floor space
ratio of 3.87 to 4.07. A number of changes are proposed to the existing building including three
new 50.9 square metre dwelling units, a new ground floor addition fronting Benton Street, and a
new driveway and access adjacent Church Street. The total number of units is intended to be 84
units. The building is intended to be used as a multiple dwelling geared to seniors. The new
ground floor addition is intended to accommodate a dining area, multi-purpose room and craft
room. It is understood that the use is not a residential care facility, but a multiple dwelling
intended to be geared to seniors and able to provide services to residents as part of their tenancy.
Staff note that based on the current site plan submitted with the minor variance application, a
variance will be required to permit the ground floor addition at a distance of 2.1 metres from
Benton Street. It should be noted that this setback is in fact consistent with, or greater than, other
building setbacks along this portion of Benton Street. A road widening for Benton Street has also
been identified as a requirement in this instance by the Region of Waterloo and has been
accounted for in determining this setback.
A site plan application has not been formally submitted at this time. Staff recommend the
application be deferred to permit the owner an opportunity to submit an application for a site plan
revision prior to determining the appropriateness of the variance application. The owner has
been advised of the reason for the recommended deferral and will be submitting an application
for a site plan revision shortly.
Business and Planning Services recommends deferral of Submission A 2001-056 until the
October 2, 2001 Committee meeting in order to allow for the review of an application for a site
plan revision.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building
permit is required for any new construction.
The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst in which he advised that
Traffic & Parking understand a site plan application is to be processed and will be prepared to
submit comments on this application pending the outcome of the site plan review process, which
could impact this application.
The Committee noted the comments of the Region of Waterloo in which they advised that this
development requires a road allowance widening on Benton Street consisting of 1.279 m at the
westerly limit of the property and tapering to 0 m at the intersection of the Benton Street/Church
Street property lines. This widening will be requested when a site plan application is circulated to
Regional staff. A 25 ft. daylight triangle would also normally be required, however, as the site
plan attached to this application indicates that an exhaust air shaft would be located within the
daylight triangle, we will not be requesting a daylight triangle for this development. If this property
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT232SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
Submission No.:
4. A 2001-056 (Cont’d)
is the subject of a condominium application in the future, a noise study will be requested to
address traffic noise from Benton Street. The Region further advised that any development on
the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 99-038
or any successor thereof, and may require the payment of Regional Development Charges for
this development prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they
advised that they have no concerns or comments with respect to this application.
As no one was in attendance to support the application and Business and Planning Services staff
are recommending deferral, the Committee agreed to defer this application to the next meeting
scheduled to be held on Tuesday, October 2, 2001.
Submission No.
5.A 2001-057
Applicant:
Matija Kukuric
Property Location:
140 Alpine Road
Legal Description:
Part Lot 6, Registered Plan 1022, designated as Part 5 on Reference
Plan 58R-2570
Appearances:
In Support:Mr. R. Bryson
305 King Street West, Suite 1002
Kitchener, ON N2G 1B9
Mr. M. Kukuric
27 Meadowlane Drive
Kitchener, ON N2N 1E8
Contra:None
Written Submissions:
In Support:None
Contra:None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing
detached garage having a rear yard setback of 0.348 m (1.26 ft.), rather than the required 7.5 m
(24.6 ft.) and an easterly sideyard setback of 0.14 m (0.46 ft.), rather than the required 1.2 m
(3.94 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of Business and Planning Services in which they advised
that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize the existing rear set back and side yard
setback of a single car detached garage at 140 Alpine Road. The existing rear yard set back is
.39 metres (1.3 ft) instead of the required 7.5 metres ( 24.6 ft.) and west side yard setback is .14
metres (.45 ft.) instead of the required 1.2 metres (3.94 ft.). The subject property which has a
frontage of approximately 30.48 metres (100.0 ft.) with an approximate depth of 66.38 metres
(217.79 ft.) is located on the north side of Alpine Road west of Alpine Court within close proximity
to Ottawa Street South and Homer Watson Boulevard. The main building on the property, which
is approximately 610.9 square metres (6542.7 sq. ft.) houses four industrial units, all of which
contain auto repair businesses. The detached garage, is set back from the main building
approximately 18.2 metres (60.0 ft) adjacent to the existing parking located along the rear
property line.
Staff considers the impact of the proposed reduction in rear yard and side yard setbacks to the
neighbour’s privacy from the rear and to the east, to be minimal. The building adjacent to the rear
yard is used for manufacturing purposes. This building will not be impacted by legalizing the
garage setback as the wall face directly adjacent to the garage is made of solid concrete with no
windows. Thus, there is no visual impact to this property.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT233SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
Submission No.
5. A 2001-057 (Cont’d)
The property to the east of the subject property at 150 Alpine Road is an automotive repair
service. Both 140 and 150 Alpine Road are open along the property boundary to a mutually
shared paved area. The detached garage abuts the side lot line of the property of 150 Alpine
Road at the rear of that property. The space directly beside the garage at 150 Alpine Road is
utilized by the automotive repair service for vehicle storage. The owner of this property has
indicated that he does not object to the legalizing of the garage at that location. However, staff is
aware that ownership of this property could change at some future date. Despite this potential
occurrence, staff considers the impact of the reduced side yard to be of minimal impact to the
property at 150 Alpine Road.
Staff believes that in this instance the neighbour’s privacy from the rear and to the east of the
subject property will not be impacted to any greater extent than if the 7.5 metre rear yard setback
and the 1.2 metre (3.94 ft.) side yard setback requirement, as permitted in By-law 85-1, had been
complied with at the time of construction of the detached garage.
However, the owner at 140 Alpine Road did not apply for a building permit for the detached
garage, which upon inspection, has been deemed insufficient to meet the requirements of the
Ontario Building Code. Comments from Building regarding this issue will be submitted in a
separate report.
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 2001-057 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 the applicant had anything further to add. Mr. R. Bryson advised that
his client, Mr. Kukuric, owns the property and rents 4 spaces to auto repair businesses. One of
the 4 businesses applied for a Provincial permit to do safety checks but was turned down as the
building in question did not comply with the City’s zoning regulations. Accordingly, the applicant
wishes to demonstrate compliance.
As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion.
Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski
Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac
That the application of Matija Kukuric requesting permission to legalize an existing detached
garage having a rear yard setback of 0.348 m (1.26 ft.), rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.)
and an easterly sideyard setback of 0.14 m (0.46 ft.), rather than the required 1.2 m (3.94 ft.), on
Part Lot 6, Registered Plan 1022, designated as Part 5 on Reference Plan 58R-2570, 140 Alpine
BE APPROVED
Road, 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 ADJUSTMENT234SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
Submission No.
6.A 2001-058
Applicant:
Peter Carette
Property Location:
184 David Street
Legal Description:
Lot 69 & Part Lot 68, Subdivision of Lot 17, German Company Tract,
designated as Parts 1 & 2 on Reference Plan 58R-7340
Appearances:
In Support:Ms. S. Langdon
184 David Street
Kitchener, ON N2G 1Y5
Contra:None
Written Submissions:
In Support:None
Contra:None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to renovate and enlarge
an existing kitchen to 3.66 m x 7.01 m (12 ft. x 23 ft.) in size, having a rear yard setback of 5.79 m
(19 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 property is adjacent to the City’s trail system, formerly the Grand River Railway. To the
rear of the lot is the rear yard of a neighbouring property.
The reduction in rear yard would continue to permit adequate outdoor amenity space and would
not have any detrimental impact on the enjoyment of neighbours’ properties. Accordingly, the
variance is considered minor and the intent of the by-law is met. The Low Rise Conservation
category encourages the preservation of the existing housing stock and as such, the dwelling
renovation is desirable for the preservation and upgrading of the existing housing stock.
It is noteworthy that the building is located within the Victoria Park Heritage Conservation District
and as such, heritage staff did not express any concerns and has forwarded to the owner, a
Designated Heritage Property Alteration Application form which must be approved by Council
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission A-2001-058 generally in
accordance with the plan submitted.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building
permit is required to construct the new addition.
The 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 Ms. Langdon had anything further to add. Ms. S. Langdon advised that
she had reviewed the staff reports and had nothing further to add.
Moved by Mr. B. Isaac
Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski
That the application of Peter Carette requesting permission to enlarge an existing kitchen to 3.66
m x 7.01 m (12 ft. x 23 ft.) in size, having a rear yard setback of 5.79 m (19 ft.), rather than the
required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.), on Lot 69 and Part of Lot 68, Subdivision of Lot 17, German Company
Tract, designated as Parts 1 and 2 on Reference Plan 58R-7340, 184 David Street, Kitchener,
BE APPROVED
Ontario, , subject to the following conditions:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT235SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
.Submission No.
6 A 2001-058 (Cont’d)
1. That the variance as approved in this application shall be generally in accordance with the
plan submitted with Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 2001-058.
2. That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to construction of the new addition.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1.The variance requested in this application is minor in nature.
2.This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan
is being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission No.:
7.A 2001-059
Applicant:
Bridal Penthouse Limited
Property Location:
9 Stirling Avenue North and 762-778 King Street East
Legal Description:
Part Lots 1 and 2, Registered Plan 77
Appearances:
In Support:Mr. W. Boehler
510-101 Frederick Street
Kitchener, ON N2G 4E6
Contra:None
Written Submissions:
In Support:None
Contra:None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting legalization of two existing retail
commercial structures on site with the building situate at the westerly corner (Bridal Penthouse)
having a 0 m front yard setback, rather than the required 3 m (9.84 ft.) and the building situate at
the easterly corner (Freeman’s Formals) having a rear yard setback of 2.19 m (7.19 ft.), rather
than 7.5 m (24.6 ft.). In addition, a reduction in the number of required parking spaces from 25 to
13 spaces and for one of the parking spaces to have a 0 m setback from the front lot line, rather
than the required 3 m (9.84 ft.), is also requested.
The Committee noted the comments of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that
the subject property is located on the southeast corner of King Street East and Stirling Avenue
North and is comprised of three buildings, which are currently being used for retail and residential
purposes. Two of the buildings, municipally known as 762-778 King Street East, are occupied by
The Bridal Penthouse and Freeman’s Formals, while the third building at the rear of the property,
municipally known as 9 Stirling Avenue is presently being used as a single detached dwelling.
The application should be amended to request a reduction from 27 parking spaces rather than 25
parking spaces as the existing single detached dwelling is not a permitted use of the subject
property. The ground floor of the dwelling may only be used for commercial purposes and this
commercial floor area has been included in the parking calculations as noted below.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT236SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
Submission No.:
7.A 2001-059 (Cont’d)
LOCATIONGROSS FLOOR AREAREQUIRED PARKING
762 King Street337.96 sq. m.17Retail (1/20 sq. m)
768 King Street137.87 sq. m.7Retail (1/20 sq. m.)
9 Stirling Avenue64.07 sq. m. (ground floor)2Personal Service (1/40 sq.
m)
1 dwelling unit (upper floor)1Residential (1/dwelling unit)
27
TOTAL
The earliest record of the Bridal Penthouse occupying the subject property is approximately 1970.
The Zoning By-law in effect at that time did not permit retail as a permitted use of the subject
lands. In 1973, two applications for permission to allow for an addition to 762 King Street and the
relocation of the “Tuxedo Corner” commercial use from 778 King Street to 762 King Street were
considered by the Committee of Adjustment and approved subject to conditions. One of the
conditions of both decisions was that the owner enter into an agreement with the abutting church
property to supply the required off-street parking spaces and said agreement was to be registered
on title prior to the issuance of building permits. Failing this, the subject property was to be
converted to some other use for which adequate off-street parking could be provided on site in
accordance with the Zoning By-law.
The Bridal Penthouse had an informal agreement with the adjacent church for the supply of the
required number of off-street parking spaces in lieu of a formal agreement registered on title to
both the Bridal Penthouse and church lands. The informal agreement was cancelled in 1988 with
the development of a parking area at the rear of the buildings on King Street, although the newly
created parking lot did not provide all of the required parking for the retail use on the subject
lands.
In 1994, the subject lands were rezoned to permit retail use, however as part of a comprehensive
rezoning, it did not recognize the setbacks of the existing buildings on the subject property nor the
deficiency in the provision and location of the required off-street parking spaces.
In considering the four tests for minor variance, staff offers the following comments with respect to
the requested variances. The buildings on the subject lands and the parking area have existed in
their present locations for several years without a history of complaint. The Bridal Penthouse retail
use and tuxedo rental uses have operated in the existing buildings since approximately 1970
without adversely affecting neighbouring properties.
The reduced front yard setback of 762 King Street allows for a greater street presence of the
building at the Stirling/King Street intersection and provides for an attractive streetscape. The
reduced rear yard of 778 King Street abuts the open driveway on the adjacent church property
and still provides a sufficient setback from the southerly property line.
The variances to recognize the deficiencies in minimum front yard and minimum rear yard
setbacks and the location of a parking space within 3 metres of the street line are desirable as
they will bring the existing locations of the buildings and parking area into compliance with Zoning
By-law 85-1.
As the effects of the variances to recognize the existing locations of the buildings on the subject
property and a parking space within 3 metres of the street line are minor, the intent of the Zoning
By-law and Municipal Plan will be maintained.
With regard to the variance requesting a reduction in the minimum number of off-street parking
spaces from 27 to 13, staff is unable to support such a reduction given that the area is generally
deficient in parking spaces. This is mainly due to the lack of on-street parking on King Street and
the restricted parking along the intersection side roads. The reduction in the number of required
off-street parking spaces would introduce additional parking spaces on the street network which
could adversely impact neighbourhood amenity and result in illegal parking on neighbouring
properties.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT237SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
Submission No.:
7.A 2001-059 (Cont’d)
There is an opportunity for the subject property to utilize available off-street parking spaces on the
neighbouring church property, which the applicant has been exploring. Zoning By-law 85-1 states
that required off-street parking may be located on another lot within 300 metres of the use
requiring the parking and the owners of both of the lots shall enter into an agreement with the City
to be registered on title to both properties.
Staff suggests deferring consideration of the parking variance to a future meeting to allow the
owner of the subject property an opportunity to continue to arrange an off-street parking
agreement with the adjacent church. In the event that an agreement cannot be reached for all or
a portion of the required off-street parking spaces, it would then be appropriate for the Committee
to consider a variance, if required, for a reduction in the number of required off-street parking
spaces.
Business and Planning Services recommends that Minor Application A 2001-059, as amended,
be deferred to the October 2, 2001 meeting to allow the applicant the opportunity to arrange an
off-street parking agreement with the neighbouring church property at 800 King Street East.
The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst, in which he advised that
Traffic & Parking cannot support the application as submitted. Firstly, there is inadequate space
at the rear of 762-778 King Street East to permit the vehicles parked in the angled parking spaces
th
to exit in a forward motion. Secondly, we can support the 13 parking space marked on the
submitted plan, but would recommend the space immediately to the right of this space be marked
off to prevent vehicles from parking over the sidewalk. Lastly, with the lack of available on and
off-street parking, we cannot support the reduction of parking from 25 parking spaces to 13
parking spaces. However, we understand that Business and Planning Services are
recommending that a written agreement be made with the First Mennonite Church to
accommodate the deficient 12 parking spaces. In conclusion, forcing vehicles to exit the property
in a reversed motion, along with the deficiency of 12 parking spaces, we cannot support this
application at this time unless an agreement is reached with the adjacent church to allow access
and accommodate the parking deficiency.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building, 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 deferral of the
application to allow the applicant an opportunity to arrange an off-street parking agreement with
the neighbouring church property at 800 King Street East. The Chair inquired of Mr. Boehler if he
was in agreement with deferral and Mr. Boehler responded that he was in agreement.
Accordingly, the Committee agreed to defer this application to the next meeting scheduled to be held
on Tuesday, October 2, 2001.
Submission No.:
8.A 2001-060
Applicant:
Humanacare Bankside Inc.
Property Location:
71 Bankside Drive
Legal Description:
Blocks 3 and 4, Registered Plan 1714, Part of Lot 35, German
Company Tract, designated as Part 3 on Reference Plan 58R-7725
Appearances:
In Support:Ms. A. Kutler
MHBC Planning Limited
171 Victoria Street North
Kitchener, ON N2H 5C5
Contra:None
Written Submissions:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT238SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
Submission No.:
8. A 2001-060 (Cont’d)
In Support:None
Contra:None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing
residential care building having an easterly sideyard setback of 5.867 m (19.25 ft.), 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 subject land is located on the south side of Bankside Drive, and backs on to Highland
Road. The site is currently occupied by the Bankside Terrace residential care facility.
The applicant is requesting to legalize the deficient side yard setbacks which currently exist.
Zoning By-law 85-1 requires a side yard setback of 6 metres. However, the existing building is
currently located 5.867 metres from the side lot line. As such, a variance is requested to reduce
the sideyard setback requirement by 0.143 metres.
In regard to the four tests as identified in section 45(1) of the Planning Act, staff submit the
following comments:
The sideyard deficiency is an existing condition, and a further encroachment into the required
side yard is not proposed. As the deficiency is only 0.143m (2.4% of the required sideyard), the
variance must be considered minor in nature.
The use of the property will not change as a result of this variance request. The use is currently
permitted in the Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law. As the 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 Municipal Plan and the Zoning
By-law.
The sideyard in question is currently adjacent to a public pathway and a vacant parcel of land (a
City owned One Zone Flood Plain). As such, a side yard encroachment will not negatively impact
adjacent properties. Similarly, landscaping has been provided within the side yard to act as a
small buffer between the pathway and the building. For these reasons, the proposed variance is
desirable for the appropriate use of the land.
Business and Planning Services recommends that Minor Variance Application A 2001-060 be
approved, to permit the side yard encroachments by reducing the side yard setback requirement
to 5.867 metres, in accordance with the plan attached to this application.
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. Kutler had anything further to add. Ms. A. Kutler pointed out that
four areas along the sideyard are identified on the plan attached to the application as being
deficient, with the largest being identified in the staff report. She advised that she was in
agreement with the recommendation contained in the staff report.
As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion.
Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski
Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac
That the application of Humanacare Bankside Inc. requesting permission to legalize an existing
residential care building having an easterly sideyard setback of 5.867 m (19.25 ft.), rather than
the required 6 m (19.68 ft.), on Blocks 3 and 4, Registered Plan 1714, Part of Lot 35, German
Company Tract, designated as Part 3 on Reference Plan 58R-7725, 71 Bankside Drive,
BE APPROVED
Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following condition:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT239SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
Submission No.:
8. A 2001-060 (Cont’d)
1. That the variance as approved in this application shall be generally in accordance with the
plan submitted with Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 2001-060.
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
being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
CONSENT
Submission No.:
1.B 2001-041
Applicant:
Eric John Saunderson
Property Location:
200 Waterloo Street
Legal Description:
Part of Lot D, Registered Plan 386, designated as Part 1 on
Reference Plan 11074
Appearances:
In Support:Mr. F. Heimbecker
295 Weber Street North
Waterloo, ON N2J 3H8
Contra:None
Written Submissions:
In Support:None
Contra:None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land
as a lot addition to 204 Waterloo Street, having a lot width of 3.58 m (11.75 ft.), by a depth of
2
90.42 m (296.65 ft.) and an average area of 729.6 m(7,853.6 sq. ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of Business and Planning Services in which they advised
that the subject site is located on the east side of Waterloo Street just north of Guelph Street in
the Mt. Hope-Huron Park Community. The property contains a single detached dwelling and is
nearly 91 metres (300 feet deep) as it backs onto the CN Railway. Lands on the east side of
Waterloo Street are all zoned Residential Six Zone (R-6) and lands on the other side of the street
and along Guelph Street in this area are zoned Residential Five Zone (R-5). A previous consent
was approved for the subject property under application B112/97 through which a small portion of
the right side yard was severed as a lot addition to the adjacent property at 196 Waterloo Street
for use as a driveway.
The applicant has submitted the subject consent application with the intention of conveying the
majority of the deep rear yard and a small portion of the frontage from the existing lot at 200
Waterloo Street as an addition to the adjacent lot at 204 Waterloo Street. The total area of the lot
2
addition would be 730 m (7,858 square feet).
The retained lands would have a frontage of 12.2 metres (40 feet), a depth of 36.6 metres (120
2
feet) and an area of approximately 446 m (4,800 square feet). The lot addition combined with
2
the adjacent lot at 204 Waterloo Street would have a total frontage of 21.6 m (71 feet) and the lot
area would far exceed the minimum zoning requirements. In this regard, both the retained lot
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT240SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
Submission No.:
1. B 2001-041 (Cont’d)
and the adjacent lot with the lot addition would comply with all of the minimum requirements of
the R-6 zoning in addition to complying with the Low Rise Residential designation and policies.
Furthermore, the lot size and frontage of the retained lands would be compatible with the existing
lots on the other side of Waterloo Street and the surrounding neighbourhood (both the R-5 and R-
6 zoning have the same minimum permitted lot widths and sizes). To ensure that the required
yard setbacks on the retained lands are met following the conveyance of the severed lands, a
draft reference plan should be prepared and approved by the City’s Principal Planner.
The subject consent application is suitable for the use of the land, would provide some additional
outdoor amenity area for the multiple dwelling at 204 Waterloo Street and would also provide
enough land so that the existing driveway access for 204 Waterloo Street would be entirely on
their lands. There were no engineering concerns with this application.
Based on the foregoing, Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Application
B2001-041 subject to the following conditions:
1. That a draft reference plan showing the proposed lot addition be approved by the City’s
Principal Planner.
2. That the lands to be severed be added to the abutting lands at 204 Waterloo 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.
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, the Traffic & Parking Analyst and
the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no concerns with
respect to this application.
The Committee noted the comments of the Region of Waterloo in which they advised that the
lands at 200 and 204 Waterloo Street are adjacent to a CNR rail line where projected noise levels
may cause concern to individuals living at these locations. This concern is based on Noise Level
Objectives approved by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. As such, the owner shall enter
into an agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo for 200 and 204 Waterloo Street to
include the following noise warning clause in the offers to purchase and deeds or rental
agreements:
“Due to its proximity to the CNR rail line, projected noise levels on this property exceed the
Noise Level Objectives approved by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and may cause
concern to some individuals.”
The Region further advised that any future development on the lands subject to this consent
application will be subject to the provisions of Regional Development Charge By-law 99-038 or
any successor thereof and there may be a Regional fee assessed for development agreements, if
required.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the
application subject to certain conditions and inquired if Mr. Heimbecker had anything further to
add. Mr. F. Heimbecker advised that he had reviewed the staff reports and had nothing further to
add.
The Chair referred to comments of the Region of Waterloo with respect to entering into an
agreement to include a noise warning clause in offers to purchase and Mr. Heimbecker advised
that he had no concern with this condition.
As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT241SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
Submission No.:
1. B 2001-041 (Cont’d)
Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski
Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac
That the application of Eric John Saunderson requesting permission to sever a parcel of land as a
lot addition to 204 Waterloo Street, having a lot width of 3.58 m (11.75 ft.), by a depth of 90.42 m
2
(296.65 ft.) and an average area of 729.6 m(7,853.6 sq. ft.), on Part of Lot D, Registered Plan
BE
386, designated as Part 1 on Reference Plan 11074, 200 Waterloo Street, Kitchener, Ontario,
GRANTED
, subject to the following conditions:
1. That a draft reference plan showing the proposed lot addition shall be approved by the
City’s Principal Planner.
2. That the lands to be severed shall be added to the abutting lands at 204 Waterloo 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) or the
Planning Act, 1995.
3. 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.
4. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo
for 200 and 204 Waterloo Street to include the following noise warning clause in the offers
to purchase and deeds or rental agreements:
“Due to its proximity to the CNR rail line, projected noise levels on this property
exceed the Noise Level Objectives approved by the Regional Municipality of
Waterloo and may cause concern to some individuals.”
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 September 11, 2003.
Carried
Submission No.:
2.B 2001-042
Applicant:
Harold & Pattie Morgan
Property Location:
129 Binscarth Road
Legal Description:
Part of Block B, Registered Plan 230
Appearances:
In Support:Mr. and Mrs. H. Morgan
129 Binscarth Road
Kitchener, ON N2M 3E4
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT242SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
Submission No.:
2. B 2001-042 (Cont’d)
Ms. M. Frey
Frey Realty
17 Church Street West
Elmira, ON N3B 1M2
Contra:None
Written Submissions:
In Support:None
Contra:Mr. and Mrs. B. Bannon
73 Pleasant Avenue
Kitchener, ON N2M 4A5
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to create one new lot by
severing a parcel of land to be developed with a single residential dwelling having a lot width on
2
Pleasant Avenue of 12.2 m (40 ft.), by a depth of 21 m (68.9 ft.) and an area of 256.2 m (2,757.8
sq. ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of Business and Planning Services in which they advised
that the subject site is located at the southwest corner of Binscarth Road and Pleasant Avenue
just south of St. Mary’s Hospital. The site is a corner lot that contains a small, single detached
dwelling constructed in approximately 1944.
The applicant is proposing to sever a portion of the property to create two separate parcels. The
lands intended to be severed would have a frontage on Pleasant Avenue of 12.2 metre (40 feet),
2
a depth ranging between 21 to 22.3 metres (69 to 73 feet) and an area of approximately 256 m
(2,756 square feet). The lands intended to be retained would have a frontage on Binscarth Road
of 13.7 metres (45 feet), a depth ranging between 20.4 to 24.4 metres (67 to 80 feet) and an area
2
of approximately 328 m(3,531 square feet). The subject site is within an established
neighbourhood that predominantly consists of small, “wartime”, single detached dwellings on lots
with 12.2 metre (40 foot) frontages and depths ranging between 27.4 to 36.6 metres (90 to 120
feet).
Both the severed and retained lands would comply with the Low Rise Residential designation in
the Municipal Plan and would comply with the minimum requirements of the Residential Four
2
Zone (R-4). The lot size of the severed lands (256 m) would be very close to the minimum
2
zoning requirement (235 m). Although both the severed and retained lands would meet the
minimum setback requirements, staff do have some concern with the small amount of usable
outdoor amenity space that would remain for the two small lots. Most notably, almost the entire
rear yard of the retained lands would contain a driveway for a required parking space and a
concrete pad. Essentially, the current rear yard amenity area for the existing lot would become
the severed lands. Further, with the proposed creation of a ‘new’ lot, the location of the required
parking space on the retained lands in relation to the street line should conform to the current
zoning requirement. If this setback cannot be met, minor variance approval would be required to
request a reduction in the 6.0 metres (19.7 feet) setback requirement of a required parking space
from a street line.
When looking at other usable yard space for the retained lands, the front yard is more than
adequate with an 8.2 metre (26.8 foot) setback, but the side yard abutting Pleasant Avenue is
smaller than the minimum requirement under today’s zoning. This deficiency is currently legalized
under the ‘vacuum clause’ of Zoning By-law 85-1 which applies to “existing” lots, however, with
the proposed creation of a ‘new’ lot, the applicant would require minor variance approval to allow
a side yard setback abutting a street of 3.35 metres (11 feet) for the existing dwelling whereas
Zoning By-law 85-1 requires a setback of 4.5 metres (14.76 feet).
When evaluating the proposal to create two relatively “small” lots, consideration must be given to
the buildable area on the severed lands. In this regard, given the minimum setback requirements
for the construction of a new house on the severed lands, the building envelope would be
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT243SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
Submission No.:
2. B 2001-042 (Cont’d)
2
approximately 88 m (950 square feet). This would likely be further reduced by the area of a
garage or legal parking space, which may not make it a viable building lot. The remaining
building envelope is relatively small for building a house in today’s market. However, given the
2
size of the house on the retained lands (building footprint of 67 m or 720 square feet), the
relatively small size of homes in the surrounding neighbourhood (1 to 1.5 storey “wartime”
singles) and the need for additional affordable housing in Kitchener, the potentially “small-sized”
house on the severed lands may not be a factor in this consent. However, it should be
considered that by creating a small building envelope may encourage the construction of a house
to the maximum height allowed in the zoning that being 10.5 metres (34.5 feet) or approximately
three stories high. If this scenario occurred, the resulting house may not be compatible with
surrounding homes or suitable for this area.
Also, in evaluating the subject consent application under Section 51 of the Planning Act, one of
the issues that must be considered is whether the plan conforms to adjacent plans of subdivision.
Another consideration is the suitability of the land for the purpose that it is to be subdivided. With
both of these considerations in mind, staff have concerns as to whether the size and usability of
the two resultant lots would be suitable and whether the lots would conform to the surrounding
subdivision. The frontage of the severed or retained lands are not really a concern as they would
both be consistent with the predominant 12.2 metre (40 foot) frontages in the neighbourhood.
However, both of the resultant lots would seemingly be without the same “rear yard” as the rest of
the existing lots in the area. Creating approximately 21.5 metre (70 foot) deep lots through this
consent is quite a deviation from the 27.4 to 36.6 metres (90 to 120 feet) lot depths that currently
exists in this established neighbourhood. This is especially evident when comparing the retained
lands with the immediate adjacent lot on Binscarth Road and comparing the severed lands with
the immediate adjacent lot on Pleasant Avenue.
Furthermore, the Committee should consider that there appears to be very few, if any properties
in this subdivision that have been severed into resultant lots that are as small as those proposed
in the subject severance application. As well, the Committee should note that the subject site is
one block removed from the proposed St. Mary’s Heritage Conservation District which proposes
to safeguard the existing residential character of the area. In summary, since the subject consent
would yield a retained lot with an inadequate, usable rear yard amenity space and especially
since both the resultant lots would not conform to the surrounding subdivision, Business and
Planning Services recommend that Application B-2001-042, be refused.
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 comments or concerns with respect to this application.
The Committee noted the written submission of Mr. and Mrs. Brian Bannon in which they advised
that they are one of two property owners that border the subject property. The applicant’s
proposal to sever a lot 40 ft. by 68.9 ft. would result in a residence constructed with no
appreciable front, side or back yard. We have lived at our address for 15 years and have had
many incidents with traffic as vehicles attempt to exit our driveway onto Pleasant Avenue. This is
due to vehicles parked at 129 Binscarth obstructing visibility to the north. The probable driveway
for the proposed severed lot would double the incidents. Traffic is relatively heavy at times
combined with a curve in the road and a hill, speeds can be excessive. We cannot imagine
anyone building a residence on so small a lot, unless it was constructed three storeys. This
would be out of character with the neighbourhood and would drastically affect our view. While we
have had problems with the subject property relating to a non-conforming fence and outbuildings
and have registered these concerns with the City, they have not been resolved and in our opinion
the file need not get any bigger. We are requesting the Committee refuse this application.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending refusal of the
application primarily because of the small amount of usable outdoor amenity space that would
remain for the two small lots. The Chair provided an opportunity for the applicants to respond.
Ms. M. Frey advised that she was the agent for Mr. and Mrs. Morgan and had reviewed the
comments. She pointed out that the Region of Waterloo’s comments were favourable whereas
those of City staff were recommending refusal. The Chair advised that it is not uncommon for
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT244SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
Submission No.:
2. B 2001-042 (Cont’d)
commenting agencies to have differing views as they review applications based on their own
issues of concern.
Ms. Frey stated that the Morgans have no intention of building a structure to the maximum of
three storeys allowed. Their intention is to construct a small bungalow and Ms. Frey inquired if
the severance could be allowed subject to restricting the building height. Mr. H. Morgan
confirmed that a one storey building with full basement was planned and is intended as a
retirement home for he and his wife. He further noted that the size of the severed parcel was
reduced to 40 ft. to increase what would remain of the retained lot.
The Chair inquired if the Committee could grant the severance conditional on restricting the size
of the building and Ms. J. Given confirmed the Committee could do so. She noted that staff feel
the proposal may be over-development. While the homes are small, the lots are regularly sized
and it is questionable how the new dwelling would fit in comparison to the surrounding
neighbourhood. She further noted that it is uncertain if the requirements for parking could be met.
In response to the Chair, Mr. Morgan indicated that a one storey with full basement would be
constructed, approximately 29 ft. x 26 ft. in size. The Chair inquired if, that being the case, lot
coverage would be an issue. Ms. Given responded that such a structure on the proposed lot
would have approximately 26% lot coverage and the maximum permitted was 45%. Accordingly,
lot coverage would not be an issue.
The Chair expressed the opinion that the staff report was not totally negative, noting the City’s
policy to encourage affordable infill housing. He noted that the applicant intends to use the
severed lands as a retirement home and was inclined to grant the severance conditional upon
restricting the height of the dwelling to one storey.
Ms. J. Given pointed out that if granted, the severance will create the need for a minor variance
application to address deficiency in the sideyard of the retained lands adjacent to Pleasant
Avenue. She explained that this deficiency was currently addressed under the City’s Vacuum By-
law; however, this would no longer apply if the severance was granted. The sideyard is currently
3.5 m whereas, under Zoning By-law 85-1, 4.5 m is required. In addition, a variance may also be
necessary on the retained lands if the 6 m setback for the required parking space cannot be met.
Mr. D. Cybalski questioned accessibility from the sideyard for purposes of maintenance if a
garage was built on the new structure. Ms. Given advised that the proposed dimensions of the
new structure would leave approximately 10 ft. of sideyard for the purpose of maintenance.
The Chair pointed out that the applicant would have to be cognizant of the parking requirements
when making their plans as it may affect issuance of the building permit. With respect to the
retained lands, he advised that a minor variance application would be necessary given the
Vacuum By-law would no longer apply and would be a condition of approval for the severance.
Mr. Morgan was of the opinion that a vehicle could be parked back 20 ft. and still have room for
the 15 ft. patio; however, Ms. Given advised that from the plans provided it would appear that the
parking space would be on the patio and that there would not be sufficient room to meet the
parking requirement.
Mr. D. Cybalski questioned whether the lot was heavily treed and Mr. Morgan advised there were
trees located along one side of the proposed lot. Mr. Cybalski, in reference to the surrounding
area, indicated that he had difficulty supporting creation of such a small lot.
As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion.
Moved by Mr. B. Isaac
Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse
That the application of Harold and Patti Morgan requesting permission to convey a parcel of land
to be developed with a single residential dwelling, having frontage on Pleasant Avenue of 12.2 m
2
(40 ft.), by a depth of 21 m (68.9 ft.) and an area of 256.2 m (2,757.8 sq. ft.), on Part Block B,
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT245SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
Submission No.:
2. B 2001-042 (Cont’d)
BE GRANTED
Registered Plan 230, 129 Binscarth Road, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the owner shall submit and receive final approval of a minor variance application to
address any zoning deficiencies with respect to the retained lands, including the
requirement to provide a parking space 6 m (19.68 ft.) from the lot line and a sideyard
abutting a street of 3.5 m (11.48 ft.), rather than the required 4.5 m (14.76 ft.).
2. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the
payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
3. That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of Engineering
Services for the installation of all new service connections to the severed lands.
4. 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.
5. That the shed located on the lands to be severed shall be removed or relocated so as to
comply with the Zoning By-law to the satisfaction of the City’s Principal Planner.
6. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener, to the satisfaction of
the City Solicitor, agreeing that a dwelling having only one storey may be constructed 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 September 11, 2003.
Carried
Submission Nos.:
3.B 2001-043 to B 2001-047 inclusive
Applicant:
JHS Properties Inc.
Property Location:
18, 22, 28, 34 and 38 Deer Ridge Crescent
Legal Description:
Part of Blocks 1 and 2, Registered Plan 58M-88, designated as Parts
1 to 12 inclusive on Reference Plan 58R-12718
Appearances:
In Support:Ms. A. Kutler
MHBC Planning Limited
171 Victoria Street North
Kitchener, ON N2H 5C5
Contra:None
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT246SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
Submission Nos.:
3. B 2001-043 to B 2001-047 inclusive (Cont’d)
Written Submissions:
In Support:None
Contra:None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever 5 irregular
parcels of land from the rear of the subject properties as lot additions to an abutting property
(Deer Ridge Golf Club) to correct encroachment of an existing golf cart pathway. The lands to be
2 2
severed have lot areas ranging from 35.2 m(378.9 sq. ft.) to 93.9 m (1,010.76 sq. ft.), with a
2
total combined lot area of 334.5 m (3,600.65 sq. ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of Business and Planning Services in which they advised
that it is proposed to sever a number of small pieces of property from the rear of 5 lots fronting
Deer Ridge Crescent. The purpose of the severances is to rectify the encroachment of the golf
course onto these lots. The retained lands are very large lots well in excess of the by-law
requirements.
There are no concerns with minor adjustment to this rear lot line provided the zoning is revised to
reflect the new lot line. The severed parcels are zoned R-3 which does not permit a golf course;
the golf course lands are zoned P-4. The applicant was advised of this matter and as such, has
submitted a zone change to change the zoning of the severed parts to R-4.
Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submissions B 2001-043 to 047,
subject to the following conditions:
1. That final approval of Zone Change Application ZC 01/15/D/ET be granted.
2. That the lands to be severed be added to the abutting lands 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.
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, the Region of Waterloo and the
Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no comments or
concerns with respect to this application.
The Chair reviewed the staff reports, noting that staff are recommending approval of the
applications, 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
recommendation contained therein.
As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion.
Consent B 2001-043
Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski
Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac
That the application of JHS Properties Inc. requesting permission to convey a parcel of land as a
lot addition to 300 Pioneer Tower Road (Deer Ridge Golf Club) having a lot width of 25.756 m
2
(84.5 ft.) and an area of 64.3 m(692.14 sq. ft.), on Part of Blocks 1 and 2, Registered Plan 58M-
88, designated as Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-12718, 38 Deer Ridge Crescent, Kitchener,
BE GRANTED
Ontario, , subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall receive final approval of Zone Change Application ZC01/15/D/ET.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT247SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
Submission Nos.:
3. B 2001-043 to B 2001-047 inclusive (Cont’d)
2. That the lands to be severed shall be added to the abutting lands known municipally as
300 Pioneer Tower Road 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.
3. 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 September 11, 2003.
Carried
Consent B 2001-044
Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski
Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac
That the application of JHS Properties Inc. requesting permission to convey a parcel of land as a
lot addition to 300 Pioneer Tower Road (Deer Ridge Golf Club) having a lot width of
2
approximately 25.756 m (84.5 ft.) and an area of 35.2 m (378.9 sq. ft.), on Part of Blocks 1 and
2, Registered Plan 58M-88, designated as Part 3 on Reference Plan 58R-12718, 34 Deer Ridge
BE GRANTED
Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall receive final approval of Zone Change Application ZC01/15/D/ET.
2. That the lands to be severed shall be added to the abutting lands known municipally as
300 Pioneer Tower Road 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.
3. 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.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT248SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
Submission Nos.:
3. B 2001-043 to B 2001-047 inclusive (Cont’d)
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 September 11, 2003.
Carried
Consent B 2001-045
Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski
Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac
That the application of JHS Properties Inc./Stephen & Diane Fitzpatrick requesting permission to
convey a parcel of land as a lot addition to 300 Pioneer Tower Road (Deer Ridge Golf Club)
2
having a lot width of 32.37 m (106.2 sq. ft.) and an area of 62.9 m (677.07 sq. ft.), on Part of
Blocks 1 and 2, Registered Plan 58M-88, designated as Parts 5 and 7 on Reference Plan 58R-
BE GRANTED
12718, 28 Deer Ridge Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following
conditions:
1.That the owner shall receive final approval of Zone Change Application ZC01/15/D/ET.
2.That the lands to be severed shall be added to the abutting lands known municipally as
300 Pioneer Tower Road 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.
3. 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 September 11, 2003.
Carried
Consent B 2001-046
Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski
Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac
That the application of JHS Properties Inc./Richard & Jean Landry requesting permission to
convey a parcel of land as a lot addition to 300 Pioneer Tower Road (Deer Ridge Golf Club)
2
having a lot width of 26.051 m (85.47 sq. ft.) and an area of 93.9 m(1,010.76 sq. ft.), on Part of
Blocks 1 and 2, Registered Plan 58M-88, designated as Part 9 on Reference Plan 58R-12718, 22
BE GRANTED
Deer Ridge Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions:
1.That the owner shall receive final approval of Zone Change Application ZC01/15/D/ET.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT249SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
Submission Nos.:
3. B 2001-043 to B 2001-047 inclusive (Cont’d)
2.That the lands to be severed shall be added to the abutting lands known municipally as
300 Pioneer Tower Road 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.
3.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 September 11, 2003.
Carried
Consent B 2001-047
Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski
Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac
That the application of JHS Properties Inc./Peter Misikowetz requesting permission to convey a
parcel of land as a lot addition to 300 Pioneer Tower Road (Deer Ridge Golf Club) having a lot
2
width of approximately 43.394 m (142.37 sq. ft.) and an area of 78.2 m (841.76 sq. ft.), on Part of
Blocks 1 and 2, Registered Plan 58M-88, designated as Part 11 on Reference Plan 58R-12718,
BE GRANTED
18 Deer Ridge Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions:
1.That the owner shall receive final approval of Zone Change Application ZC01/15/D/ET.
2.That the lands to be severed shall be added to the abutting lands known municipally as
300 Pioneer Tower Road 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.
3.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 ADJUSTMENT250SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
Submission Nos.:
3. B 2001-043 to B 2001-047 inclusive (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 September 11, 2003.
Carried
Submission Nos.:
4.B 2001-048 to B 2001-050 inclusive
Applicant:
Ivan Biuk Construction Ltd.
Property Location:
Pinnacle Drive
Legal Description:
Block 10, Registered Plan 1480 and Part Lot 6, Lot 7, Registered
Plan 578, designated as Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-6207
The Chair advised that the Committee was in receipt of a letter dated September 6, 2001 from
Mr. B. Kowalchuk, Land Use Planning Services, on behalf of his client, Mr. I. Biuk, requesting that
these applications be deferred to the Committee’s meeting to be held at the end of October.
By general consent, the Committee agreed to defer these applications to its meeting scheduled to
be held on Tuesday, October 30, 2001.
ADJOURNMENT
On motion, the meeting adjourned at 11:35 a.m.
th
Dated at the City of Kitchener this 11 day of September, 2001.
J. Billett
Secretary-Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment