Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2001-10-30COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD OCTOBER 30, 2001 MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. S. Kay, B. Isaac, and P. Britton. OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. Given, Principal Planner and Ms. J. Billett, Secretary-Treasurer. Mr. S. Kay, Chair, called this meeting to order at 9:35 a.m. Moved by Mr. P. Britton Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment of September 11, 2001, be amended as follows: · Page 241 – to amend the Committee’s decision respecting Consent Application, Submission No. B 2001-041 by deleting from the second sentence of the first paragraph of the decision, the phrase ‘having a lot width’ and substituting therefore the phrase ‘having frontage on Waterloo Street’. Carried Moved by Mr. B. Isaac Seconded by Mr. P. Britton That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment of October 2, 2001, as mailed to the members, be accepted. Carried Mr. P. Britton declared a pecuniary interest in Submission Nos. A 2001-060 and B 2001-043 to B 2001- 047 inclusive, considered by the Committee of Adjustment on September 11, 2001 in his absence, as his firm acted on behalf of the applicants. UNFINISHED BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE Submission No.: 1.A 2001-062 Applicant: Tash Goka & Dianne Koebel Property Location: 342 Frederick Street Legal Description: Part Lots 2 & 3, Registered Plan 117 Appearances: In Support:Mr. B. Straus Bradley A. Straus Contractors Limited 746 Snow Crest Place Waterloo, ON N2J 3Z4 Ms. D. Koebel 342 Frederick Street Kitchener, ON N2H 2N9 Contra:Mr. C. Papenhuyzen 346 Frederick Street Kitchener, ON N2H 2N9 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTOCTOBER 30, 2001 261 Submission No.: 1. A 2001-062 (Cont’d) Written Submissions: In Support:None Contra:Mr. C. Papenhuyzen 346 Frederick Street Kitchener, ON N2H 2N9 The applicant is requesting permission to construct a 8.5 m x 5.5 m (27.9 ft. x 18.04 ft.) attached garage to the rear of the existing dwelling, having an easterly sideyard setback of 0.61 m (2 ft.), rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.) and a rear yard setback of 0.49m (1.6 ft.), rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.). The Committee noted previous comments of Business and Planning Services dated September 29, 2001 in which they recommended deferral of the application; and revised comments of Business and Planning Services dated October 24, 2001 in which they advised that the applicants request permission to construct a 40 square metre addition to the single detached dwelling having the effect of attaching the dwelling to the garage. Such addition would result in both the sideyard and rearyard requirements changing. The application requests approval for an easterly sideyard of 0.61 metres (2 feet), rather than the 1.2 metres (4 feet) and a rear yard of 0.49 metres (1.6 feet), rather than the required 7.5 metres (24.6 feet). It is noted that the revised drawing shows a proposed sideyard of 0.55 metres; the application should be amended accordingly. The addition is to be constructed in order that the back door of the dwelling will lead into the garage addition and also attach to the existing detached garage. As a detached structure the existing garage complies with the Zoning By-law under the vacuum clause. However, the addition would join the detached garage to the main dwelling therefore requiring a 7.5 metre rear yard for the combined structure. Staff have had extensive discussions with the applicant regarding the intent of the garage addition and have determined that in order to use the addition for a home business, a zone change is required. The owners are proceeding with this process. They have, however, indicated that they wish to proceed with obtaining approvals for the variance to permit the garage construction, which would have to be used solely for the purposes related to a single detached dwelling until or unless a zone change is approved. The addition would be built flush with the sideyard of the existing garage, which would permit a functional space, permitting the installation of a garage door, and would allow a straight sidewall. The sideyard would be consistent with that required for detached structures, and is therefor minor and maintains the intent of the by-law . The actual rear yard does not change by the new addition and the usable amenity space does not change either, given that the area of construction presently forms part of the driveway. The intent of the by-law to require a 7.5 metre rearyard is therefor still maintained. The rearyard variance is also minor as there is no change to the existing garage. Accordingly, Business and Planning Services recommends approval of minor variance application A2001-062 to permit the construction of an attached garage having a sideyard of 0.55 metres and resulting in the existing garage having a rear yard of 0.49 metres. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building, in which he advised that a building permit is required to construct the new garage; the wall located less than 4 ft. to the property line shall have a 45 minute fire rating and no openings; and, all roof drainage shall be directed onto the subject property. 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTOCTOBER 30, 2001 262 Submission No.: 1. A 2001-062 (Cont’d) The Committee noted the written submission of Mr. and Mrs. Con Papenhuyzen in which they advised that the subject application is for a large addition to an existing garage to provide according to the applicants much needed additional space for their growing home business. The proposed addition is within 2 ft. of our property at 346 Frederick Street and it would form a continuous building wall taking away afternoon sunlight and our view of neighbourhood trees. We wish to point out that the proposed garage extension would not comply with By-law 94-1, Section 9, which deals with CR-1 Zoning. Section 44.3.13 refers to Section 5.13 which limits the 2 allowable home business floor area to 50 m (Clause 2g) whereas the extended garage has 80.3 2 2 m, a 60% exceedance. Existing garage = 5.5 x 6.1 = 33.55 mand proposed addition = 5.5 x 2 8.5 = 46.75 m. To accommodate our neighbours, the applicants, we would be prepared to live with the noted non-compliance and the loss of view and sunlight provided that they commit themselves in writing to: · limit garage extension wall height to that of the existing garage; · limit the garage extension’s roof height to the lower part of the existing garage’s roof; · have the extension’s wall made of high quality stucco finish; · plant cedar trees of minimum 6 ft. height at maximum 1 ft. spacing in good soil all along the existing garage and the garage extension at the side abutting property immediately after completion of construction and maintain/replace trees as needed. The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the application as amended to permit a sideyard of 0.55 m rather than 0.61 m as stated in the application. Mr. B. Straus advised that he had reviewed the staff report and agreed to amend the application as recommended by staff. The Chair referred to discussions undertaken by staff with the applicant regarding the proposed use and Mr. Straus advised that a zone change is in process; however, the main reason for the addition is to provide an indoor parking area for convenience of parking the applicant’s vehicle. Mr. C. Papenhuyzen advised that he was the owner of 342 Frederick Street. He stated that the wall of the proposed addition will be adjacent to his property and was concerned with loss of afternoon sunlight and obstruction of his view of neighbouring trees. He pointed out that he was not totally opposed to the application; however, asked that the addition be constructed in an aesthetically pleasing manner. Specifically, he requested that the height of the addition’s wall be limited to the same as the existing garage and the roof height be limited to the height of the lower part of the existing garage roof. Mr. B. Straus stated that the addition is to be constructed with stucco or brick and the height of the wall will have to be approximately 1 ft. higher than the wall of the existing garage to accommodate the door to the existing dwelling. He further pointed out that landscaping already exists along the property line and provided photographs for the Committee to review. Mr. P. Britton questioned what type of business was proposed. Ms. D. Koebel advised that the home business involves distribution of small electronic accessories such as power line filters and amplifiers. In response to questions by Mr. Britton, Ms. Koebel advised that the business is currently operating and the existing garage is used for some storage related to the home business. She stated, however, that the addition is primarily to be used for the convenience of parking her vehicle indoors out of inclement weather. In response to further questions from Mr. P. Britton, Ms. Koebel advised that the existing garage is currently used for storage and, if approved, the addition would also be used for storage and to park her vehicle indoors. Mr. Britton pointed out that the home business use would not be permitted in the addition unless a zone change application is approved. Ms. Koebel acknowledged the need for a zone change to permit the use; however, wished to proceed with the minor variance application at this time. Ms. J. Given provided the following information in response to a request for clarification of zoning regulations: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTOCTOBER 30, 2001 263 Submission No.: 1. A 2001-062 (Cont’d) · regulations pertaining to attached garages assume the 4 ft. sideyard is the only means of access to the rear yard; · regulations pertaining to a detached garage assume access to the rear yard is accessible between the main building and the garage and, therefore, permits a 2 ft. sideyard; · the 7.5 m rear yard requirement is to ensure adequate outdoor amenity space; in this case, the addition will not result in a net change to the rear yard as there is more than 7.5 m existing. Ms. Given further pointed out that the current zoning of the property permits more intense commercial uses than that proposed for the home business and the proposed business will have to meet all zoning requirements if approved. In response to a question from Mr. Papenhuyzen, the Chair advised that the zone change application would be site specific to the subject property. The Chair expressed the opinion that the intent appears to be to use the proposed addition for the home business and he had difficulty supporting the minor variance application prior to zone change approval. Mr. B. Straus reiterated that the main purpose of the addition was to park the applicant’s vehicle indoors. Mr. Britton pointed out, however, that the vehicle is not currently parked in the existing garage as it is being used for storage for a business which is not currently a permitted use. Ms. J. Given stated that a site visit was not undertaken and accordingly, she could not verify to what extent the existing garage was being used for the home business. Mr. Britton expressed concern that by the time the zone change was dealt with, the physical elements of the proposed use would be predetermined by approving the minor variance application at this time. He stated that the zone change should be dealt with firstly and then the minor variance could be considered. Accordingly, he stated that he was prepared to defer the minor variance application to allow time for the zone change to be considered. The Chair agreed with Mr. Britton’s comments, expressing the opinion that if the minor variance was approved, the temptation to use the addition for the home business prior to zone change approval would be too great. Ms. D. Koebel reiterated that the area is already zoned for other commercial uses and a number of other commercial enterprises exist on the street. She stated that she had been very responsible in her approach to the proposed home business and did not wish to disrupt the lifestyles of others. Notwithstanding Ms. Koebel’s comments Mr. Britton stated that, in his opinion, the intent was clearly to use the addition for a use which is currently not permitted. The Chair advised that he was prepared to defer the application sine die pending consideration of a zone change application and inquired if the applicant would agree to deferral. Mr. B. Straus responded that he would agree to defer the application. By general consent, it was agreed to defer Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 2001- 062, sine die pending consideration of a zone change application and subsequent to consideration of the zone change the applicant shall make request to the Secretary-Treasurer to bring this matter forward to an appropriate hearing date. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTOCTOBER 30, 2001 264 UNFINISHED BUSINESS CONSENT Submission Nos.: 1.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 Mr. S. Kay declared a pecuniary interest in these applications as he has acted on behalf of the applicant and did not participate in any discussion or voting with respect to these applications. Mr. Kay left the meeting and Mr. P. Britton chaired the meeting during consideration of these applications and in accordance with the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, these applications were considered by the remaining two members. Appearances: In Support:Mr. B. Kowalchuk 154 Mooregate Crescent Kitchener, ON N2M 2G1 Mr. I. Biuk 1989 Old Mill Road Kitchener, ON N2P 1E4 Contra:None Written Submissions: In Support:None Contra:Randy Martin & Gina Luciantonio 20 Pinnacle Drive Kitchener, ON N2P 1B7 The Committee was previously advised that the applicant is requesting permission to create three new lots fronting onto Pinnacle Drive to be developed for residential use (semi-detached); Parcels 1 and 3 will have a lot width of 16.76 m (55 ft.) and Parcel 2, 16.15 m (53 ft.); Parcel 1 will have a 222 lot area of 753.65 m (8,112.5 sq. ft.); Parcel 2, 615.46 m (6,625 sq. ft.); and Parcel 3, 523.7 m (5,637.5 sq. ft.). Mr. B. Kowalchuk advised that his client, Mr. I. Biuk, wished to request deferral of the applications to the Committee’s meeting scheduled for December 11, 2001, to allow additional time to resolve issues relative to a proposed development of an adjoining property owner. Mr. Kowalchuk further advised that it is intended to alter the size of the proposed lots and deferral will allow time to submit new plans to the Secretary-Treasurer. In addition, he requested that prior to consideration of the applications, staff provide comments respecting the written submission of Mr. Martin and Ms. Luciantonio. By general consent, the Committee agreed to defer Consent Applications, Submission Nos. B 2001-048 to B 2001-050 inclusive to the December 11 Committee of Adjustment meeting. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTOCTOBER 30, 2001 265 Submission No.: 2.B 2001-051 Applicant: VMT Holdings Limited - Margaret Franjic Property Location: 36 Talbot Street Legal Description: Lots 197 to 205 inclusive, Registered Plan 266 and Part Lot 158, Streets and Lanes The Chair advised that the Committee was in receipt of a letter from Mr. Tom Franjic dated October 24, 2001 advising that the applicant is withdrawing the application. Accordingly, this application was not considered by the Committee. Submission No.: 3.B 2001-052 Applicant: Thomas Hugh O’Rourke Property Location: 19 and 21 Bingeman Street Legal Description: Part Lot A, Registered Plan 363 The Chair advised that the Committee was in receipt of a letter from Mr. Craig Robson, McCarter Grespan Robson Beynon Thompson, advising that his client, Mr. Tom O’Rourke, requests deferral of this application to the Committee’s next meeting. Accordingly, the Committee agreed to defer this application to its meeting scheduled to be held on Tuesday, November 20, 2001. The Committee then recessed the meeting, temporarily, at 10:05 a.m., in order to consider applications for minor variance to the City of Kitchener’s Fence By-law. This meeting reconvened at 10:30 a.m. NEW BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE Submission No.: 1.A 2001-064 Applicant: James & Christine Wideman Property Location: 46 Stoke Court Legal Description: Lot 210, Registered Plan 1481 Appearances: In Support:Mr. J. Wideman 46 Stoke Court Kitchener, ON N2N 1Z5 Contra:None Written Submissions: In Support:None Contra:None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct an addition, 4.15 m x 1.2 m (13.6 ft. x 4 ft.), having a rear yard setback of 7.01 m (23 ft.), rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of Business and Planning Services in which they advised that the subject land is located on the northerly side of a cul-de-sac known as Stoke Court. The property has 21.3 metres (70 feet) of frontage and a lot area of 728.36 square metres (7840 square feet). The applicants wish to construct a 7 square metre (75.4 square foot) extension on the kitchen space in the rear yard of the property. The extension would have combined dimensions of 1.2 m x 2.9 m (4 ft. x 9.5 ft.) toward the north and 1.2 m x 2.8 m (4 ft. x 9.25 ft.) toward the west. The COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTOCTOBER 30, 2001 266 Submission No.: 1. A 2001-064 (Cont’d) extension would stand 2.43 metres (8 feet) above finished grade so as to be continuous with the main floor kitchen space. Application for minor variance is required to reduce the minimum rear yard requirement from 7.5 metres (24.6 feet) to 7 metres (23 feet) to permit the construction of the proposed kitchen area. As it currently exists, the expansion would exceed the permitted minimum rear yard depth by 0.5 metres (1.64 feet) from the northerly face of the proposal to the rear property line. The proposed kitchen extension can be considered appropriate and desirable since the extension will be designed in general consistency with the existing dwelling, maintaining continuity with the existing form. Additionally, the proposals impact on the surrounding environment is minor in nature. The proposal only accounts for a small percentage of the rear lot and since the property abuts Monarch Woods Park, no property owners are affected northward. Impacts to the adjacent property owner to the west are minimal since side yards exceed minimum requirements, overall resulting in a minimal nuisance to surrounding property owners. The application for minor variance is considered minor in nature and appropriate for the development of the subject land. The application also maintains the general intent of both the Zoning By-law and the Municipal Plan by maintaining its use and designation. Accordingly, Business and Planning Services recommends that Minor Variance Application A 2001-064 be approved, to reduce the minimum rear yard requirement from 7.5 metres (24.6 feet) to 7.0 metres (23 feet) to permit the construction of the proposed kitchen extension in the rear yard of the subject lands generally in accordance with the plan and elevations attached to this application. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building permit is required for construction of the new addition. The Committee noted the comments of the Region of Waterloo and the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no concerns or comments with respect to this application. The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the application and inquired if Mr. Wideman had anything further to add. Mr. J. Wideman advised that he had reviewed the staff comments and was in agreement with the recommendation contained therein. He pointed out, however, that the width of the proposed addition would actually be 14 ft. rather than 13.6 ft. As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion. Moved by Mr. P. Britton Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac That the application of James and Christine Wideman requesting permission to construct an addition, 4.26 m x 1.2 m (14 ft. x 4 ft.), having a rear yard setback of 7.01 m (23 ft.), rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.), on Lot 210, Registered Plan 1481, 46 Stoke Court, Kitchener, BE APPROVED Ontario, , subject to the following conditions: 1. That the variance as approved in this application shall be generally in accordance with the plan and elevations submitted with Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 2001- 064. 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTOCTOBER 30, 2001 267 Submission No.: 1. A 2001-064 (Cont’d) 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 2001-065 Applicant: Wayne Tabor Property Location: 353 Wilson Avenue Legal Description: Lot 39, Registered Plan 1219 Appearances: In Support:Mr. C. Laugalys 18 Gracefield Crescent Kitchener, ON N2E 1R9 Contra:Ms. L. Bourgeois 357 Wilson Avenue Kitchener, ON N2C 1H6 Mr. Edward Bourgeois 262 Kingswood Drive Kitchener, ON N2E 2K2 Written Submissions: In Support:None Contra:Ms. L. Bourgeois 357 Wilson Ave. Kitchener, ON N2C 1H6 The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing detached garage having an easterly sideyard of 0.49 m (1.62 ft.), rather than the required 0.6 m (2 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of Business and Planning Services in which they advised that a building permit had been obtained for the garage and drawings submitted which indicated a 0.6 metre sideyard. However, once built it was discovered that the structure was actually built 0.49 metres from the lot line. Building staff has stated that the owner mistook the location of the fence to be on the side lot line, whereas a survey indicates that the fence is actually located 0.12 metres (0.4 feet) onto the neighbouring property. The driveway on the subject property runs along the left side of the house and into the rear yard where the detached garage is located approximately 3 metres (10 feet) from the back of the house. If the applicant were to maintain the required 1.2 metre sideyard for the detached garage it would be awkward for a vehicle to enter the structure from the driveway. The reduced sideyard setback is required to provide a proper alignment of the garage entrance with the driveway. Drawings submitted with the building permit indicate that the eaves extend 0.3 metre (1 foot) beyond the footings of the structure and consequently do not encroach onto the neighbouring property. The applicant is advised that it must be ensured that the drainage from the eaves is directed onto the subject lot. The ground level area between the side lot line and the garage is landscaped with stones and therefore will not require maintenance. In addition, the garage is finished with aluminium siding that is also low maintenance. The requested side yard setback is considered sufficient to perform any maintenance required for the structure. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTOCTOBER 30, 2001 268 Submission No.: 2. A 2001-065 (Cont’d) The garage measures 5.5 m x 7.8 m (18 ft. x 25.5 ft.) resulting in a gross floor area of 42.9 square metres (459 square feet) which complies with maximum lot area requirements of the Zoning By- law. However, the structure has reached the maximum 10% of lot area permitted for detached accessory structures and it is noted that no further detached structures are permitted. Based on the above comments, it is the opinion of staff that the subject variance is minor in nature, meets general intent of the by-law and is appropriate development for the property and surrounding area. Accordingly, Business and Planning Services recommends approval of minor variance A 2001- 065 as shown on the submitted drawing provided all drainage is directed onto the subject property. 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 Committee noted the written submission of Lorraine Bourgeois in which she advised that she objects to the application for the following reasons: Owner at 357 Wilson Avenue, who is myself, Lorraine Bourgeois, feel that the situate distance of 1.62 ft. on the easterly side of the applicant’s property is really supposed to be 1.42 ft. given that the applicant was supposed to stay 1 inch inside the mutual boarder. As the location presents itself at present, the applicant has removed the sod right back to my fence on the westerly side of my property. The applicant has pushed my fence in and placed rubber along the edge of my fence in addition to piling rocks against it. The other reason which raises my concern is that the applicant’s single detached garage is built over the public utility hydro line which runs to my house at 357 Wilson Avenue. I have included the locate for this as part of this letter. Two other issues also raise concern for me and these pertain to the proper determination of the applicant’s boundary line on the easterly side mentioned in the application to legalize the single detached garage, and legal issues arising from sod removed by the applicant from the westerly side of my home on August 4, 2001, without notice to me and consequent intention to repair stated by applicant while applicant claiming to own portion of sod removed. In addition to placing Small Claims Action against myself, Lorraine Bourgeois, for water leakage on applicant driveway and cost for repair while applicant’s intention was to have his driveway redone at the time of building the single detached garage. What raises my concern here is that the applicant’s application to legalize the single detached garage presents the problem of water accumulation on the applicant’s property while digging with a front end loader while knowing that the footage or minimum requirement for distance to legalize the building of the garage was not correct. The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the application and inquired if Mr. Laugalys had anything further to add. Mr. C. Laugalys provided photographs of the subject property for review by the Committee. He advised that moving the garage to meet the sideyard requirement would put the structure at an awkward angle for a vehicle to enter the garage. He noted that the hydro lines for the neighbouring property are located on the subject lands; however, upon inquiry with Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro indication was given that Hydro would not move the lines unless the neighbouring property owner paid the cost involved. He further noted that during construction damage from water ponding from the neighbouring property was experienced resulting in the foundation being placed closer to the sideyard than permited. Mr. Laugalys expressed the opinion that the garage in its present location does not adversely impact the neighbouring property. Ms. L. Bourgeois advised that the owner of the subject lands, Mr. Tabor, had not consulted with her regarding the hydro lines. She stated that the applicant had encroached onto her sideyard by 6 in., removing sod and placing rocks and rubber up against her fence. She stated that she believed during excavation for the garage something underground was hit causing the water ponding. She pointed out that her insurance company had inspected her property and she was COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTOCTOBER 30, 2001 269 Submission No.: 2. A 2001-065 (Cont’d) assured there was no water coming from her property. She expressed concern that the owner of the subject lands did not have a professional engineer undertake the excavation. Ms. Bourgeois advised that she had not been provided with a copy of the survey of the subject lands and Mr. Tabor claims to own part of her property. She stated that despite the issue of boundary she is unable to repair her fence because of the rocks and rubber placed against it. She again referred to the hydro lines stating that Mr. Tabor had initially indicated he would have the hydro lines moved; however, the garage was constructed without any further consultation. The Chair advised Ms. Bourgeois that the Committee only has jurisdiction to consider matters relevant to the variance. The requested variance is to legalize the sideyard of the garage and consideration is based on the calculations provided in the application. The Chair pointed out that if Ms. Bourgeois brought forward a survey that indicates a different calculation subsequent to the Committee’s granting approval of the variance, then the Committee’s decision would be null and void and the owner of the subject lands would be required to re-apply to the Committee. Ms. Bourgeois reiterated her concern with regard to encroachment onto her property; however, the Chair advised that without a proper survey to indicate different calculations the Committee would base its decision on the information provided this date which appears to indicate a sideyard of 0.49 m (1.62 ft.). Mr. Laugalys stated that the plan attached to the property deed shows the calculations provided this date and to his knowledge these are still relevant calculations. He stated that there are other issues involving legal action that is being taken against Ms. Bourgeois that, in his opinion, should not be part of the consideration with respect to the application. In addition, he stated that he believed he had acted in a responsible manner and attempted to satisfy Ms. Bourgeois’ concerns. He further pointed out that the area between the garage and the fence has been made maintenance free. In response to questions by Mr. Britton, it was determined that the fence between the two properties has existed since 1968 and maintenance free gravel, rather than rocks, have been placed between the garage and the fence. As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion. Moved by Mr. P. Britton Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac That the application of Wayne Tabor requesting permission to legalize an existing detached garage having an easterly sideyard of 0.49 m (1.62 ft.), rather than the required 0.6 m (2 ft.), on BE APPROVED Lot 39, Registered Plan 1219, 353 Wilson Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following condition: 1.That the owner shall ensure that all roof drainage is directed onto the subject property. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTOCTOBER 30, 2001 270 Submission No.: 3.A 2001-066 Applicant: Robert Matthew Sinclair Property Location: 25 Rose Street Legal Description: Part Lot 5 and Part Lot 6, Registered Plan 124 and Part Lot 51, Subdivision of Lot 2, German Company Tract Mr. S. Kay declared a pecuniary interest in this application as he owns property within the circulation area and did not participate in any discussion or voting with respect to this application. Mr. Kay left the meeting and Mr. P. Britton chaired the meeting during consideration of this application and in accordance with the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, this application was considered by the remaining two members. Appearances: In Support:Mr. R. Sinclair 25 Rose Street Kitchener, ON N2H 1L5 Contra:None Written Submissions: In Support:None Contra:None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing single residential dwelling having a northerly sideyard setback, where a driveway leading to a required parking space is situated between the main building and the lot line, of 2.3 m (7.55 ft.) rather than the required 3 m (9.84 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 driveway access that comprises the north side yard setback of 2.3 metres (7.55 ft) instead of the required 3.0 metres (9.8 ft.). The subject property is known municipally as 25 Rose Street. The house is a two and a half storey detached residential dwelling located on the west side of Rose Street within close proximity to Cameron Street. The lot has a frontage of approximately 11.6 metres (38.74 ft.) which is short of the required 15.0 metres as set out in By-law 85-1. The subject property has a depth of 43.1 metres (141.45 ft.). The applicant is proposing to convert the existing house from an established duplex to a triplex by constructing an additional dwelling unit in the basement. As a result of changing the established use, the subject property must now comply with the current requirement of, a full 3.0 metre side yard that has been utilized as the driveway access and, a lot width of not less than 15.0 metres. However, staff considers the narrow driveway to be functional, despite the shortfall from the current by-law standard of 0.7 metres (2.29 ft.). Also, in considering the effect of the proposed reduction in side yard to the neighbouring property, the variance will not be a significant impact as existing conditions will not change. The application should be amended to request approval of a lot width variance. Staff feels that the reduced lot width is consistent with the existing lot widths on Rose Street. As a result, staff considers that approval of either variance for side yard reduction or lot width reduction will not increase the impact to the abutting property beyond the impact that currently exists. However, while the subject property is currently zoned to permit a triplex, it should be noted that the conversion would require that each dwelling unit have one independent parking space dedicated to it for a total of three spaces. The current driveway access cannot accommodate three parking spaces, though enough space does exist at the rear of the property directly behind the house to create three parking spaces for the proposed use. While this issue does not specifically relate to the nature of the required variance, functional on-site parking, in compliance COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTOCTOBER 30, 2001 271 Submission No.: 3. A 2001-066 (Cont’d) with the by-law, must be established prior to the occupancy of the new dwelling unit. An occupancy permit must be obtained prior to occupancy. Based on the above comments, it is the opinion of staff that the variances are acceptable and the impact of the variances would be minor as they maintain the general intent of the Municipal Plan’s infill policy and Zoning By-law. Accordingly, Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission A 2001-066, as amended. 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. Mr. Britton reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the application subject to an amendment to also permit a lot width of 11.6 m rather than the required 15 m for conversion of the existing duplex to a triplex. The Chair inquired if Mr. Sinclair had anything further to add. Mr. R. Sinclair advised that he had reviewed the staff comments and had nothing further to add. Mr. P. Britton inquired as to what mechanism would be used to ensure that adequate on-site parking is provided. Ms. J. Given advised that an occupancy permit would be required at which time the owner would be required to show a plan outlining the required parking spaces. Mr. Britton suggested that approval of the application be subject to a parking plan being submitted to the Principal Planner and Ms. Given agreed. As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion. Moved by Mr. B. Isaac Seconded by Mr. P. Britton That the application of Robert Matthew Sinclair requesting permission to legalize an existing single residential dwelling to be converted to a triplex, having a northerly sideyard setback where a driveway leading to a required parking space is situated between the main building and the lot line, of 2.3 m (7.55 ft.), rather than the required 3 m (9.84 ft.), and a lot width of 11.63 m (38.15 ft.), rather than the required 15 m (49.21 ft.), on Part Lots 5 and 6, Registered Plan 124 and Part BE Lot 51, Subdivision of Lot 2, German Company Tract, 25 Rose Street, Kitchener, Ontario, APPROVED , subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall submit a detailed parking plan showing the three (3) required parking spaces to be approved by the City’s Principal Planner prior to January 31, 2002. No extension to this completion date shall be granted unless approved in writing by the Principal Planner prior to the completion date set out in this decision. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The 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 ADJUSTMENTOCTOBER 30, 2001 272 Submission No.: 4.A 2001-067 Applicant: Kitchener Thermoplastics Reprocessing Inc. Property Location: 11 Hoffman Street Legal Description: Lot 5, Registered Plan 870 Appearances: In Support:Mr. M. Grammer Artindale & Partners 101 Frederick Street Suite 510 Kitchener, ON N2H 6R2 Mr. P. Persaud 4 Highgrove Court Cambridge, ON N3H 4R8 Contra:None Written Submissions: In Support:None Contra:None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to locate 11 off-street parking spaces setback 1 m (3.28 ft.) from the lot line adjacent to Hoffman Street, rather than the required 3 m (9.84 ft.) and to allow the 11 spaces to exit onto the street in a rearward motion, rather than in a forward motion. 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 Hoffman Street, east of Ottawa Street and north of the Conestoga Parkway. The 0.49 hectare (1.2 acre) site is almost entirely covered by a 0.40 hectare (0.99 acre) industrial building that was built in approximately 1960 with a large addition built around 1978. Historically, the site has been used by Mitchell Plastics who have recently sold the site to another plastic processing/recycling company (Kitchener Thermoplastics Reprocessing). Planning staff has been working with both the previous and new owners since May of this year to rectify all of the outstanding zoning matters that existed on this site. All matters have now been addressed (except for the zoning regulations for off-street parking), including a previous minor variance application A244/78 which reduced the rear yard setback, side yard setback, increased the lot coverage and allowed loading trucks to manoeuver on Hoffman Street. As such, the applicant has applied to locate 11 off-street parking spaces within 1 metre (3.28 feet) of a street line whereas Zoning By-law 85-1 requires a minimum of 3 metres (9.84 feet) and to allow the off-street parking facility to be located in a manner that necessitates vehicles to egress onto the abutting public street whereas Zoning By-law 85-1 does not allow such. In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, staff offers the following comments in relation to the requested variances. The required parking is currently dealt with through an off-site parking agreement that has recently been registered to allow the new owner to receive their zoning compliance. It was intended that the agreement would be temporary until such time as the subject variance application was made since the off-site arrangement does not suit the needs of the new owner. The subject application maintains the intent of both the Municipal Plan and zoning in that adequate on-site parking would be provided. The proposed variances are considered minor in nature and are appropriate for the use of the land since the previous parking on these lands had each space either partially or entirely located within the City right-of-way (for the past 20+ years) and the variances would greatly improve the COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTOCTOBER 30, 2001 273 Submission No.: 4. A 2001-067 (Cont’d) situation to allow all of the required and needed parking spaces to be located entirely on the site. The egress of vehicles directly onto Hoffman Street and the location of the parking spaces within 1 metre of Hoffman Street is a minor issue since use of this part of the street is quite limited as the street ends in a cul-de-sac approximately 2 or 3 properties beyond the subject site. Also, it would eliminate the need for the existing off-site parking agreement and there is virtually no other location on the subject site to locate parking given the extent that the building covers the lot. The location of the parking spaces on the plan provided by the applicant is adequate as it maintains a small treed area between the parking spaces and the building and allows for some needed landscaping along the frontage. Perhaps most importantly, it would help facilitate the easier operation of a new business in Kitchener by having parking for employees and visitors located on the same lot as the use. Accordingly, Business and Planning Services recommends that Minor Variance Application A2001-067 to locate 11 off-street parking spaces within 1 metre (3.28 feet) of a street line whereas Zoning By-law 85-1 requires a minimum of 3 metres (9.84 feet) and to allow the off- street parking facility to be located in a manner that necessitates vehicles to egress onto the abutting public street whereas Zoning By-law 85-1 does not allow such, for the existing building at , 11 Hoffman Streetbe approved, subject to the following condition: 1.That any site works, including paving, demarcation of parking spaces and removal of existing demarcated parking spaces in the City right-of-way, be carried out to the st satisfaction of the City’s Principal Planner prior to January 31, 2002. No extension shall be granted except with the prior approval of the City’s Principal Planner. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building, the Traffic & Parking Analyst, the Region of Waterloo and the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no concerns or comments with respect to this application. The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the application and inquired if Mr. Grammer had anything further to add. Mr. Grammer advised that he had reviewed the staff comments and was in agreement with the recommendation contained therein. In response to questions from the Chair, Ms. J. Given advised that the term “egress” refers to vehicles reversing into the street; the number of required parking spaces is slightly less than what is being proposed, being approximately 7 spaces; and the existing building occupies approximately 95% of the subject property. In response to a question from Mr. P. Britton, Mr. M. Grammer advised that the City had experienced difficulties with the previous owner with respect to this site and has been working with the prospective purchaser to rectify zoning deficiencies. He stated that the proposed off- street parking is the best solution that can be provided given the size of the existing structure on the subject lands. As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion. Moved by Mr. P. Britton Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac That the application of Kitchener Thermoplastics Reprocessing Inc. requesting permission to locate 11 off-street parking spaces setback 1 m (3.28 ft.) from the lot line adjacent to Hoffman Street, rather than the required 3 m (9.84 ft.), and to allow 11 spaces to exit onto Hoffman Street in a rearward motion, rather than in a forward motion, on Lot 5, Registered Plan 870, 11 Hoffman BE APPROVED Street, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following condition: 1. That any site works, including paving, demarcation of parking spaces and removal of existing demarcated parking spaces in the City right-of-way, shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the City’s Principal Planner prior to January 31, 2002. No extension shall be granted except with the prior approval of the City’s Principal Planner. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTOCTOBER 30, 2001 274 Submission No.: 4. A 2001-067 (Cont’d) 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.: 5.A 2001-068 Applicant: Robert Godglick & Dianne Phillips Property Location: 13 Delisle Avenue Legal Description: Part Lots 7, 8 and 9, Registered Plan 255 Appearances: In Support:Mr. R. Godglick Ms. D. Phillips 13 Delisle Avenue Kitchener, ON N2H 6A2 Contra:None Written Submissions: In Support:None Contra:None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a second storey addition for storage onto an existing detached garage having a maximum height to the underside of the fascia of 3.8 m (12.46 ft.), rather than the permitted 3 m (9.84 ft.). In addition, the applicant is requesting legalization of the existing sideyard and rearyard setbacks for the garage, being 0.49 m (1.6 ft.) and 0.24 m (0.8 ft.) respectively, rather than the required 0.61 m (2 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of Business and Planning Services in which they advised that the subject land is located on the southerly side of Delisle Avenue and is occupied by a single detached dwelling with a detached garage. The subject land has 10.22 metres (33.5 feet) of frontage on Delisle Avenue and a depth of 23.75 metres (77.9 feet). The applicant has constructed a second floor addition over top of the existing 5.9 square metre (494 square feet) detached garage. The existing garage was constructed in the 1920’s with a sideyard setback of 1.6 metres (5.2 feet) and with a rearyard setback of 0.24 metres (0.8 feet). As the garage was in existence prior to October 11, 1994, the sideyard and rearyard of the existing detached garage complies with the Zoning By-law under the Vacuum Clause. Additions to structures protected under the vacuum clause are required to meet all regulations of the R-4 Zone. The reduction of the required sideyard and rearyard setbacks is considered minor in nature since the addition will be constructed above the original detached garage constructed in the 1920’s. The intent of the Zoning By-law, to provide adequate building separation for Building Code issues and maintenance can be achieved by the use of maintenance free construction materials, and the exclusion of wall openings for those walls located less than 1.2 metres from the property line. Additionally, Building’s comments include that both walls adjacent to the rearyard shall have a 45- minute fire rating. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTOCTOBER 30, 2001 275 Submission No.: 5. A 2001-068 (Cont’d) An increase in the maximum height of the underside of the fascia to 3.8 metres is acceptable and meets the intent of the Zoning By-law as the intent of this requirement was to prevent construction of the large accessory buildings dominating the rear yards. The submitted elevation drawings appear to be appropriate and desirable in design and a large cedar tree acts as a visual barrier to the garage from the street. Additionally, the overall height of the garage would be 4.5 metres (14.8 feet) whereas the Zoning By-law permits a maximum height requirement of 5.5 metres. The second level addition will not have a negative impact on the aesthetics of the adjacent properties or the neighbourhood and there is no increase to the building coverage. The request for minor variance is considered to be minor in nature and also maintains the general intent of both the Zoning By-law and the Municipal Plan. Accordingly, Business and Planning Services recommends that Minor Variance Application A2001-068 be approved to permit the construction of a second level addition over top of the existing garage and generally in accordance with the plan provided by the applicant. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building permit is required to construct the addition to the garage; there shall be no openings in the wall located less than 4 ft. to the property line; and the wall located less than 2 ft. to the property line shall have a 45 minute fire rating. The Committee noted the comments of 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 applicants had anything further to add. Mr. R. Godglick advised that he had reviewed the staff reports and had nothing further to add. As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion. Moved by Mr. B. Isaac Seconded by Mr. P. Britton That the application of Robert Godglick and Dianne Phillips requesting permission to construct a second storey addition for storage onto an existing detached garage having a maximum height to the underside of the fascia of 3.8 m (12.46 ft.), rather than the permitted 3 m (9.84 ft.); and to legalize the existing easterly sideyard setback of 0.49 m (1.6 ft.) for the garage, rather than the required 0.61 m (2 ft.); and to legalize the existing rearyard setback of 0.24 m (0.8 ft.) for the garage, rather than the required 0.61 m (2 ft.); on Part Lots 7, 8 and 9, Registered Plan 255, 13 BE APPROVED Delisle Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions: 1. That the variances as approved in this application shall be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 2001-068. 2. That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to construction of the new addition to the garage. 3. That there shall be no openings in the wall located less than 1.2 m (4 ft.) to the property line. 4. That the wall located less than 0.61 m (2 ft.) to the property line shall have a 45 minute fire resistance rating. 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTOCTOBER 30, 2001 276 Submission No.: 5. A 2001-068 (Cont’d) 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.: 6.A 2001-069 Applicant: Apostolic Christian Church Property Location: 299 Sydney Street South Legal Description: Lots 351 & 352, Registered Plan 262, and Part Lots 23 & 25, Registered Plan 404 Appearances: In Support:Mr. W. Ritzmann 254 Resurrection Drive Kitchener, Ontario N2N 3H4 Contra:None Written Submissions: In Support:None Contra:None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a wheelchair ramp onto the existing church having a front yard setback of 2.13 m (7 ft.), rather than the required 3 m (9.84 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of Business and Planning Services in which they advised that the subject land is located on the easterly side of Sydney Street South in the Mill Courtland Woodside Park Neighbourhood. The property has 54.66 metres (50.82 feet) of frontage and is zoned Institutional Zone One (I-1). The current use on the site is a religious institution titled the Apostolic Christian Church of Nazarene, constructed in 1969. The applicant wishes to construct a barrier free accessibility ramp on the southerly front corner of the religious institution. The ramp would wrap around the building from the main entrance fronting Sydney Street South to the southerly face adjacent to the entrance lane. The result is a front yard setback of 2.13 metres (7 feet), rather than minimum of 6 metres (19.68 feet). This is an infringement of 3.87 metres (12.68 feet). In reviewing the application, ambiguity arose on whether 299 Sydney Street South has a legal non-conforming use status for the existing front yard setback, including the concrete steps. To clear up any confusion in the future, staff has recommended a revision to the application for the front yard setback of the building and steps. Minor variances are therefore required to permit a front yard setback of 2.13 metres (7 feet) rather than 6 metres (19.69 feet), and to permit the front steps to have a setback of 0.0 metres rather than 6.0 metres. The minor variances can be considered appropriate and desirable since it will facilitate the addition of a barrier-free access to the site. Legalizing the reduced setbacks will allow the site to meet the needs and requirements for people with physical disabilities. Allowing these variances also removes any ambiguity of legal non-conforming status, which may arise in future development of the property. No detrimental impact will occur in allowing the reduced setback since the front steps are a pre-existing condition and no complaints have been made to date. It is the opinion of staff that the impact of approving these variances would be minor in nature, and would maintain the general intent of the Zoning By-law and the Municipal Plan. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTOCTOBER 30, 2001 277 Submission No.: 6. A 2001-069 (Cont’d) Accordingly, Business and Planning Services recommends that Minor Variance Application A2001-069 be approved,to reduce the minimum front yard setback to 2.13 metres (7 feet) for the new ramp, and amended to legalize the setbacks of the existing building. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building permit is required prior to construction of the new ramp. The Committee noted the comments of the Region of Waterloo and the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no concerns or comments with respect to this application. The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the application subject to the application being amended to also legalize the existing front steps to the church having a setback of 0 m from the front lot line, rather than 6 m (19.68 ft.). The Chair inquired if Mr. Ritzmann had anything further to add and Mr. W. Ritzmann advised that he had reviewed the staff reports and was in agreement with the recommendation contained therein. As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion. Moved by Mr. P. Britton Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac That the application of the Apostolic Christian Church requesting permission to construct a barrier-free accessibility ramp on the southerly front corner of the existing Church having a front yard setback of 2.13 m (7 ft.), rather than the required 6 m (19.68 ft.), and to legalize the existing front steps having a setback from the front lot line of 0 m, rather than the required 6 m (19.68 ft.), on Lots 351 and 352, Registered Plan 262 and Part Lots 23 and 25, Registered Plan 404, 299 BE APPROVED Sydney Street South, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to construction of the barrier-free accessibility ramp. 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.: 7.A 2001-070 Applicant: Karolyn E. Smardz Property Location: 166 David Street Legal Description: Lot 2, Registered Plan 330, together with ROW Appearances: In Support:Ms. L. Claire P.O. Box 33044 Waterloo, ON N2T 2M9 Ms. M. Bales 29 Ahrens Street West Kitchener, ON N2H 4B6 Contra:None COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTOCTOBER 30, 2001 278 Submission No.: 7. A 2001-070 (Cont’d) Written Submissions: In Support:Ms. L. ClaireMr. M. Turner P.O. Box 3304412 Dill Street Waterloo, ON N2T 2M9Kitchener, ON N2G 1L1 Mr. G. DickDr. R. C. Mannell 172 David Street59 Schneider Ave. Kitchener, ON N2G 1Y4Kitchener, ON N2G 1K9 Mr. E. Hendricks Ms. C. Sapsworth Ms. F. Young-Hendricks158 David Street 162 David St. Apt. 4Kitchener, ON N2G 1Y4 Kitchener, ON N2G 1Y4 Ms. D. Whelan Mr. & Mrs. G. Baronette Mr. P. Gonsalves175 David Street 51 Schneider Ave.Kitchener, ON N2L 6L1 Kitchener, ON N2G 1K9 Mr. & Mrs. L. Mucci 55 Schneider Ave. Kitchener, ON N2G 1K9 Contra:Ms. E. Leatherland 8 Dill Street Kitchener, ON N2G 1L1 The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to convert an existing 22 duplex to a triplex having a lot area of 315 m (3,390.74 sq. ft.), rather than the required 495 m (5,328.31 sq. ft.); a lot width of 10.6 m (34.78 ft.), rather than the required 15 m (49.21 ft.); and to legalize an existing enclosed porch having a front yard setback of 3.05 m (10 ft.), rather than the required 4.5 m (14.76 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of Business and Planning Services in which they advised that the subject property is located on the west side of David Street between Schneider Avenue and Dill Street in the Victoria Park neighbourhood. The property contains a dwelling that was constructed around 1905. There is a right-of-way for shared access of a driveway between the subject property at 166 David Street and the adjacent property at 162 David Street. The potential purchaser is proposing to renovate the existing dwelling on the subject property, converting the use from a duplex to a triplex. A triplex is permitted in the R-5 zoning of the property, however some of the zoning regulations for a triplex are different than those for a duplex and the subject property does not conform to all the requirements. As such, the applicant has submitted the subject application requesting a reduction in the lot area, lot width and front yard setback requirements for a multiple dwelling with three units. It should be noted that the existing building on the subject property has not only a front yard setback that is deficient under the current zoning requirements but also both side yard setbacks are deficient under the current zoning. These front yard and side yard setbacks are currently considered legal under the vacuum clause in Zoning By-law 85-1 (section 5.15.1) and would maintain this status even with the change in use to a triplex. Therefore, the subject application should be amended to only require minor variances to reduce the lot area for a multiple dwelling 2 2 to 315 mwhereas Zoning By-law 85-1 requires a minimum of 495 m and to reduce the lot width for a multiple dwelling to 10.6 metres whereas Zoning By-law requires a minimum lot width of 15 metres. In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, staff offers the following comments in relation to the requested variance. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTOCTOBER 30, 2001 279 Submission No.: 7. A 2001-070 (Cont’d) The subject application maintains the intent of the Victoria Park Secondary Plan in that ‘Low Rise Conservation’ areas provide a variety of housing types including subdivision of the existing housing stock into multiple dwellings up to three units. Furthermore, the application maintains the intent of the City’s Municipal Plan in that it would help satisfy the first Planning Principle in the Plan (section 3.2.1) which states that the “City of Kitchener promotes the concept of a compact urban form” and that, where appropriate, the “intensification of land and buildings suitable for residential use will be encouraged”. Therefore, it is desirable to approve the application to allow additional residential units in this location. The Zoning By-law requires larger lot widths and lot areas for a triplex in an R-5 zone compared to those for a single or duplex so that there would generally be enough lot area to accommodate a minimum of three off-street parking spaces and driveway, an outdoor amenity area and usually a larger dwelling. While the subject application requests variances to the lot width and lot area that may appear to be large when looking at the differences in measurements, it is important to consider the test of being “minor” by looking at whether or not the application significantly deviates from the intent of the By-law or not. In this instance, the required number of parking spaces can be provided on site, there is still enough room for an outdoor, private amenity area at the rear in addition to a porch at the front and the dwelling does not exceed the maximum lot coverage. Furthermore, the lot enjoys the use of a mutual driveway registered on title with 162 David Street, which reduces the need for a full width driveway on the subject lot. The need for the additional space to meet the By-law requirements for lot area and width is not as imperative in this specific instance since the property is located around the corner from a significant outdoor amenity area in Victoria Park. Also, properties that are located in and around Downtown (such as this one) are often developed more intensively in order to help satisfy growth management principles and to help provide additional residential units near Downtown. Therefore, the application meets the intent of the By-law and since it would not significantly deviate from the intent, the application is considered ‘minor’ in nature. The effect of the subject application may actually be relatively small given that the site is only proposed to go from a duplex to a triplex, it would be within the existing building, there are other multiple dwellings in the surrounding area and there should not be much impact on the surrounding neighbourhood. These are additional reasons to consider the application “minor” in nature. The comments above, in addition to the fact that the Secondary Plan and R-5 zoning allow for the subdivision of the housing stock into three units, provides support for considering the subject application appropriate for the use of the land. Accordingly, Business and Planning Services recommends that Minor Variance Application 2 A2001-070, as amended, to reduce the lot area for a multiple dwelling to 315 m whereas Zoning 2 By-law 85-1 requires a minimum of 495 m and to reduce the lot width for a multiple dwelling to 10.6 metres whereas Zoning By-law 85-1 requires a minimum lot width of 15 metres, be approved. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building permit is required to convert the existing duplex to a triplex. The Committee noted the comments of the Region of Waterloo and the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no comment or concerns with respect to this application. The Committee noted the written submission of Ms. L. Claire in which she advised that when I spoke to neighbours I informed them of my intent of living in the upstairs apartment, creating a third apartment built to code, and upgrading both the interior and exterior of the house. All residents I found at home were supportive of the intentions, and wished me well and good luck in this variance process. I found the friendliness and welcome of these people rather astounding. Ms. Claire’s submission then lists letters of support from the following individuals: Mr. and Mrs. Dick, Mr. E. Hendricks and Ms. Young-Hendricks, Ms. D. Whelan and Mr. P. Gonsalves, Mr and Mrs. L. Mucci, Mr. and Mrs. R. Mannel, Ms. C. Sapsworth, Mr. and Mrs. G. Baronette, and Mr. M. Turner. Ms. Claire’s written submission also indicates verbal statements of support from the following: 170 David Street, 143 David Street, tenant at 159 David Street, superintendent of the COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTOCTOBER 30, 2001 280 Submission No.: 7. A 2001-070 (Cont’d) apartment building across the street from 166 David Street, co-ordinator of the condominium complex on David Street, Mr. and Mrs. T. Leatherland owners of 8 Dill Street, the tenant at 12 Dill Street (C. Dunford), and the owner of the triplex at 163 Schneider Street. Ms. Claire further advised in her written submission that creating a triplex at 166 David Street is in accordance with the City of Kitchener’s intent to intensify the downtown area. It is also in accordance with the zoning of this area and the type of residences adjacent to and near the property. On one side of this house there is a duplex and on the other side there is a triplex. Across the street there is a fourplex, a 12 unit apartment building and a condominium. There are also other duplexes and triplexes nearby. There is a legal right-of-way on the title deeds of both 166 and 162 David Street properties. Besides upgrading the entire house to code it is also my intention as an avid gardener to create a perennial flower garden in the backyard with space for a picnic table and lawn chairs and an extended flower garden in front of the house. There will be space to create these gardens after the parking spaces have been created as designed on the survey sheet. Given that all of his parking space is not being used, Mr. Hendricks, the neighbour with shared legal right-of-way is interested in renting one parking space to me. This would create more space behind the house. I have requested variance for 166 David Street because this property is the only one that I have found in the City and surrounding areas that provide the potential rental income necessary to meet the financial needs of my family, both short-term and long term. In the short-term it provides the income to support my mother’s need for extended care and it provides me with secure housing, a major issue in Waterloo Region. Increasing her care is absolutely necessary as soon as possible. The Committee noted written submissions from the following neighbourhood residents, all of whom indicate their support for the application: · Mr. G. Dick, 172 David Street · Ed Hendricks & Frances Young-Hendricks, 162 David Street, Apt. 4 · Dominique Whelan & Paul Gonsalves, 51 Schneider Avenue · Louis & June Mucci, 55 Schneider Avenue · Dr. Roger C. Mannell, 59 Schneider Avenue · Courtney Sapsworth, 158 David Street · Cindy & Gerry Baronette, 175 David Street · Mark Turner, 12 Dill Street. The Committee noted the written submission of Ms. E. Leatherland in which she advised that I am an adjacent homeowner to the applicant and I feel that I would be very affected by the changes requested by the future property owner. I purchased my home in November, 1997 and since that time many changes have occurred in our area. I was made aware that the area was a designated heritage area and certain guidelines had to be followed by every owner in the area. My concerns are that this rule seems to apply only to certain properties. I have drawn a diagram of my home and where it is situated with respect to the above-noted location. As you will note, our home has become completely surrounded by rental properties. My concern with 166 David Street is as follows: 1) The parking facilities currently provided for this property only allow for 2 vehicles. The parking facility backs immediately onto my backyard where I hope to spend time in the warmer weather with my family. I am concerned that the parking area will be enlarged to allow for 3 vehicles which is the required number of spaces if the triplex is allowed. The noise of the vehicles will definitely be heard in my backyard as well as in my bedroom in the evenings. We have had problems in the past with exhaust fumes from the vehicles drifting into our house and being the parent of a very young child this greatly concerns me. 2) The extension which is proposed for the rear of the building will be very intrusive not only in height, but also on the fact it is so close to the property line. We will lose all sense of privacy in our yard and in the rear of our residence. Also, the measurements of the current COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTOCTOBER 30, 2001 281 Submission No.: 7. A 2001-070 (Cont’d) addition do not satisfy by-law requirements and the request for extension should be denied. 3) The future owner has stated that the basement will be rented to an unknown tenant, the main floor to house her elderly mother, and the upper level to house herself. In time, the living arrangements will change with respect to her elderly mother, and I am concerned that any future tenants brought into the house may not be suitable, cause excess noise, drive noisy cars, etc. We have had many problems in the past with excessive noise coming from this exact property (166 David Street, Kitchener) and do not wish for this to occur again. 4) If in the future the owner cannot support the residence and is forced to sell once the building has been converted to a triplex, this could allow for an absentee landlord to purchase the building and this could leave way for more problems in the future. I am very outraged that the City of Kitchener seems to be pushing for downtown to be the core of all rental properties. This is causing many problems to the current homeowners who purchased their homes for peace, quiet, and stability. This type of behaviour is not accepted in all areas of our city and should be regulated in the areas where high rental properties are concentrated currently. In the past, there have been no regulations as far as forcing absentee landlords to keep the buildings in a proper state of repair and obviously this is a big concern for the current homeowners who purchased their properties prior to the rentals overtaking the neighbourhood. I currently have a neighbour on my left who has rented his house out to a woman who is excessively noisy and rude. The owner of the residence lives in the garage in his backyard. We applied for an appeal to the City of Kitchener and have received no aide whatsoever in this regard. How can it be acceptable for someone to live in their garage and rent the main residence to someone unrelated to themselves? The houses to the right of our residence consist of 1 single family dwelling and 4 rented dwellings. The rented buildings have been allowed to deteriorate drastically due to absentee landlords, the yards have not been kept to standards, the tenants have been excessively noisy and untidy. This drops the value of our home and our concerns fall upon deaf ears. We would like our concerns to be heard in this matter. The City of Kitchener should be monitoring the number of rented dwellings in a centralized area, the heritage committee should be consulted with respect to their standards, and the conversion of 166 David Street should not be allowed. The requirements by the City of Kitchener for the zoning of this property will not be met (not by a longshot in this regard) and if you allow this zone change to be processed, you are setting a precedent for any future building owners to follow suit. When are the single family dwelling owners going to have a say? I am aware the future owner has received letters of support from fellow neighbours. I would like to point out that the area surrounding the property in question is a majority of rental properties, and this matter does not concern the tenants therefore, they would be more than willing to provide a letter of support. The homeowners who have provided letters of support do not live immediately in the area of this property and therefore would not be affected as I will be. I would ask that this be taken into consideration when addressing the letters presented by the future owner. Obviously, my main concern is the privacy we will lack if this rezoning is allowed, the noise control, the upkeep of the building, the effect on our property value, and the impact this will have on our area. I am strongly opposing this zone change and would ask that the application be denied. We should be striving to promote single family dwellings in this area. If this application is allowed, I am proposing the future owner be forced to build an 8 ft. high board-on-board fence at the rear of her property, on the property line with our property, to allow for some privacy and noise control. I trust my opinion will be heard and considered in this regard. As I work full-time I am not able to attend the meeting on Tuesday, October 30, 2001 and therefore wish for my letter to be entered into the minutes and heard by council. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTOCTOBER 30, 2001 282 Submission No.: 7. A 2001-070 (Cont’d) The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the application subject to the application being amended to require variances only for the lot area and the lot width as the front yard and sideyard setbacks are considered legal non-conforming under the Vacuum Clause of Zoning By-law 85-1. The Chair inquired if Ms. Claire was in agreement with amending the application and Ms. Claire responded that she would amend the application pursuant to the staff recommendation. The Chair referred to the written submission of Ms. E. Leatherland and inquired if Ms. Claire had reviewed her submission. Ms. Claire advised that she was surprised to have received Ms. Leatherland’s letter of objection. She stated that she had spoken on two occasions with the Leatherlands and they had given their verbal support of her application. Mr. P. Britton inquired if a condition should be imposed that would require the applicant to submit a parking plan for approval. Ms. J. Given pointed out that the required parking spaces are shown on the plan that was submitted with the application and the parking spaces appear to be satisfactory. Moved by Mr. P. Britton Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac That the application of Karolyn Smardz requesting permission to convert an existing duplex to a 22 triplex having a lot area of 315 m (3,390.74 sq. ft.), rather than the required 495 m (5,328.31 sq. ft.) and a lot width of 10.6 m (34.78 ft.), rather than the required 15 m (49.21 ft.), on Lot 2, BE APPROVED Registered Plan 330, together with ROW, 166 David Street, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to conversion of the duplex to a triplex. 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 The Committee responded to several questions of Ms. Claire advising that the application is subject to a 20 day appeal period during which the opposing neighbour could file an appeal and the decision does not require her to erect a fence. Submission No.: 8.A 2001-071 Applicant: Andy Nessner In Trust Property Location: 69 Joseph Street Legal Description: Part Lots 34 & 56, Registered Plan 393, designated as Part Lots 1, 2 & 4 on Reference Plan 58R-1415 and Parts 4 & 5 on Reference Plan 58R-11021 Appearances: In Support:Mr. G. VanderBaaren Mark L. Dorfman, Planner Inc. 145 Columbia Street West Waterloo, ON N2L 3L2 Mr. M. Tillich 264 Herbert Street Waterloo, ON N2J 1V2 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTOCTOBER 30, 2001 283 Submission No.: 8. A 2001-071 (Cont’d) Contra:None Written Submissions: In Support:Mr. G. VanderBaaren Mark L. Dorfman, Planner Inc. 145 Columbia St. West Waterloo, ON N2L 3L2 Contra:None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to extend a legal non- conforming use of auto repair/auto cleaning and detailing to include automobile sales. The Committee noted the comments of Business and Planning Services in which they advised that the property is occupied by two auto related uses, Loyalty Auto Service and Classic Auto Cleaning. The owner of Classic Auto Cleaning requests permission to sell automobiles and is prepared to limit the number to 4 at any one time. The Medium Density Multiple Residential designation and zoning contemplates redevelopment at medium densities over the long term. The existing special policy and zoning provision permits an automobile service station and uses accessory thereto. The owner could legally install gasoline dispensing which would enable the use to be classed as an automobile service station which then allowing them to have accessory automobile sales. In discussing the options with the applicant, staff indicated a preference to approach the request as an expansion to a legal, non-conforming use. A consideration in evaluating this request is the ability of the site to accommodate the space to situate the vehicles for sale. Staff have determined that there are 36 legally located spaces available on site, rather than 38 shown on the submitted drawing. Apparently there is a bay door in the rear of the building, which renders 2 spaces inaccessible. For the 9 bays in the building, 36 parking spaces are required. The application had suggested that there would be two spaces available outside to park vehicles for sale and 2 spaces inside the building. Classic Auto Cleaning has 3 interior bays in which the owner could locate 2 vehicles while still having space available for rd cleaning in the 3 bay. Staff find that there is no available space outside but are prepared to recommend that the site can accommodate the sale of 2 vehicles at any one time with such vehicles situated inside the building only. Given the limitation of the number of vehicles permitted to be retailed at any one time and the fact there is no physical change to the building, staff find that approval of the application would not perpetuate the legal, non-conforming use of the property. Further, there is no additional impact on neighbouring properties and the use is more compatible than the existing use of motor vehicle repair. Accordingly, Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission A-2001-071 to permit the sale of 2 motor vehicles at any one time, and provided the vehicles for sale are stored inside the building only. The Committee noted the written submission of the Traffic & Parking Analyst in which he advised that Traffic & Parking has no concern with the variance as proposed; however, would note that the aisle nearest Joseph Street does not meet the required 7.3 m. 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 Committee noted the written submission of Mr. G. VanderBaaren, Mark L. Dorfman, Planner Inc., in which he advised that 69 Joseph Street is approximately 1950 square metres in area and contains a 630 square metre single storey cinder block building. The property has frontage on COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTOCTOBER 30, 2001 284 Submission No.: 8. A 2001-071 (Cont’d) Joseph Street and abuts Victoria Park to the south and west. It also abuts the rear of residential lots to the east and a vacant former gas station to the north. In the Municipal Plan the property is currently designated Medium Density Multiple Residential with special policies in the Victoria Park Neighbourhood Secondary Plan. Section 13.5.4 of the Municipal Plan states that “Notwithstanding the Medium Density Residential land use designation, a service station on 55 and 69 Joseph Street, shall be permitted”. Service station and automobile related uses have been historically the use of these two contiguous properties. The property is zoned R-8 by By-law 85-1. The current use of the building at 69 Joseph Street is legal non-conforming. The property was previously zoned C5 in By-Law 4830, which permitted a number of automobile related uses including sales, servicing and repairs. Approximately 40% of the building is used for auto cleaning and detailing (Classic Auto Cleaning). Within the other 60% is located an automotive repair business. Classic Auto Cleaning is owned by Mr. Mike Tillich who desires to have automobile sales as part of his business. I understand that there has been automobile sales uses on this site as recent as the past few years. However, it appears that any legal non-conforming status that the auto sales use may have had would have lapsed when the use ceased to operate on site. Therefore, we are requesting that the Committee of Adjustment permit the sale of automobiles as a use on this site. The Municipal Plan permits a service station on this site. The existing use is legal non- conforming of the current R-8 zoning. Auto sales can logically be viewed as accessory to a service station use. By permitting the additional use of automobile sales the Committee of Adjustment would not be significantly changing the use on the property. In my opinion the general intent and purpose of the City’s Municipal Plan and Zoning By-Law will be maintained if auto sales are permitted. As a result of this application there are no physical changes proposed to the building. The property has been occupied by automotive uses for many decades and became legal non- conforming with the change from C-5 zoning in By-law 4830 to R-8 zoning in By-law 85-1. Therefore, in my professional opinion this is an appropriate use of this property. The building is oriented to Charles Street, therefore, there would be no additional impact on the abutting residences which front on David Street. The surrounding uses include Victoria Park, the KOR Gallery and a vacant former service station site. There would be no impact to these uses by this additional use. The use is logically accessory to a service station use and does not introduce a new category of use to the site. Therefore, the variance is minor in nature and will not have a detrimental impact on the neighbourhood. Janice Given has identified parking and access as one of the issues that would be examined closely by the City. The attached plan indicates how the site is currently developed. This property is located on a portion of Joseph Street that contains a sharp bend and as a result it has a small frontage on the street. This site and the adjoining property at 55 Joseph Street appear physically to be one property with a wide common driveway access from Joseph Street. The drawing indicates the approximate area of direct driveway access to 69 Joseph Street. I have used the regulations of the C-7 Service Station zone in reviewing the parking requirements for this site. This zone requires 4 parking spaces per service bay. With the current configuration of the inside of the buildings there are nine service bays, 3 within Classic Auto Cleaning and 6 in the other part of the building. The by-law requirement with 9 bays is 36 parking spaces. The site currently has enough area for the parking of 38 cars to meet the City standards and location for parking. Classic Auto Cleaning is requesting that they be permitted to have automobile sales on this site. The By-Law requires that an auto sales use must provide parking in addition to the 36 parking spaces required by the By-Law. The type of auto sales proposed by Classic Auto Cleaning is not what is typically seen throughout the City on other used car sales lots. Mr. Tillich intends to sell classic and vintage cars exclusively. He will only have a limited number of cars on site at any one time and would not typically display them outside. It is Mr. Tillich’s intention to keep the cars COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTOCTOBER 30, 2001 285 Submission No.: 8. A 2001-071 (Cont’d) indoors. This will provide a safe location for sales and storage. Even though there are two additional parking spaces located outside that could be used for automobile sales these would not typically be used because of the way in which Mr. Tillich will operate the auto sales. Classic Auto Sales recognizes the concern the City has regarding parking and would be willing to limit the number of automobiles for sale on this site. We propose that two spaces be designated outside and two spaces inside for automobiles sales. A limit of 4 cars at any one time can be accommodated with the parking arrangement on site. The property has historically been used for automobile related uses and permitting auto sales, of the limited nature proposed, is not significantly changing the use on this site. There will be no physical changes to the site and there are no additional impacts anticipated to the surrounding properties. For these reasons we believe that the Committee of Adjustment can permit auto sales on this site. The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the application subject to certain conditions and inquired if Mr. VanderBaaren had anything further to add. Mr. G. VanderBaaren advised that he had reviewed the staff report and was in agreement with the recommendation contained therein. In response to questions from Mr. P. Britton, Mr. VanderBaaren advised that gasoline is not currently dispensed on-site; two businesses operate on-site, one for repairs and another for auto cleaning/detailing; the proposed auto retailing use would be a component of the auto cleaning/detailing business; the site has historically been used for a number of auto related businesses, including auto body repair shop and auto sales; and, the proposed retail use is believed to be an appropriate extension of the legal non-conforming use. Mr. Britton commented that the Committee must take into consideration if the use proposed is similar to that which was existing on the day the By-law was passed prohibiting the use, or if the use is compatible with the existing uses. He questioned compatibility in assessing auto retailing with auto cleaning/detailing as opposed to auto repair. Mr. VanderBaaren expressed the opinion that the proposed use was compatible with the auto cleaning/detailing as both are auto related. Ms. J. Given pointed out that the legal non-conforming use for auto repair is a clean operation at this time; however, this use could legally be changed to full auto body repair without requiring approval. In this regard, staff are of the opinion the proposed use is more compatible. Mr. Britton stated that he would agree if the auto retailing would eliminate the auto repair use. In this case, he pointed out that the proposed use would reduce the size of the auto cleaning/detailing business. Ms. Given stated that the auto cleaning business could also be changed at any time to auto repair without requiring approval. In this regard, she stated that if the proposed use is approved there would be less space available to be devoted to auto repairs. Mr. P. Britton inquired if the applicant had concern with being restricted to indoor storage of the vehicles. Mr. VanderBaaren advised that the retail business would involve the sale of antique/collector automobiles which, because of their value, would not typically be displayed outdoors. He stated that it is intended to keep the automobiles indoors as a measure of security. Mr. B. Isaac then put forward a motion for consideration, seconded by Mr. P. Britton, to approve the application of Andy Nessner in Trust to permit the sale of two motor vehicles at any one time, provided the vehicles for sale are stored inside the building only, relative to the property known municipally as 69 Joseph Street. Mr. P. Britton advised that he was reluctant to approve the requested variance as the Municipal Plan clearly contemplates a different type of development and felt it would be more appropriate to relocate the business. In his opinion, approval would perpetuate the legal non-conforming use. He acknowledged Ms. Given’s comments relative to reducing the size of available space that could be used for auto repairs; however, he pointed out that if the auto retailing ceased to operate, it would open up room for the auto repair use to expand. Further, he was of the view that approval would only make it feasible to continue the legal non-conforming use. Mr. Britton COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTOCTOBER 30, 2001 286 Submission No.: 8. A 2001-071 (Cont’d) stated that he could only consider supporting the request from the perspective that the building is already there and the proposed use will be restricted internally. The Chair agreed that the Municipal Plan contemplates a different type of redevelopment and was of the opinion that approval of the application would unnecessarily expand the legal non- conforming use. In this regard, he advised that he could not support approval of the application. Lost The motion of Mr. B. Isaac was then put to a vote and the motion was . Moved by Mr. P. Britton Seconded by Mr. S. Kay That the application of Andy Nessner in Trust requesting permission to extend a legal non- conforming use of auto repair/auto cleaning and detailing to include automobile sales on Part Lots 34 & 56, Registered Plan 393, designated as Part Lots 1, 2 and 4 on Reference Plan 58R-1415 BE and Parts 4 & 5 on Reference Plan 58R-11021, 69 Joseph Street, Kitchener, Ontario, REFUSED . It is the opinion of this Committee that the City of Kitchener’s Municipal Plan clearly contemplates a different type of redevelopment for the area in which the subject property is situate and accordingly, the addition of auto sales to the auto cleaning/detailing use will unnecessarily perpetuate the legal non-conforming use of this property and the general intent and purpose of the City's Municipal Plan would not be maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission No.: 9.A 2001-072 Applicants: City of Kitchener Laurie Ferguson In Trust Terry Ferguson In Trust Property Location: 33, 39 & 45 Cedar Street South Legal Description: Part Lot 1, Registered Plan 365 Appearances: In Support:Ms. K. Kwiatkowski Kitchener Housing Inc. 11 Weber Street South Kitchener, ON N2H 3Y9 Mr. R. Dyck 30 Duke Street West Kitchener, ON N2H 3W5 Contra:None Written Submissions: In Support:None Contra:None The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to construct a 5 storey multiple residential dwelling, having a front yard setback of 4.2 m (13.78 ft.), rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.) and a setback of 3.2 m (10.5 ft.) from Charles Street, rather than the required 12 m (39.37 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of Business and Planning Services in which they advised that a minor variance application has been received to the permit the re-development of land located at 33, 39 and 45 Cedar Street South. Kitchener Housing Inc. is proposing to erect a four- COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTOCTOBER 30, 2001 287 Submission No.: 9. A 2001-072 (Cont’d) storey, 42-unit multiple dwelling including all three properties. The subject lands are located at the south-east corner of Cedar Street South and Charles Street East. The properties located at 39 and 45 Cedar Street East currently contain a duplex and an 11-room lodging house, respectively. The property at 33 Cedar Street East is currently vacant and in the ownership of the City of Kitchener. All three properties are being sold to Kitchener Housing Inc. in order to accommodate the proposed multiple dwelling. The requested front yard of 4.2 metres from Cedar Street South should be modified to 3.2 metres following further design work by the building’s architect. The decreased front yard is due to the addition of an enclosed stairwell attached to the elevation facing Cedar Street South. A site plan application was considered by the City’s Site Plan Review Committee on October 17, 2001. General support was expressed by the Committee. Following minor revisions, the site plan is ready to be approved following consideration of the requested minor variances. In addition, City staff, the architect and Kitchener Housing staff met with a concerned resident on th October 24 to discuss their concerns over the proposal. The concerned resident has more issues related to vehicles speeding and road maintenance on Cedar Street than with the actual residential proposal itself. His concerns will be directed to appropriate staff in the City for review and response. The subject lands are designated Medium Density Multiple Residential in the Cedar Hill Neighbourhood Secondary Plan and zoned Residential Eight Zone (R-8) with Special Regulation Provision 136R. The Secondary Plan permits multiple dwellings up to 200 units per hectare and a maximum floor space ratio of 2.0. Special Regulation Provision 136R prohibits residential care facilities having more than 8 residents; as a multiple dwelling is being proposed, this regulation has no effect on the current proposal. Taking the requested variances in turn, relief from the required 12.0 metre setback from Charles Street is necessary because of general regulation 5.24 in Zoning By-law 85-1. Charles Street is classified as a Primary Arterial road in the City’s Municipal Plan which necessitates a 12.0 metre setback for any residential building or part thereof. The required 12.0 metre setback relates primarily to suburban arterial roads and typically applies to subdivisions which include rear lotting of arterial roads. The setback provides additional reduction of noise from road traffic which is generally more elevated on arterial roads. In the context of an inner-city residential development proposal, the ability to provide such a setback is often not practical, if even possible, given the denser lot fabric that generally exists in the inner-city. Re-development of the subject lands as contemplated by the Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law would be difficult if a 12.0 metre setback from Charles Street were necessary given the existing steep grades in this location and the desire to maintain established development patterns whereby buildings are generally at, or near, the street line. The building has been located close to Charles Street in order to respect the locally established development patterns where buildings are at, or close to, the street, to provide an access location as far away as possible from the intersection of Charles Street and Cedar Street, and to permit a design with parking at the higher elevation (located at the south end of the lot) thereby enabling a smoother grade transition towards Charles Street and allowing a level parking area adjacent the building. Finally, it should be noted that there will be some noise attenuation afforded by the proposed type of construction which is composed of brick, block and wood studs. On this basis, 12.0 metre setback from Charles Street is not considered necessary. With regard to the second variance, the proposed 3.2 metre front yard on Cedar Street is generally comparable to that of other multiple dwellings located in the Cedar Hill neighbourhood. The building will be four to five stories tall (five stories along Charles Street, four stories at the opposite side) so will not be dramatically taller than other buildings in the immediate vicinity which are generally 1.5 to 2 stories in height. For this reason, the requested 3.2 metre front yard is considered acceptable. In regard to the four tests for a minor variance under the Planning Act, staff consider the variances requested generally conform to the intent of the Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law. The lands are designated and zoned for medium density residential development; the proposed COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTOCTOBER 30, 2001 288 Submission No.: 9. A 2001-072 (Cont’d) variances are required in order that the form of development contemplated by the Plan and By- law can be implemented. In addition, the floor space ratio will be 1.1 and the density will be 161 units per hectare, therefore, the development will be below the maximum floor space ratio of 2.0 and density of 200 units per hectare. The variances are also considered minor in nature given that the need for the 12.0 metre setback primarily relates to suburban arterial situations as described earlier. Finally, the variances are considered desirable for the development of the lands. The variances will provide for a building to house 42 units of affordable housing, a type of housing very much needed in this Region. Accordingly, Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission A-2001-072, subject to the application being amended to request a front yard from Cedar Street South of 3.2 metres, and subject to the following condition: 1.That the variances granted under minor variance application A2001-072 be in accordance with the site plan finally approved under SP01/28/C/GR. 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 approval of the application subject to the application being amended to permit a front yard setback of 3.2 m rather than 4.2 m as noted in the application. The Chair inquired if Ms. Kwiatkowski was in agreement with amending the application. Ms. Kwiatkowski advised that she had reviewed the staff comments and was in agreement with the recommendation contained therein. Accordingly, she agreed to amend the application. Mr. P. Britton inquired what measures were being taken to address noise attenuation relative to Charles Street. Mr. Dyck advised that he had not intended to do a noise study as he has been involved in similar developments and would use the same measures to address noise levels as were used in other buildings. He also stated that the units adjacent to Charles Street will be air conditioned so that tenants will not have to open windows. Mr. Britton suggested that a noise study may determine that air conditioning is not necessary and inquired if Mr. Dyck would have objection to approval being conditional upon completing a noise study. Mr. Dyck indicated that he would have no objection to undertaking a noise study. Ms. J. Given advised that in anticipation that the issue of noise would be raised, staff of the Region of Waterloo were contacted and a noise analysis was undertaken. She advised that the results of the analysis show acceptable levels of noise for both day and night. Mr. Britton indicated that he was satisfied that the issue of noise attenuation had been dealt with. As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion. Moved by Mr. P. Britton Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac That the application of The Corporation of the City of Kitchener, Laurie Ferguson In Trust and Terry Ferguson In Trust requesting permission to construct a five storey multiple residential dwelling, having a front yard setback from Cedar Street South of 3.2 m (10.5 ft.), rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.) and a setback from Charles Street of 3.2 m (10.5 ft.), rather than the required 12 m (39.37 ft.), on Part Lot 1, Registered Plan 365, 33, 39 and 45 Cedar Street South, BE APPROVED Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following condition: 1.That approval of Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 2001-072, shall be in accordance with the site plan as finally approved under Site Plan Application SP01/28/C/GR. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTOCTOBER 30, 2001 289 Submission No.: 9. A 2001-072 (Cont’d) 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.: 10.A 2001-073 Applicant: Ourlaine Pashley Property Location: 59 Margaret Avenue Legal Description: Part Lots 170, 171 & 172, Registered Plan 374 Appearances: In Support:Mr. G. Dietrich 105 Lexington Road Unit 7 Waterloo, ON N2J 4R7 Contra:Mr. S. Funk 60 College Street Kitchener, ON N2G 3Y9 Mr. J. Coleman Ms. M. Coleman 32 Maynard Avenue Kitchener, ON N2H 4Z7 Mr. & Mrs. G. Kuehl 58 Ahrens Street West Kitchener, ON N2H 4B7 Written Submissions: In Support:None Contra:None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to allow 2 non-resident employees for a home business (law office), rather than the permitted maximum of 1. The Committee noted the comments of Business and Planning Services in which they advised that the subject property is located on the westerly side of Margaret Avenue between Victoria Street and Maynard Avenue and contains a single detached dwelling that was constructed in approximately 1932. An attached garage with a basement was added to the dwelling in 1952. Access to the three-car garage and rear yard of the subject property is obtained by way of a lane which abuts the lands to the north. A prospective purchaser of the subject property would like to operate a home business, law office, within the single detached dwelling which would have two non-resident employees. According to Zoning By-law 85-1, a home business operating from a single detached dwelling or semi-detached dwelling having only one dwelling unit may only have one non-resident employee. The Zoning By-law does not permit any non-resident employees for a home business operating out of a duplex, multiple dwelling, semi-detached dwelling containing two dwelling units, or a street townhouse dwelling. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTOCTOBER 30, 2001 290 Submission No.: 10. A 2001-073 (Cont’d) The parking requirement for the single detached dwelling and a home business with two non- resident employees will be four parking spaces. One parking space is required for the dwelling, one parking space is required for the home business and two parking spaces are required for the two non-resident employees. The subject property can only provide three unobstructed parking spaces in the existing three-car attached garage at the rear of the dwelling. An additional parking space can be provided in the driveway, but this would obstruct one of the required parking spaces in the attached garage. Consequently, a minor variance is required to permit one of the four required parking spaces to be in tandem. In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, staff offers the following comments in relation to the requested variances. With the addition of an additional non-resident employee, an additional unobstructed parking space is required, which in turn requires the consideration of an additional minor variance. Although the property is able to provide four parking spaces, one of them in tandem, there is technically only one parking space for client use. With an additional non-resident employee, the scale of the office use in the dwelling has the potential to increase thereby attracting more clients. This in turn would introduce additional parking spaces on the street network which would adversely impact the residential character of the area. Accordingly, the effects of the variances would not be minor. The intent of the zoning regulations related to home businesses is to ensure that home businesses do not generate nuisance such as noise, traffic and parking problems in the immediate area. The regulations also ensure that home businesses are accessory to the main residential use of the property. The intent of the Municipal Plan designation on the subject lands is to preserve the residential character of the property and of the immediate area. It is staff’s opinion that the variances to permit an additional non-resident employee do not meet the intent of the Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan. Accordingly, Business and Planning Services recommends that Minor Variance Application A2001-073, as amended, to permit an additional non-resident employee and one required parking space to be in tandem be refused. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building permit is required for any construction intended to be carried out to accommodate the home business. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst in which he advised that in discussions with Planning Staff, Traffic & Parking understand that the application will be revised to request a variance for a parking space in tandem. Traffic & Parking have no concerns with the parking space in tandem. The Committee noted the comments of 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 comments, noting that staff are recommending refusal of the application and provided an opportunity for Mr. Dietrich to comment. Mr. G. Dietrich advised that he lives on St. Leger Street within two blocks of the subject property and gave assurance that he intended no harm to the neighbourhood. He advised that he had put an offer on the subject lands only after consulting with Planning Staff and receiving indication of support for his proposal. Mr. Dietrich commented that had he known staff would change their position, he would not have brought forward the application. He explained that the parking required was for himself, one full-time employee and one part-time employee and signage would not be used to advertise the business. In response to a question by the Chair, Mr. Dietrich clarified that he would have two non-resident employees, a secretary and part-time law clerk, for which staff indicate two parking spaces are COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTOCTOBER 30, 2001 291 Submission No.: 10. A 2001-073 (Cont’d) required. He noted that two other parking spaces are required, one for the home and one for the home business, and questioned the need for the additional space for the home. Ms. J. Given clarified that the additional space is not required for the home. She advised that the parking requirements are based on the number of non-resident employees and the assumption that clients will attend the business. In response to a question, Mr. Dietrich confirmed that his business would have clients. Mr. S. Funk, Solicitor, advised that he represented Ms. M. Coleman and Mr. J. Coleman who own several properties in the immediate vicinity of the subject lands. He stated that his clients were concerned that even though the proposed use appears to be low scale, the objective to operating a successful business will be to attract more clientele and, in turn, this will result in an increase in traffic. He noted that the building footprint does not allow more than two parking spaces to be located to the rear of the dwelling. He further pointed out that there is no parking allowed in the area of Gzowski Park and no stopping, as well as no parking, allowed on Margaret Avenue. In this regard, Mr. Funk suggested that limited parking would pose a problem for couriers or delivery vehicles, creating the temptation to park illegally close to the business. He commented that the neighbourhood is a unique enclave of heritage homes and, in his opinion, to allow commercial activity into the area would not be appropriate. Further, he suggested it would disrupt the aesthetics of the neighbourhood. Mr. Funk advised that based on the foregoing comments his clients strongly object to this proposal. Mr. & Mrs. G. Kuehl advised that they are the owners of 58 Ahrens Street West and are opposed to the application. Mrs. Kuehl was concerned that the dwelling would cease to be a home and the impact the business would have on the neighbourhood. She suggested that allowing this proposal to proceed would pave the way for future commercial business to interject into the residential neighbourhood and pointed out that the area is already threatened by business development around the outer perimeter of the neighbourhood. Mrs. Kuehl stated that the City is actively promoting residential housing in the core area and to allow this proposal would place a business at the centre of an historic residential neighbourhood. She further expressed concern with parking and signage and how these issues would be monitored. Mr. Kuehl stated that they have worked many years to improve the neighbourhood and wish to maintain the area as a residential neighbourhood. Further, he echoed concerns regarding the issue of parking. In response to questions from Mr. P. Britton, Mr. Dietrich advised that he would live in the home and his children would be present on weekends; two front rooms on the main floor would be used for the business, as well as a smaller room to the back of the main floor; and, the dwelling has a full second storey available for living space, as well as space on a third storey. Mr. Britton requested staff to comment on their change of position. Ms. J. Given advised that she had not been party to preliminary discussions; however, noted that full consideration of all factors would only have taken place upon receipt of an application and neighbourhood concerns were not known prior to notification being given that an application had been received. She stated that as a result of further investigation into the location and potential impact of the business, staff determined that this proposal did not meet the intent of the By-law. She stated that staff are now of the opinion this proposal poses significant implications relative to maintaining the residential character of the neighbourhood versus allowing commercial business to inter-mingle. She also indicated that there is also concern as to the number of clientele that will be attracted to the business by the two non-resident employees. Mr. Britton suggested that it may be appropriate to refund the application fee given initial indication of support by staff. The Chair commented that he also felt it would be appropriate to refund the fee should the application be refused, as Mr. Dietrich had stated he would not have proceeded if he had known that staff would not be supportive. Mr. P. Britton commented that based on his knowledge of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Secondary Plan, the objective of the Plan is to stabilize and maintain the residential characteristics of the area and direct commercial enterprise to the outer perimeter. He stated that he could not support infiltration of a commercial business into the area and pointed out that there is significant history in developing the area as a residential neighbourhood. He further assumed COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTOCTOBER 30, 2001 292 Submission No.: 10. A 2001-073 (Cont’d) the intent will be to run a successful business and expressed concern that the area would not be able to accommodate an increase in business and enforcement may become an issue. Moved by Mr. P. Britton Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac That the application of Ourlaine Pashley requesting permission to allow 2 non-resident employees for a home business (law office) rather than the permitted maximum of 1, and for one required parking space to be in tandem rather than side by side, on Part Lots 170, 171 and 172, BE REFUSED Registered Plan 374, 59 Margaret Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, . It is the opinion of this Committee that, based on the objectives of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Secondary Plan to stabilize the residential character of the neighbourhoood and direct commercial enterprise to the outer perimeter of the area, this application is not desirable for the appropriate development of the property and does not maintain the general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan on the subject property. Carried Moved by Mr. P. Britton Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac That the application fee for Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 2001-073, be refunded to the applicant as the application was submitted on the advice of Planning staff. Carried CONSENT Submission No.: 1.B 2001-053 Applicant: Mike Joly & Theresa Perry Property Location: 265 & 269 Guelph Street Legal Description: Part Lot 8, Registered Plan 373 The Chair advised that the Committee was in receipt of a faxed letter dated October 29, 2001 from Mr. Jake Benjamins of Benjamins Realty Inc., on behalf of his clients, Mike Joly and Theresa Perry, requesting that the application be deferred to the Committee’s next meeting. Accordingly, the Committee agreed to defer this application to its meeting scheduled to be held on November 20, 2001. Submission No.: 2.B 2001-054 Applicant: Edwin Weimer Property Location: 50 & 52 Highland Crescent Legal Description: Part Lot 12, Registered Plan 1308, designated as Parts 31 & 32 on Reference Plan 58R-5091 Appearances: In Support:Mr. E. Weimer 44 Valley Ridge Crescent Waterloo, ON N2T 1W8 Contra:None Written Submissions: In Support:None Contra:None COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTOCTOBER 30, 2001 293 Submission No.: 2. B 2001-054 (Cont’d) The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to divide the subject lands with each parcel to contain one-half of a semi-detached dwelling. The lands to be severed (50 Highland Crescent) will have a lot width of 6.343 m (20.81 m), by a depth of 47.245 m (155 2 ft.) and an area of 445.15 m (4,791.71 sq. ft.). The Committee noted the comments of Business and Planning Services in which they advised that the subject lands are located on the northerly side of Highland Crescent, west of Westmount Road and north of Highland Road. The lot is approximately 808.22 square metres (8700 square feet) in area and contains a semi-detached dwelling unit constructed in 1988. Although the two dwellings municipally known as 50 and 52 Highland Crescent currently function as if each were located on a separate residential lot, the semi-detached dwelling unit is situated on one lot. The Owner seeks approval of a severance to permit the conveyance of the dwellings independently of one another to prospective purchasers. The retained lot would have an area of 363.07 square metres (3908.2 square feet) and the severed parcel would have an area of 445.15 square metres (4791.7 square feet). Staff has reviewed the application for consent and has determined that it is appropriate, given that it will recognize 50 Highland Crescent and 52 Highland Crescent as two separate parcels of land. Both the lands to be severed and the lands to be retained will continue to comply with all regulations of the Zoning By-law. Accordingly, Business and Planning Services recommends that Consent Application B2001-054 be approved. 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 approval of the application and inquired if Mr. Weimer had anything further to add. Mr. E. Weimer advised that he had reviewed the staff comments and had nothing further to add. As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion. Moved by Mr. B. Isaac Seconded by Mr. P. Britton That the application of Edwin Weimer requesting permission to convey a parcel of land containing one half of a semi-detached dwelling, having frontage on Highland Crescent of 6.343 m (20.81 2 ft.), by a depth of 47.245 m (155 ft.) and an area of 445.15 m (4,791.71 sq. ft.), on Part Lot 12, Registered Plan 1308, designated as Parts 31 and 32 on Reference Plan 58R-5091, 50 and 52 BE GRANTED Highland Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or any 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 ADJUSTMENTOCTOBER 30, 2001 294 Submission No.: 2. B 2001-054 (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 October 30, 2003. Carried Submission No.: 3.B 2001-055 Applicant: Doris E. Beisel Property Location: 311 Sydney Street South Legal Description: Lot 349, Registered Plan 262 Appearances: In Support:Ms. J. Reid, Law Clerk Hertzberger, Olsen & Associates 10 Duke Street West, Suite 101 Kitchener ON N2H 3W4 Contra:None Written Submissions: In Support:None Contra:None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to convey a parcel of land as a lot addition to an abutting residential property known municipally as 526 Mill Street, 2 having a lot width of 12.615 m (41.39 ft.), by a depth of 7.607 m (24.96 ft.) and an area of 76.6 m (824.54 sq. ft.). The Committee noted the comments of Business and Planning Services in which they advised that the subject application seeks approval to sever a portion of the rear of the property at 311 Sydney Street to be added to the abutting property to the rear, 526 Mill Street. The proposed severance is part of an arrangement between the two landowners and the City of Kitchener which includes the disposition of part of the City-owned property at the corner of Mill Street and Sydney Street. Parts 1, 2 and 5 of the draft reference plan are presently owned by the City of Kitchener. Part 1 will be retained for a future road widening and Parts 2 and 5 are intended to be sold to each of the two abutting landowners. The property at 526 Mill Street does not have a legal parking space behind the required setback due to historic road widenings of the property. It is their intent to purchase Part 5 from the City as well as Part 4 from the Sydney Street property owner, the subject of this application. Both parts would be added as lot additions to 526 Mill Street to permit the construction of a driveway and development of a legal parking space set back at least 6.0 metres from the front lot line. The retained lands would continue to comply with the R-5 zoning requirements in all respects, save and except for the sideyard of the detached garage, which is not affected by this severance. It is the intent of the owners of 311 Sydney Street to purchase Part 2 from the City, creating a wider lot. The subject severance is desirable and appropriate when considered together with the intended land transactions between the City and particularly the owner of 526 Mill Street. It permits the required parking to be brought into compliance with the Zoning By-law and makes the property more useable. The associated transactions on the Sydney Street property are also appropriate. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTOCTOBER 30, 2001 295 Submission No.: 3. B 2001-055 (Cont’d) Accordingly, Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission B2001-055 subject to the following conditions: 1. 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. 2. That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building, the 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. For clarification of the Chair, Ms. J. Given advised that the consent application applied only to conveyance of Part 4 as a lot addition to Part 6 as shown on the plan submitted with the application. Part 5 will be conveyed to Part 6 by the City and the City does not require consent approval. As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion. Moved by Mr. P. Britton Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac That the application of Doris E. Beisel requesting permission to convey a parcel of land as a lot addition to an abutting residential property known municipally as 526 Mill Street having a lot width 2 of 12.615 m (41.39 ft.), by an average depth of 7.607 m (24.96 ft.) and an area of 76.6 m (824.54 BE sq. ft.), on Lot 349, Registered Plan 262, 311 Sydney Street South, Kitchener, Ontario, GRANTED , subject to the following conditions: 1. That the lands to be severed shall be added to the abutting lands known municipally as 526 Mill Street and title shall be taken in identical ownership as the abutting lands. Any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed shall comply with Sections 50 (3) and / or (5) of the Planning Act, 1995. 2. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and / or local improvement charges. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1.A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. 2.The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. 3.The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above- noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being October 30, 2003. Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTOCTOBER 30, 2001 296 Submission Nos.: 4.B 2001-056 & B 2001-057 Applicant: Kathryn & Lorne Becker/Irene Pearl Snider Property Location: 12 Jack Avenue & 250 Patricia Avenue Legal Description: Part of Lots 1 & 2, Registered Plan 739, Part of Lot 115, Streets and Lanes (Closed) and Lot 3 & Part Lot 2, Registered Plan 739, Part Lot 115, Streets and Lanes (Closed) Appearances: In Support:Mr. R. Biggs Barrister & Solicitor 206-50 Westmount Road North Waterloo ON N2L 2R5 Mr. L. Becker 17 Herbert Street Kitchener ON N2H 3R5 Mr. G. Becker 409 Northlake Drive Waterloo ON N2V 1Y5 Contra:None Written Submissions: In Support:None Contra:None The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission for the granting of rights-of-way for access purpose in favour of each other, with dimensions of 1.83 m x 34.23 m (6 ft. x 112.3 ft.) over 12 Jack Avenue, and 1.52 m x 34.23 m (5 ft. x 112.3 ft.) over 250 Patricia Avenue. The Committee noted the comments of Business and Planning Services in which they advised that the subject lands, 12 Jack Avenue and 250 Patricia Avenue, are located on the northwest corner of Jack Avenue and Patricia Avenue and are currently developed with residential buildings. The property municipally known as 12 Jack Avenue contains a multiple dwelling having three dwelling units which was constructed in 1957. The property at 250 Patricia Avenue contains a multiple dwelling having eight dwelling units which was constructed in 1958. Access to the two properties is currently obtained by way of a mutual driveway off of Jack Avenue. This driveway has existed since at least 1957 when the two properties were first developed. The mutual driveway is the only means for access to three parking spaces on the Jack Avenue property and eight parking spaces on the Patricia Avenue property. The purpose of the consent applications is to legalize the use of the existing driveway as a right- of-way to required parking spaces on each of the two properties. The owner of the lands at 12 Jack Avenue is requesting consent to grant a right-of-way to 250 Patricia Avenue which would have a width of 1.82 metres (6 feet) and a length of approximately 34.2 metres (112.3 feet). The owner of the lands at 250 Patricia Avenue is requesting consent to grant a right-of-way to 12 Jack Avenue which would have a width of 1.5 metres (5 feet) and a length of approximately 34.2 metres (112.3 feet). The eight parking spaces on the Patricia Avenue property are located in the side yard on the westerly side of the building, perpendicular to the proposed right-of-way. The westerly side yard on the Patricia Avenue property has a dimension of 6.7 metres (21.96 feet) at the shortest distance and the Zoning By-law requires a parking space to have a minimum length of 5.5 metres (18 feet). Accordingly, the width of the right-of-way that could be granted to the Jack Avenue property can only be a maximum width of 1.2 metres (4 feet) rather than the 1.5 metre (5 foot) COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTOCTOBER 30, 2001 297 Submission Nos.: 4. B 2001-056 & B 2001-057 (Cont’d) width that is requested in the application. Also, it would appear that the parking spaces are not located immediately adjacent to the building. From an air photo, the parking spaces are setback from the easterly wall and are located in the lands proposed to form part of the right-of-way. Since submitting the applications for consent, a new survey of the properties was prepared and forwarded to staff. The agent for the applicants has agreed to shift the parking spaces closer to the wall of the building on the Patricia Avenue property in order to accommodate a portion of the right-of-way on these lands and still maintain the perpendicular parking. The applicant has also requested that the applications be amended to request a right-of-way having a minimum width of 1.06 metres (3.5 feet) and a length of approximately 31.7 metres (104 feet) on the Patricia Avenue property and a right-of-way having a width of 2.3 metres (7.5 feet) and a length of approximately 31.7 metres (104 feet) on the Jack Avenue property. Given that a mutual driveway has provided access to required parking spaces on each of the two properties since approximately 1957, it would be appropriate to legally recognize this right-of-way. Staff has no concerns with these applications for consent as amended. Accordingly, Business and Planning Services recommends that Consent Application B2001-056, as amended, be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. 2. That a draft reference plan showing the location of the proposed right-of-way be prepared to the satisfaction of the Principal Planner. Further, Business and Planning Services also recommends that Consent Application B2001-057, as amended, be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. 2. That the owner submit a revised parking layout, to the satisfaction of the Principal Planner, to show that the parking spaces on the westerly side of the dwelling on the subject property have been relocated outside of the proposed right-of-way. 3. That a draft reference plan showing the location of the proposed right-of-way be prepared to the satisfaction of the Principal Planner. The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the applications subject to the applications being amended to provide a minimum width of 1.06 m (3.5 ft.) over 250 Patricia Avenue and a minimum width of 2.3 m (7.5 ft.) over 12 Jack Avenue for the proposed mutual right-of-way. The Chair inquired if the applicants were in agreement with the recommendations. Mr. R. Biggs, Solicitor for the applicants, advised that he had reviewed the staff report and was in agreement with the recommendations contained therein. He further advised that he had agreed to shift the parking spaces located on the Patricia Avenue property closer to the wall of the building in order to accommodate a portion of the right-of-way on these lands and still maintain the perpendicular parking. The Chair requested clarification as to the proposed width of the right-of-way and Mr. R. Biggs provided a revised draft reference plan. Mr. Biggs pointed out that there is a small roof over the entrance to the Jack Avenue property and his clients had concern that the width of the right-of- way was too narrow. He noted that staff are recommending 7.5 ft. on the Jack Avenue property and 3.5 ft. on the Patricia Avenue property for a total of 11 ft. of mutual driveway. In response to a question from the Chair, Mr. Biggs acknowledged that it would be possible for someone to hit the roof if it were within the right-of-way; however, he noted that the area is currently paved up to the wall. He stated that the intent has always been that vehicles would COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTOCTOBER 30, 2001 298 Submission Nos.: 4. B 2001-056 & B 2001-057 (Cont’d) drive to the back of the Patricia Avenue property, turn around and then park perpendicular coming back out. He noted however, that most vehicles are parking perpendicular going into the property. In this regard, Mr. L. Becker advised that parking going in appears to be more practical and he has always monitored the situation to maintain control. The Chair pointed out that the revised plan shows a mutual right-of-way of approximately 12 ft. In this regard, Mr. Biggs advised that the surveyor had anticipated concerns raised by staff and had gone ahead to prepare the right-of-way with a 12 ft. width. He stated that the surveyor had felt it would be more suitable for vehicles backing out beyond the right-of-way. Ms. J. Given commented that staff are recommending an 11 ft. mutual right-of-way and it was not their intent that the right-of-way cover all of Part 3. The Chair questioned if the roof would be excluded from the right-of-way if the width was reduced from 8.5 ft. to 7.5 ft. on the Jack Avenue property. Mr. Biggs responded that he was not sure if it would be totally out of the right-of-way. The Chair suggested that reducing the right-of-way by 1 ft. to exclude the entrance roof may be better in terms of re-sale value. Mr. P. Britton suggested that the applications be approved based on an 11 ft. mutual right-of-way and conditional upon the rights-of-way being generally in accordance with the revised draft reference plan submitted this date. He further suggested that the details could then be determined by Ms. Given in consultation with the applicants. Consent B 2001-056 Moved by Mr. P. Britton Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac That the application of Lorne and Kathryn Becker requesting permission to grant a mutual right- of-way for access over the subject lands in favour of 250 Patricia Avenue, generally in accordance with the draft reference plan as prepared by Metz & Lorentz Limited dated October 4, 2001, and having a combined maximum width of 3.35 m (11 ft.) between the subject lands and a right-of-way to be granted over 250 Patricia Avenue in favour of the subject lands under Consent B 2001-057, by a depth of 31.7 m (104 ft.), on Part of Lots 1 & 2, Registered Plan 739 and Part of BE GRANTED Lot 115, Streets and Lanes (Closed), 12 Jack Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. 2. That a draft reference plan showing the location of the proposed right-of-way shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Principal Planner. 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 ADJUSTMENTOCTOBER 30, 2001 299 Submission Nos.: 4. B 2001-056 & B 2001-057 (Cont’d) Consent B 2001-056 (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 October 30, 2003. Carried Consent B 2001-057 Moved by Mr. P. Britton Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac That the application of Irene Pearl Snider requesting permission to grant a mutual right-of-way for access over the subject lands in favour of 12 Jack Avenue, generally in accordance with the draft reference plan as prepared by Metz & Lorentz Limited dated October 4, 2001, and having a combined maximum width of 3.35 m (11 ft.) between the subject lands and a right-of-way to be granted over 12 Jack Avenue in favour of the subject lands under Consent B 2001-056, by a depth of 31.7 m (104 ft.), on Part of Lots 2 & 3, Registered Plan 739, and Part of Lot 115, Streets BE GRANTED and Lanes (Closed), 250 Patricia Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. 2. That the owner shall submit a revised parking layout, to the satisfaction of the Principal Planner, to show that the parking spaces on the westerly side of the dwelling on the subject property have been relocated outside of the proposed right-of-way. 3. That a draft reference plan showing the location of the proposed right-of-way shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Principal Planner. 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 October 30, 2003. Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTOCTOBER 30, 2001 300 CONSENT & MINOR VARIANCE Submission Nos.: 1.B 2001-058 & A 2001-074 B 2001-059 & A 2001-075 Applicant: Southstaton Holdings Limited Property Location: Hawkswood Drive Legal Description: Lots 66, 124 & 125, German Company Tract, designated as Part Lots 8 to 13 inclusive & 31 to 38 inclusive on Reference Plan 58R-12700 Mr. P. Britton declared a pecuniary interest in these applications as his firm has acted on behalf of the applicant and did not participate in any discussion or voting with respect to these applications. Mr. Britton left the meeting and in accordance with the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, these applications were considered by the remaining two members. Appearances: In Support:Mr. G. Barclay 2409 Amblecote Lane Burlington ON L7P 4E6 Contra:None Written Submissions: In Support:None Contra:None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to create two new lots for single residential development, each having a lot width of 12 m (39.37 ft.), by a depth of 30 m 2 (98.42 ft.) and an area of 360 m (3,875.13 sq. ft.). The proposed lot widths and lot areas do not 2 meet the Zoning By-law requirements of 15 m (49.21 ft.) for lot width and 464 m (4,994.62 sq. ft.) for lot area, and the applicant is also requesting permission for these variances relative to both severed parcels. The Committee noted the comments of Business and Planning Services in which they advised that the owner proposes to sever two lots on lands located on the south side of Hawkswood Drive. Hawkswood Drive is part of recently registered Plans of Subdivision in Bridgeport North involving two developers: Activa Holdings Inc. (58M-182) and Southstaton Holdings Limited (58M-181). The subject lands are located immediately adjacent to residential lots created by Activa Holdings Inc. The owner proposes to create two parcels, each with a lot width of 12 metres at the north end of a 6-hectare property. The subdivision is now experiencing limited building activity, including building activity on Hawkswood Drive. The owner has also submitted a minor variance application in order to permit the proposed 12.0 metre lot width for each lot to be created, rather than the required 15.0 metres, and a lot area for each lot of 360 square metres rather than the required 464 square metres. Special regulation provisions 304R and 307R were approved by the Ontario Municipal Board in October of 1999 as part of a Plan of Subdivision for the development of 300 dwellings in Bridgeport North. The 15.0 metre lot width as required by special regulation provision 304R is intended to implement a subdivision comprised of large lots intended for single family dwellings. Special regulation provision 307R dealt with garage and driveway location and width. Two principal considerations must be made in the review of these applications: 1. The appropriateness of the lot width and lot area. 2. The location of the proposed lots relative to current and proposed subdivision designs. With respect to the first issue, the proposed lot width and area are considered appropriate. The Municipal Plan favours the mixing and integration of different forms of housing to achieve low COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTOCTOBER 30, 2001 301 Submission Nos.: 1.B 2001-058 & A 2001-074 (Cont’d) B 2001-059 & A 2001-075 overall intensity of use. Lot widths along Hawkswood Drive range from 12.2 metres to 18.7 metres. Almost all lots on Hawkswood Drive have a depth of 30.0 metres. Given the proposed lot width of 12.0 metres, the proposed lot depth of 30.0 metres, and proposed lot area of 360 square metres, the lots are considered compatible with the existing lot fabric in Plan of Subdivision 58M-181 and 58M-182. In addition, Committee of Adjustment approval was given in April of 2001 to create three lots, each with a lot width of 12.97 metres and area of 395 square metres on lands fronting Hawkswood Drive only two lots (31 metres) west of the subject lands (B- 2001-001 to 003, Elfriede Czerlinski). These severance applications were also supported by Planning staff. For all these reasons, the requested minor variances are considered minor in nature, appropriate for the development of the land, and generally conform to the intent of the Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law. With respect to the location of the proposed lots, the lands form part of a larger block located to the south of lots fronting Hawkswood Drive which is in the ownership of Southstaton Holdings Limited. The lands are eventually intended to be developed as a Plan of Subdivision. The Bridgeport North community presently has a restriction of a maximum of 300 dwellings imposed by the Region of Waterloo as a result of limitations on the local transportation network. If and when this restriction is lifted, development of these lands will likely be able to proceed. Were the subject lands to be developed as two lots, it would require any access to the lands immediately south to be from the future extension of Redtail Street and/or from Falconridge Drive. The most current scenario developed by the owner indicates a cul-de-sac off the extension of Redtail Street. While staff are concerned that the creation of two residential lots on the subject lands eliminates any possibility of a street connection to Hawkswood Drive for the lands to the immediate south, the development of a cul-d-sac via an extension of Redtail Street still enables the orderly development of these lands and permits the opportunity for the development of the rear portion of the lands being part of 268 Woolwich Street. The lands at the rear of 268 Woolwich Street form an area of approximately 0.5 hectares, and are more practically developed as part of a future plan of subdivision given its odd configuration with the dwelling and main yard area fronting Woolwich Street. It is understood that Southstaton Holdings Limited has already had extensive discussions with the owner of 268 Woolwich Street regarding the development of the rear portion of these lands via a cul-de-sac off the extension of Redtail Street, as well as discussions with adjacent owners on Woolwich Street regarding the provision of sanitary servicing for their lands which are presently unserviced. For these reasons, Planning staff have no major concerns with developing the subject lands for two residential lots and eliminating a potential access to Hawkswood Drive for lands to the south. From a servicing perspective, the proposed lots are already serviced under Plan 58M-181 and service connections have already been provided for these two lots. It should be noted, however, a 0.3 metre (1 foot) reserve will need to be lifted prior to the endorsement of a deed as this reserve (Block 30, Plan 58M-182) was established in contemplation of a street being created in this location off Hawkswood Drive. This has been included in staff’s recommendation as a condition of approval for the consent applications. Accordingly, Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submissions A 2001-074 and A 2001-075, without conditions. Further, Business and Planning Services also recommends approval of Submissions B 2001-058 and B 2001-059 subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for park dedication equal to 5% of the value of the lands to be severed. 2. That the one foot reserves along the frontage of Hawkswood Drive (Block 30, 58M-182) be opened by By-law of City Council. 3. That the owner make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Assistant General Manager of Engineering Services for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping including street trees, and a paved driveway ramp, on the severed lands. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTOCTOBER 30, 2001 302 Submission Nos.: 1.B 2001-058 & A 2001-074 (Cont’d) B 2001-059 & A 2001-075 4. That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. 5. That Minor Variance Applications A 2001-074 and A-2001-075 receive final approval. 6. That a revised grading plan relating to Plan 58M-182 be approved by the Assistant General Manager of Engineering Services. The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the minor variance applications without conditions and the consent applications subject to certain conditions. The Chair inquired if Mr. Barclay had anything further to add. Mr. G. Barclay provided a brief overview of the lands proposed to be severed indicating that they are located within the Riverwood subdivision on Hawkswood Drive. He stated that Hawkswood Drive already has service in place and is within a registered plan of subdivision. Mr. Barclay referred to lots which are to be created by an adjacent property owner, Ms. Czerlinski, which are intended to be serviced from Red Tail Street and accordingly, would not be compromised by the proposed severances. In response to the Chair, Mr. Barclay clarified the lands to be severed in relation to the lands to be retained and that the variances are to reduce the lot width from 15 metres to 12 metres. In regard to the reduction in lot width, Mr. Barclay indicated that the proposed lot widths are consistant with other lots on Hawkswood Drive. Ms. J. Given referred the Committee to the comments of the Region of Waterloo which suggest the creation of the two lots would place the subdivision over the 300 unit limit presently imposed under the Bridge Street Transportation Study. Ms. Given advised that staff have not been able to contact staff at the Region to confirm numbers. Mr. Barclay clarified that the 300 unit figure was established to satisfy cost sharing of the sanitary pumping station. He stated that as part of the development of the Bridgeport subdivision, 200 of the 300 units were allotted to Southstaton Holdings Limited. Mr. Barclay advised that, to date, the Riverwood subdivision has 192 units and the proposed severances would add two additional units for a total of 194. Minor Variance A 2001-074 Moved by Mr. S. Kay Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac That the application of Southstaton Holdings Limited requesting permission to create one new lot for single residential development having frontage on Hawkswood Drive of 12 m (39.37 ft.), rather 2 than the required 15 m (49.21 ft.), and a lot area of 360 m (3,875.13 sq.ft.), rather than the 2 required 464 m (4,994.62 sq.ft.), on Lots 66, 124 and 125, German Company Tract, designated as Parts 8 to 13 inclusive and 31 to 38 inclusive on Reference Plan 58R-12700, Hawkswood BE APPROVED Drive, 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 ADJUSTMENTOCTOBER 30, 2001 303 Submission Nos.: 1.B 2001-058 & A 2001-074 (Cont’d) B 2001-059 & A 2001-075 Consent B 2001-058 Moved by Mr. S. Kay Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac That the application of Southstaton Holdings Limited requesting permission to convey a parcel of land for single residential development having frontage on Hawkswood Drive of 12 m (39.37 ft.), 2 by a depth of 30 m (98.42 ft.) and an area of 360 m (3,875.13 sq.ft.), on Lots 66, 124 and 125, German Company Tract, designated as Parts 8 to 13 inclusive and 31 to 38 inclusive on BE GRANTED Reference Plan 58R-12700, Hawkswood Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for park dedication equal to 5% of the value of the lands to be severed. 2. That the one foot reserves along the frontage of Hawkswood Drive (Block 30, 58M-182), shall be opened by By-law of City Council. 3. That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City’s Assistant General Manager of Engineering Services for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping including street trees, and a paved driveway ramp, on the severed lands. 4. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. 5. That Minor Variance Applications, Submission Nos. A 2001-074 and A 2001-075 shall receive final approval. 6. That a revised grading plan relating to Plan 58M-182 shall be approved by the Assistant General Manager of Engineering Services. 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 October 30, 2003. Carried Minor Variance A 2001-075 Moved by Mr. S. Kay Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac That the application of Southstaton Holdings Limited requesting permission to create one new lot for single residential development having frontage on Hawkswood Drive of 12 m (39.37 ft.), rather COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTOCTOBER 30, 2001 304 Submission Nos.: 1.B 2001-058 & A 2001-074 (Cont’d) B 2001-059 & A 2001-075 Minor Variance A 2001-075 (Cont’d) 2 than the required 15 m (49.21 ft.), and a lot area of 360 m (3,875.13 sq.ft.), rather than the 2 required 464 m (4,994.62 sq.ft.), on Lots 66, 124 and 125, German Company Tract, designated as Parts 8 to 13 inclusive and 31 to 38 inclusive on Reference Plan 58R-12700, Hawkswood BE APPROVED Drive, 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 Consent B 2001-059 Moved by Mr. S. Kay Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac That the application of Southstaton Holdings Limited requesting permission to convey a parcel of land for single residential development having frontage on Hawkswood Drive of 12 m (39.37 ft.), 2 by a depth of 30 m (98.42 ft.) and an area of 360 m(3,875.13 sq.ft.), on Lots 66, 124 and 125, German Company Tract, designated as Parts 8 to 13 inclusive and 31 to 38 inclusive on BE GRANTED Reference Plan 58R-12700, Hawkswood Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions: 1.That the owner shall pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for park dedication equal to 5% of the value of the lands to be severed. 2.That the one foot reserves along the frontage of Hawkswood Drive (Block 30, 58M-182), shall be opened by By-law of City Council. 3.That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City’s Assistant General Manager of Engineering Services for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping including street trees, and a paved driveway ramp, on the severed lands. 4.That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. 5.That Minor Variance Applications, Submission Nos. A 2001-074 and A 2001-075 shall receive final approval. 6.That a revised grading plan relating to Plan 58M-182 shall be approved by the Assistant General Manager of Engineering Services. 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTOCTOBER 30, 2001 305 Submission Nos.: 1.B 2001-058 & A 2001-074 (Cont’d) B 2001-059 & A 2001-075 Consent B 2001-059 (Cont’d) 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 October 30, 2003. Carried Submission Nos: 2.B 2001-060, B 2001-061 & A 2001-076 Applicant: Raymond & Paula Golob Property Location: 82 Old Chicopee Drive Legal Description: Part Lot 119, German Company Tract Appearances: In Support:Mr. R. Golob R.R.#3 135 Ebydale Drive Kitchener ON N2G 3W6 Contra:Ms. K. Fiedler 35 Notchwood Court Kitchener ON N2A 3L4 Written Submissions: In Support:None Contra:None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to create two new lots to be developed with single residential dwellings, by severing a parcel of land having a lot width on 2 Old Chicopee Drive of 20 m (60.62 ft.), by a depth of 37.5 m (123.03 ft.) and an area of 743.12 m (7,999.14 sq. ft.); and severing a parcel of land having a lot width on Notchwood Court of 13.17 m 2 (43.21 ft.), by a depth of 40.097 m (131.55 ft.) and an area of 1,509.86 m (16,252.53 sq. ft.). In addition, the lot width on Notchwood Court does not meet the Zoning By-law requirement of 13.7 m (44.95 ft.) and the applicant is also requesting permission for this variance. The Committee noted the comments of Business and Planning Services in which they advised that the subject lands are known municipally as 82 Old Chicopee Drive. The property is approximately 3,037 square metres with 40.234 metres of frontage on Old Chicopee Drive. The property also has access to Notchwood Court via a block of land (Block 69, R.P. 1577). Planning staff has confirmed that this parcel was purchased by the applicants and is now in their ownership. It should be noted that the conveyance of Block 59 was contemplated in the registration of R.P 1577 and the Subdivision Agreement provided for conveyance of the block to the abutting landowner at 82 Old Chicopee Drive for frontage purposes. The resulting lot width along Notchwood Court is 13.17 metres. The purpose of B-2001-060 and B-2001-061 is to create two additional lots, for a total of three lots. B-2001-060 is an application proposing the creation of a lot adjacent to the existing residential dwelling located at 82 Old Chicopee Drive. The proposed lot would front onto Old Chicopee Drive and would meet the zoning requirements of the R-3 zone. B-2001-061 is an application proposing the creation of a lot to the rear of the existing dwelling with frontage onto COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTOCTOBER 30, 2001 306 Submission Nos: 2. B 2001-060, B 2001-061 & A 2001-076 (Cont’d) Notchwood Court. The proposed lot would meet the zoning requirements of the R-3 zone with the exception of the required lot width. The applicants have submitted application A-2001-076 to request a variance from the zoning requirements to permit a width of 13.17 metres whereas the by-law requires 13.7 metres. The variance application is considered to be minor in nature and appropriate for the development of the subject land. The variance also maintains the general intent of both the Zoning By-law and the Municipal Plan. In addition to the existing single detached dwelling on the lot, there is also a frame shed that would have to be removed prior to development of the lands. The applicant has indicated that the existing shed will be removed. The existing lot is large relative to the surrounding properties. The surrounding lands are developed with single detached dwellings fronting onto Old Chicopee Drive and Notchwood Court. The proposal to create two additional lots, for a total of three lots, appears to be compatible in this neighbourhood, especially with the availability of access from two streets. Accordingly, Business and Planning Services staff recommends that: A) Application A-2001-076 be approved without conditions. B) Application B-2001-060 (Old Chicopee Drive) be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for park dedication equal to 5% of the value of the lands to be severed. 2. That the owners make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering Services, for the installation of all new service connections to the severed lands. 3. That the owner make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering Services for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping including street trees, and a paved driveway ramp, on the severed and retained lands. 4. That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. 5. That the owner convey to the City of Kitchener, without cost and free of encumbrance, a road widening, from the entire property frontage of Old Chicopee Drive (severed and retained lands), of sufficient width to meet the required 20.0 metre right-of-way to the satisfaction of Engineering Services. 6. That the owner enter into a modified subdivision agreement with the City of Kitchener, to be prepared by the City Solicitor, to the satisfaction of the City’s Principal Planner and Engineering Services, and registered on title of all the subject lands. Said agreement shall include the following conditions: a) That the owner submit a lot grading and drainage plan for approval by Engineering Services prior to the issuance of a building permit. b) Provision for the existing retaining wall to be removed and if a retaining wall is required as part of the regrading of the existing and proposed lots, then the entire wall must be located on private property. 7. That the owner is required to make satisfactory financial arrangements with Engineering Services for the installation of a 1.5 metre concrete sidewalk across the entire frontage of Old Chicopee Drive. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTOCTOBER 30, 2001 307 Submission Nos: 2. B 2001-060, B 2001-061 & A 2001-076 (Cont’d) C)Application B-2001-061 (Notchwood Court) be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for park dedication equal to 5% of the value of the lands to be severed. 2. That Minor Variance Application A-2001-076 receive final approval. 3. That the existing frame shed be removed. 4. That the owners make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering Services, for the installation of storm sewer connections, to the severed lands. 5. That the owner make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City’s Assistant Manager of Engineering Services for the installation, to City standards, of a paved driveway ramp on the severed lands. 6. That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. 7. That the lands to be severed are added to the abutting lands and title is 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. 8. That the owner convey to the City of Kitchener, without cost and free of encumbrance, a road widening, from the entire property frontage of Old Chicopee Drive (severed and retained lands), of sufficient width to meet the required 20.0 metre right-of-way to the satisfaction of Engineering Services. 9. That the owner enter into a modified subdivision agreement with the City of Kitchener to be prepared by the City Solicitor to the satisfaction of the City’s Principal Planner and Engineering Services, and registered on title of all the subject lands. Said agreement shall include the requirement for submission of a lot grading and drainage plan for approval by Engineering Services prior to issuance of a building permit. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building, the Traffic & Parking Analyst, the Region of Waterloo and the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no concerns or comments with respect to these applications. The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the applications subject to certain conditions and inquired if Mr. Golob had anything further to add. Mr. R. Golob advised that he had reviewed the staff comments and had nothing further to add. For clarification as to the proposed lots, Ms. Given reviewed the plan noting that the lot fronting onto Old Chicopee Drive complied with all zoning requirements and the lot to front on Notchwood Court would have a lot width of 13.17 m rather than the required 13.7 m. Ms. K. Fiedler advised that she was the owner of 35 Notchwood Court and expressed concern with respect to the small area in which the driveway would have to be constructed for the property fronting onto Notchwood Court. She questioned how this might impact her property. The Chair questioned if the triangular parcel (Block 69, R.P. 1577) fronting Notchwood Court was owned by the applicant. Ms. Given advised that the applicant was the owner and technically it was not part of the subject lands as it was part of a Block Plan. She pointed out, however, that this parcel is intended to be taken in identical ownership with the lands to be severed to form the new lot. She commented that the angle of the driveway for the new lot may have to cross the COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTOCTOBER 30, 2001 308 Submission Nos: 2. B 2001-060, B 2001-061 & A 2001-076 (Cont’d) City’s right-of-way and would be in close proximity to 31 Notchwood Court as opposed to 35 Notchwood Court. In response to a question from the Chair, Ms. Given advised that a portion of all driveways cross the City right-of-way. She further pointed out that in order to obtain a building permit, the owner would be required to contain the whole of the driveway for the new lot on the subject lands. Ms. Fiedler reiterated her concern that the area in which the driveway would be constructed is very narrow. The Chair provided an aerial photograph for Ms. Fiedler to review. He commented that it appears the driveway will be a tight fit; however, again pointed out that in order to obtain a building permit the owner would have to provide plans showing the driveway contained wholely on the subject property. Mr. P. Britton suggested that an additional condition be imposed for Consent B 2001-061 to require the owner to submit a driveway plan for approval by the Principal Planner to ensure minimal conflict with adjacent properties. Members of the Committee agreed with this suggestion. Consent B 2001-060 Moved by Mr. P. Britton Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac That the application of Raymond and Paula Golob requesting permission to convey a parcel of land for single residential development having frontage on Old Chicopee Drive of 20 m (60.62 ft.), 2 by a depth of 37.5 m (123.03 ft.) and an area of 743.12 m (7,999.14 sq.ft.), on Part Lot 119, BE GRANTED German Company Tract, 82 Old Chicopee Drive, , subject to the following conditions: 1.That the owner shall pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for park dedication equal to 5% of the value of the lands to be severed. 2.That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering Services, for the installation of all new service connections to the severed lands. 3.That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering Services for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping including street trees, and a paved driveway ramp, on the severed and retained lands. 4.That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. 5.That the owner shall convey to the City of Kitchener, without cost and free of encumbrance, a road widening, from the entire property frontage of Old Chicopee Drive (severed and retained lands), of sufficient width to meet the required 20.0 metre right-of- way to the satisfaction of Engineering Services. 6.That the owner shall enter into a modified subdivision agreement with the City of Kitchener, to be prepared by the City Solicitor, to the satisfaction of the City’s Principal Planner and Engineering Services, and registered on title of all the subject lands. Said agreement shall include the following conditions: a)That the owner shall submit a lot grading and drainage plan for approval by Engineering Services prior to the issuance of a building permit. b)Provision for the existing retaining wall to be removed and if a retaining wall is required as part of the regrading of the existing and proposed lots, then the entire wall must be located on private property. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTOCTOBER 30, 2001 309 Submission Nos: 2. B 2001-060, B 2001-061 & A 2001-076 (Cont’d) Consent B 2001-060 (Cont’d) 7.That the owner shall make satisfactory financial arrangements with Engineering Services for the installation of a 1.5 metre concrete sidewalk across the entire frontage of Old Chicopee Drive. 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 October 30, 2003. Carried Minor Variance A 2001-076 Moved by Mr. P. Britton Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac That the application of Raymond and Paula Golob requesting permission to create one new lot for single residential development, having frontage on Notchwood Court of 13.17 m (43.21 ft.), rather than the required 13.7 m (44.95 ft.), on Part Lot 119, German Company Tract, 82 Old BE APPROVED Chicopee Drive, . It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried Consent B 2001-061 Moved by Mr. P. Britton Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac That the application of Raymond and Paula Golob requesting permission to convey a parcel of land as a lot addition to an abutting property legally described as Block 69, Registered Plan 1577, having a lot width of 40.234 m (132 ft.), by a depth of 40.097 m (131.55 ft.) and an area of 2 1,509.86 m(16,252.53 sq. ft.), on Part Lot 119, German Company Tract, 82 Old Chicopee Drive, BE GRANTED , subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for park dedication equal to 5% of the value of the lands to be severed. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTOCTOBER 30, 2001 310 Submission Nos: 2. B 2001-060, B 2001-061 & A 2001-076 (Cont’d) Consent B 2001-061 (Cont’d) 2.That Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 2001-076, shall receive final approval. 3.That the existing frame shed shall be removed. 4.That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering Services, for the installation of storm sewer connections, to the severed lands. 5.That the owner make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City’s Assistant Manager of Engineering Services for the installation, to City standards, of a paved driveway ramp on the severed lands. 6.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. 7.That the lands to be severed shall be added to the abutting lands legally described as Block 69, Registered Plan 1577, 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. 8. That the owner shall convey to the City of Kitchener, without cost and free of encumbrance, a road widening, from the entire property frontage of Old Chicopee Drive (severed and retained lands), of sufficient width to meet the required 20.0 metre right-of- way to the satisfaction of Engineering Services. 9.That the owner shall enter into a modified subdivision agreement with the City of Kitchener to be prepared by the City Solicitor to the satisfaction of the City’s Principal Planner and Engineering Services, and shall be registered on title of all the subject lands. Said agreement shall include the requirement for submission of a lot grading and drainage plan for approval by Engineering Services prior to issuance of a building permit. 10. That the owner shall submit a driveway layout to the satisfaction of the Principal Planner. 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 ADJUSTMENTOCTOBER 30, 2001 311 Submission Nos: 2. B 2001-060, B 2001-061 & A 2001-076 (Cont’d) Consent B 2001-061 (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 October 30, 2003. Carried ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 12:25 p.m. th Dated at the City of Kitchener this 30 day of October, 2001. J. Billett Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment