Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2001-11-20.COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 20, 2001 MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. S. Kay, P. Kruse 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. Kruse Seconded by Mr. P. Britton That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment of October 30, 2001, as mailed to the members, be accepted. Carried UNFINISHED BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE Submission No.: 1.A 2001-059 Applicant: Bridal Penthouse Limited Property Location: 9 Stirling Avenue North and 762-778 King Street East Legal Description: Part Lots 1 and 2, Registered Plan 77 The Chair advised that the Committee was in receipt of a facsimile transmission dated November 16, 2001 from Mr. W. Boehler, Artindale & Partners, requesting deferral of this application to the Committee’s next meeting. By general consent, it was agreed to defer Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 2001- 059 to the December 11 Committee of Adjustment meeting. CONSENT Submission No.: 1.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 faxed letter dated November 7, 2001 from Mr. Craig Robson, McCarter Grespan Robson Beynon Thompson, on behalf of his client, Thomas Hugh O’Rourke, advising that discussions have been entered into with City staff with respect to the possibility of rezoning the property. Accordingly, his client wishes to adjourn the hearing for approximately 6 months. By general consent, it was agreed to defer this application sine die to allow an opportunity for a rezoning application to be submitted and considered by City Council. Submission No.: 2.B 2001-053 Applicant: Mike Joly & Theresa Perry Property Location: 265 & 269 Guelph Street Legal Description: Part Lot 8, Registered Plan 373 The Secretary-Treasurer advised that she had been in contact with Mr. Jake Benjamins, agent for Mike Joly and Theresa Perry, and he has given verbal indication the application will be COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTNOVEMBER 20, 2001 313 Submission No.: 2. B 2001-053 (Cont’d) withdrawn. She advised that written confirmation of withdrawal has not yet been received and accordingly, in the interim, requested that this application be deferred to the Committee’s next meeting. By general consent, it was agreed to defer this application to the Committee’s meeting to be held on December 11, 2001. The Committee then recessed the meeting, temporarily, at 9:40 a.m. to allow an opportunity for all parties to applications listed for consideration on the Committee’s 10:00 a.m. agenda to arrive. This meeting reconvened at 10:00 a.m. NEW BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE Submission No.: 1.A 2001-081 Applicant: Malcom Livermore Property Location: 40 Pleasant Avenue Legal Description: Lot 90, Registered Plan 230 Mr. G. Schaffer, Solicitor for Mr. M. Livermore, requested this application be heard at the beginning of the 10:00 a.m. agenda as he had several other commitments which he must attend in addition to this hearing. The Committee agreed to Mr. Schaffer’s request; however, advised that they would reserve making a formal decision until later in the meeting at the time the application would in the normal order of the agenda be heard, to ensure that all interested parties have an opportunity to arrive and give submissions to the Committee. Mr. Schaffer agreed with this course of action. Appearances: In Support:Mr. G. SchafferMr. M. Livermore Roetsch & Schaffer40 Pleasant Ave. 284 Frederick St.Kitchener, ON N2M 4A4 Kitchener, ON N2H 2N4 Contra:None Other:Ms. C. Ridgers Mr. J. Wilkinson 44 Pleasant Ave. Kitchener, ON N2M 4A4 Written Submissions: In Support:None Contra:None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a driveway, 4.57 m (15 ft.) wide and extending a total distance of 10.67 m (35 ft.) along the side of the dwelling, with the required parking space setback 2.74 m (9 ft.) from the front lot line, rather than the required 6 m (19.68 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the subject property, which currently has no driveway access, is known municipally as 40 Pleasant Avenue. The house is a one storey detached residential dwelling located on the north side of Pleasant Avenue within close proximity to Queen Street. The lot has a frontage of 12.3 metres (40.5 ft.) and a depth of 29.48 metres (96.75 ft.). COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTNOVEMBER 20, 2001 314 Submission No.: 1. A 2001-081 (Cont’d) The applicant is proposing to construct a driveway along the east side of the house toward the neighbouring property line. The east side yard is approximately 2.1 metres (7.0 ft) wide. As the subject property is on a steep grade, excavation of the existing side yard to the street line will be required. The applicant is also proposing to excavate an additional section of the front yard approximately 2.4 metres (8 feet) wide into the front yard. This proposed parking area will measure 4.5 metres (15 ft) in width and 8.2 metres (27 ft) in depth. The by-law requires that required parking spaces be setback 6.0 metres from the front property line. The applicant would provide a 2.7 metre (9 ft) setback. Allowing required parking within this area would contravene the by-law in this respect. Additionally, the by-law requires that the subject property provide a full 3.0 metre side yard if it is to be utilized for parking. The proposed side yard is only 2.1 metres (7 ft), which falls short of this requirement by 0.9 metres (2.8 ft). The application should be amended to include this second variance. At present the applicant utilizes on-street parking to service the subject property. There is a curb cut in front of the proposed driveway location, although there is no record of a driveway being located on the subject property. Despite the shortfall from the current by-law standard, staff considers the narrow driveway and the proposed parking within the setback, which is closer than 6.0 metres to the front property line, to be a functional alternative to the limited on-street parking. Traffic staff has submitted comments in support of the construction of the driveway access subject to the construction of daylighting triangles at each corner of the entrance and a slope not greater than 10%. It is noted that the construction of a retaining wall would also be required given the existing grades. Staff feel that the proposal is reflective of the existing conditions on Pleasant Avenue, as impacts from the proposed driveway to the abutting property would be consistent with many other properties on the street with similar grades and lot widths. As a result, staff considers that approval of the variance for side yard reduction and the variance to parking located 2.7 metres rather than 6.0 metres from the front lot line to be appropriate. Based on the above comments it is the opinion of staff that the variances maintain the general intent of the Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law, the variances are considered minor, and therefore are acceptable. Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission A 2001-081, as amended. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst in which he advised that Traffic has no concerns with the proposed driveway, provided that the driveway grade does not exceed 10%, and that 4.57 m driveway triangles are provided at each side of the driveway. 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 an amendment to include a second variance to allow a 2.1 m easterly sideyard setback rather than the required 3 m. Mr. Schaffer advised that he was in agreement with amending the application in accordance with the staff recommendation. In response to questions, Ms J. Given advised that the property had been allowed under the Zoning By-law of the day to be constructed without a driveway and there were several other similar properties in the area. In addition, she suggested that to address concerns raised relative to construction of the retaining wall, a condition be imposed requiring the owner to construct the wall to the satisfaction of Traffic & Parking within a set time for completion. She stated that this would then provide for construction to be overseen and inspected by Traffic & Parking to ensure it was properly completed. In regard to the timeline for construction of the driveway and retaining wall, Mr. Schaffer advised that his client would be delaying construction until April or May of 2001 as the winter season is now approaching. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTNOVEMBER 20, 2001 315 Submission No.: 1. A 2001-081 (Cont’d) Ms. C. Ridgers advised that she was the owner of 44 Pleasant Avenue located adjacent to the subject property along the side where the driveway is to be constructed. She stated that she had concern that the driveway was to be extended along side the dwelling and wished to be assured there would be no encroachment onto her property. The Chair pointed out to Ms. Ridgers that the parking area is to be located ahead of the building line and not beside the dwelling. He further cautioned Mr. Livermore that without a proper survey he would need to be careful in constructing the driveway so as not to encroach on the neighbouring property. The Chair emphasized to Mr. Livermore that the Committee was not sanctioning any encroachment onto the neighbouring property and suggested it may be in his best interest to obtain a proper survey to determine where the property line is located. Mr. P. Britton suggested that as the plan submitted is very conceptual, a condition be imposed to require the applicant to submit a proper plan for approval by the Principal Planner so as to confirm the lot lines. Mr. Schaffer pointed out that Ms. Ridgers had brought a survey of her property and suggested that his client could use this survey as a reference in constructing the driveway. Ms. Ridgers submitted the survey prepared by Metz & Lorentz Limited, dated 1986 for the Committee’s review. As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming at this time, the Chair advised that consideration of this matter would be temporarily adjourned as previously arranged, and the Committee’s decision would follow at the appropriate time during the course of this hearing. The Committee then recessed the meeting, temporarily, at 10:15 a.m. in order to consider an application for Minor Variance to the City of Kitchener’s Sign By-law. This meeting reconvened at 10:25 a.m. Submission No.: 2.A 2001-077 Applicant: Darcy Harper Property Location: 557 Stirling Ave. South Legal Description: Part Lot 32, Registered Plan 25 Mr. P. Kruse declared a pecuniary interest in this application as his law firm has acted on behalf of the applicant and did not participate in any discussion or voting with respect to this application. Mr. Kruse left the meeting during consideration of this application and in accordance with the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act this application was considered by the remaining two members. Appearances: In Support:Mr. D. HarperMr. T. Harper 557 Stirling Ave. S.72 Kehl St. Kitchener, ON N2M 3J9Kitchener, ON N2M 3T9 Contra:None Written Submissions: In Support:Mr. P. GovierMr. R. Lawson 561 Stirling Ave. S.Kruse, Lawson & Haller Kitchener, ON N2M 3J5370 Frederick St. Kitchener, ON N2H 6M1 Contra:Mr. & Mrs. J. Usztics 188 Mausser Ave. Kitchener, ON N2M 3K7 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTNOVEMBER 20, 2001 316 Submission No.: 2. A 2001-077 (Cont’d) The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing accessory building (storage shed), having a westerly sideyard setback and a rearyard setback of 0.5 m (1.66 ft.), rather than the required 0.6 m (1.97 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that this application is based on the fact that adverse possession has been obtained for a portion of land to the rear of the shed and the applicant has requested the rearyard setback over these lands. Although a survey is not available, staff prefers that this variance be dealt with in relation to the original lot line. The owner has advised staff that the shed is located approximately 0.15 metres (0.5 feet) from the original lot line. Therefore it is recommended that this application be amended to request legalization of an existing shed with a rear yard setback of 0.15 metres (0.5 feet) rather than the required 0.6 metres (1.96 feet). The shed was constructed without benefit of a building permit, as the owner of the property was not aware of the requirement for permits. Building staff are now in receipt of a building permit application, but will not be able to issue a permit unless variance approval is received and drawings are submitted by an engineer. The shed is located at the rear of the property in the south-west corner. The building itself measures approximately 3 metres by 4.9 metres (10 feet by 16 feet). There is also a covered porch that measures 1.8 metres by 4.9 metres (6 feet by 16 feet). The shed complies with the lot coverage regulation of the by-law. Drawings submitted with the building permit indicate that the roof extends approximately 0.2 metres (8 inches) over the building towards the right side lot line. In addition, the roof does not extend over the rear wall of the shed as indicated on the drawings attached to the building permit. Therefore, the shed does not encroach over the neighbouring lot lines. The applicant is advised that he must ensure that all drainage from the roof is directed onto the subject property. The accessory structure is constructed of masonry (concrete block) and will require little maintenance. From the shed to the right sideyard, the requested setback is considered sufficient to perform any maintenance required for the structure. From the rear wall of the shed to the lot line as accepted by our department, there would not appear to be sufficient room to maintain the structure. However, as noted above, the applicant has obtained adverse possession of approximately 0.5 metres of land located between the shed and a fence that has existed since the 1960's. Staff are of the opinion that this would be deemed adequate for any maintenance required. Considering the sheds location at the rear of the property and providing that all drainage is directed onto the subject property, it is staff's opinion that the shed would not appear to effect the enjoyment of the neighbouring properties. Based on the above comments, it is the opinion of staff that the subject variance is minor in nature, meets the general intent of the by-law and is appropriate development for the property and surrounding area. Accordingly, Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission A 2001-077 as amended and providing all drainage is directed onto the subject property. 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 Committee noted the written submission of Mr. Perry Govier, owner of 561 Stirling Avenue South, in which he advised that he is the neighbour of the applicant and has no concern with the existing shed. The Committee noted a letter from Mr. R. Lawson, Kruse, Lawson & Haller dated October 1, 2001 addressed to Mr. R. Trafford, Kitchener Building Inspector, for the purpose of providing copies of Statutory Declarations from 3 neighbouring property owners in the area of 557 Stirling Avenue South relative to the issue of adverse possession. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTNOVEMBER 20, 2001 317 Submission No.: 2. A 2001-077 (Cont’d) The Committee noted the written submission of Mr. & Mrs. Usztics in which they advised that we the residents of 188 Mausser Ave. backing up on to this property of 557 Stirling Ave. South, strongly urge that the request to legalize this 1 car garage not storage shed, and parking lot be toally denied for the following reasons: 1. Request resident goes by the laws and requirements set forth by the City (1.97 feet) like every other resident has to. 2. No building permit issued or taken out when resident began construction of building looking like a 1 car garage, patio, overhang with fireplace. 3. No land survey done before construction, not until request from City. 4. Fear the weight of garage and run-off from snow and rain will eventually erode top of the hill causing damage to my property weakening of the ground and trees. 2 large trees he’s cut, trimmed and weakened to make way for his garage. 5. Erosion too close. The hill is mostly sand and there is no room to absorb water run-off on his property. 6. Resident continued to work on garage even when the City Building Inspectors ordered him to stop! Disobeying their orders on a number of occasions. 7. He has taken our property and neighbours property 5’’ to 1 ft. by adverse possession to even come up with 1.66 ft. which we still pay taxes on. So therefore he does not own that property. 8. Application in retaliation for someone calling the City on him, cut down 28 feet of 20 year old lilacs on our property, thus destroying the back of our property and our privacy. 9. Applicant subjects neighbours to now look at different colour bricks and a fluorescent orange fence all the way across our backyard. 10. Garage and fence look terrible, destroying our pleasant wooded view of before. 11. There was absolutely no consideration for neighbours behind him. In closing, since resident at 557 moved in there has been destruction of my property, Police, By- law Officers, and he has total disregard for the City Inspectors and the neighbours who have to look at the mess he has made without any permits. For all these reasons we strongly urge he go by the law of 1.97 feet. The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the application subject to an amendment to the rear yard setback so that the measurement used is relative to the original lot line. In this regard, the revised measurement for the rear yard setback would be 0.15 m. The Chair inquired if Mr. Harper was in agreement with amending his application. Mr. Harper requested clarification and the Chair advised that staff are requesting that the rear yard be considered in relation to the legal title lines as opposed to the lands under adverse possession. In this regard, the Chair advised that the amount of the variance would be slightly greater than what was originally requested in the application. Mr. Harper agreed to revise his application in accordance with the staff recommendation. Ms. J. Given advised that she wished to clarify certain comments in the staff report relative to the overhang of the roof of the shed. She noted that the shed was not constructed in accordance with the plan and that is has since been determined the overhang on the sideyard is only about 2 inches and is not an issue; however, the overhang in the rear yard appears to be approximately 1 ft. She stated that without a proper survey staff are not able to determine if in fact the roof COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTNOVEMBER 20, 2001 318 Submission No.: 2. A 2001-077 (Cont’d) encroaches onto the neighbouring property. She stated that staff are relying on the figures provided by the applicant and a site visit as to where the lot line is located. Mr. D. Harper provided photographs of the shed and rear yard which were reviewed by the Committee. During examination of the photographs, it was established that Mr. Harper had constructed a new fence along the back of the property. In addition, Mr. Harper indicated that the lilac trees that were cut down, as referred to in Mr. and Mrs. Usztics’ letter of objection, were actually on his side of the property. He further noted that the neighbours’ comments relative to the shed being a garage and patio with fireplace is incorrect and assured that the structure is strictly a storage shed and, while there is a small sitting area around the outside, he does not have a fireplace, only a barbeque. The Chair stated that he was prepared to approve the application as amended to reflect the measurements outlined in the staff report and subject to all drainage being directed onto the subject property. The Chair pointed out that without an exact survey the lot lines cannot be confirmed and accordingly, the variances are being approved specific to the original lot lines rather than the lot lines over which adverse possession is claimed. Mr. Darcy advised that he had obtained a written confirmation from a surveyor relative to the location of the rear lot line. In this regard, he submitted a letter from Mr. K. Campbell, Brubacher & Associates, dated July 17, 2001. The Committee reviewed the letter and it was noted therein that “the newly constructed stone and masonry shed is located 0.83 ft. north of the rear boundary at the shed’s southwest corner (1.38 ft. north of the fence) and is located 0.54 ft. north of the rear boundary at the shed’s southeast corner (1.34 ft. north of the fence)”. Accordingly, it was agreed that these measurements relative to the rear yard would be relied upon. Moved by Mr. S. Kay Seconded by Mr. P. Britton That the application of Darcy Harper requesting permission to legalize an existing detached accessory building (storage shed) having a westerly sideyard setback of 0.5 m (1.66 ft.), rather than the required 0.6 m (1.97 ft.), and a rear yard setback of 0.16 m (0.54 ft.) at the shed’s southeast corner, rather than the required 0.6 m (1.97 ft.), on Part Lot 32, Registered Plan 25, BE APPROVED, 557 Stirling Avenue South, 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 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.: 3.A 2001-078 Applicant: Harold & Patti Morgan Property Location: 129 Binscarth Road Legal Description: Part Block B, Registered Plan 230 Appearances: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTNOVEMBER 20, 2001 319 Submission No.: 3. A 2001-078 (Cont’d) In Support:Mr. & Mrs. H. MorganMs. M. Frey 129 Binscarth Rd.17 Church St. Kitchener, ON N2M 3E4Kitchener, ON N3B 1M2 Contra:None Written Submissions: In Support:None Contra:None The Committee was advised that the lands involved in this application were the subject of a previous Consent Application, Submission No. B 2001-042. As a condition of consent approval the applicant was required to submit a minor variance application to request permission for a sideyard setback adjacent to Pleasant Avenue of 3.35 m (11 ft.), rather than the required 4.5 m (14.76 ft.) relative to the lands retained under Consent B 2001-042. The Committee noted the comments of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the subject site is located at the southwest corner of Binscarth Road and Pleasant Avenue just south of St. Mary’s Hospital. Consent application B2001-042 was recently approved by the Committee of Adjustment that effectively severed the subject site into two relatively small parcels. This application has been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board. One of the conditions of approval was that as a result of creating a new lot under the present Zoning By-law, the owner was required to obtain minor variance approval for the retained lot for a reduction in the sideyard setback abutting a street and, if required, for a reduction in the setback to the street line for a required parking space. As indicated by the owner in the drawing attached to the application, it appears as though the required parking space can be located beyond the required zoning setback of 6.0 metres to the street line. Therefore, to satisfy the severance condition, the owner requests a reduction in the sideyard setback abutting a street to 3.35 metres whereas Zoning By- law 85-1 requires a minimum of 4.5 metres. In considering the four tests for minor variance as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, staff offers the following comments in relation to the requested variance. The subject application maintains the intent of the Municipal Plan and the Zoning By-law. Only a portion of the sideyard setback abutting Pleasant Avenue appears to be less than the required 4.5 metres. The existing situation still provides adequate setback from the street in terms of noise separation, streetscape and the provision of some yard amenity space. The effect of just the side yard setback variance on its own should be relatively minor on the surrounding neighbourhood. However, the cumulative effect of this variance, in combination with the severance to create the retained lot with a usable rear yard space that is questionable, may have some impact or deviate from the surrounding properties. When evaluating this specific minor variance request though, the application can be considered minor and appropriate for the use of the land since the house and property have existed in this fashion since 1944 and the setback was previously legalized under the Vacuum Clause of the Zoning By-law. The necessity for the variance has only been created by the consent application. Based on the foregoing, Business and Planning Services recommends approval of the minor variance to reduce the sideyard setback abutting Pleasant Avenue for the existing building at 129 Binscarth Road. Business and Planning Services recommends that Minor Variance Application A2001-078, to reduce the sideyard setback abutting a street to 3.35 metres whereas Zoning By-law 85-1 requires a minimum of 4.5 metres, be approved. 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTNOVEMBER 20, 2001 320 Submission No.: 3. A 2001-078 (Cont’d) 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. Ms. Frey advised that she acted on behalf of the applicants and was in agreement with the staff recommendation. In response to questions, Ms. Frey advised that only one building, being 129 Binscarth Road, exists on the property at this time. The Chair requested clarification with respect to the sideyard setback and Ms. Given advised that as a condition of the consent approval for this property the applicant was required to submit a minor variance application for a sideyard setback of 11 ft. from Pleasant Avenue relative to the existing dwelling. Ms. J. Given also pointed out that the staff comments indicate the consent application was appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board; however, she stated that this was incorrect. She pointed out that a letter from the neighbouring property owner was received; however, it was not a letter of appeal and the decision of the Committee relative to the consent application is not before the Ontario Municipal Board. Mr. P. Britton questioned the necessity of the variance request and Ms. Given advised that as a result of the consent application the sideyard could no longer be considered legal under the Vacuum Clause of the Zoning By-law and the variance was strictly technical in nature. As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion. Moved by Mr. P. Kruse Seconded by Mr. P. Britton That the application of Harold and Patti Morgan requesting permission to legalize an existing sideyard setback adjacent to Pleasant Avenue of 3.35 m (11 ft.), rather than the required 4.5 m (14.76 ft.) relative to the existing dwelling on the subject lands, on Part Block B, Registered Plan BE APPROVED 230, 129 Binscarth Road, Kitchener, Ontario, . It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission No.: 4.A 2001-079 Applicant: Vojtech & Miroslava Halfar Property Location: 309 Southill Drive Legal Description: Lot 22, Registered Plan 1115 Appearances: In Support:Mr. V. Halfar 309 Southill Dr. Kitchener, ON N2A 2R2 Contra:None Written Submissions: In Support:None Contra:None COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTNOVEMBER 20, 2001 321 Submission No.: 4. A 2001-079 (Cont’d) The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing driveway located 13.14 m (43.10 ft.) to the intersection of the street lines abutting the lot, rather than the permitted 9 m (29.53 ft.), and to permit one required parking space to be setback 2.13 m (7 ft.) from the front lot line, rather than the required 6 m (19.68 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the owner of the subject property has relocated their driveway to the end of the house to permit a larger outdoor patio area and rear yard where the existing carport is located, on the opposite end of the house. Given the drawing submitted with the application, the new driveway is located approximately 4.87 metres (16 feet) from the intersection, closer than the 9 metres (30 feet) permitted in the Zoning By-law. Secondly, rather than being setback 6.0 metres (20 feet) from the street line, the parking space is now setback approximately 0.60 metres (2 feet) according to the drawing. The variances should be amended to reflect these dimensions. Planning and Traffic staff have attended the site to determine the acceptability of the new driveway. While staff initially felt that the driveway would pose an unsafe traffic situation, Traffic staff advise that they find visibility to be acceptable, given that the occupants can see in both directions when exiting from this driveway. Further, this corner is created by one single street and is not the intersection of two streets, which could be more dangerous. The intent of the driveway setback is therefore met, as safety is not compromised. The variance can be considered minor and appropriate given that the owner has carefully located and designed the new space so as not to interfere with the existing trees on site, including the construction of the surface with railway ties rather than a paved or concrete surface which may damage the tree roots. With respect to the setback of the parking space, because the vehicle is not parking in the front yard of the lot, the aesthetic impact of the parking space is lessened, so that the intent of the by- law is not compromised. The variance can be considered minor as the by-law does not prevent all vehicles from parking this close to the lot line, only the required parking space. In consideration of all of the above noted factors, staff find the variances required to permit the legalization of the new driveway location to be acceptable and meeting the Planning Act tests. Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission A-2001-079, as amended. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst in which he advised that Traffic recommends approval of the existing driveway provided that the secondary driveway on Thaler Avenue be closed and reinstated to boulevard. 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. In response to questions, Mr. Halfar advised that he had only relocated the driveway and not the carport. He further noted that his vehicle is usually parked outside of the carport for safety reasons as he has a young child who frequently plays in the area of the carport. He stated that prior to relocating the driveway he had made inquiries and was advised that no permit was required. Subsequent to moving the driveway, he advised the City received a complaint and accordingly he had been advised to make application to the Committee of Adjustment. The Chair noted that staff recommend the application be amended to allow a setback from the intersection of 4.87 m and the required parking space to be setback 0.6 m from the street line. Mr. Halfar requested clarification of the staff recommendation, noting that because of existing trees he could not move the driveway over any further. Ms. J. Given clarified that the revised figure is just the reverse dimension of that noted in the application, being the difference in distance from the edge of the driveway to the side property line. In response to Mr. P. Britton, Ms. Given advised that the vehicle will not be parked in front of the front façade of the dwelling and accordingly, staff are of the opinion this will have less of a visual impact. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTNOVEMBER 20, 2001 322 Submission No.: 4. A 2001-079 (Cont’d) In response to questions, Mr. Halfar indicated that the secondary driveway had been removed. Ms. Given pointed out that Mr. Halfar has landscaped over the secondary driveway on his property; however, the boulevard portion of the driveway also should be closed and landscaped. The Chair clarified for Mr. Halfar that he would be required to remove the portion of the secondary driveway located between the edge of the sidewalk and the roadway. The Chair also instructed Mr. Halfar to contact Traffic staff to determine what is required with respect to removal of this portion of the driveway and Mr. Halfar advised that he was in agreement. Moved by Mr. P. Kruse Seconded by Mr. P. Britton That the appliction of Vojtech & Miroslava Halfar requesting permission to legalize an existing driveway located 4.87 m (16 ft.) from the intersection of the street lines abutting the lot, rather than the required 9 m (29.53 ft.), and to permit one required parking space to be setback 0.6 m (2 ft.), rather than the required 6 m (19.68 ft.), on Lot 22, Registered Plan 1115, 309 Southill Drive, BE APPROVED Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following condition: 1. That subject to the satisfaction of the Traffic & Parking Analyst, the owner shall close and reinstate to boulevard the portion of the secondary driveway on Thaler Avenue located between the edge of the sidewalk and the roadway by no later than June 1, 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 Submission No.: 5.A 2001-080 Applicant: Calvin Bramley Property Location: 45 Sweetbriar Drive Legal Description: Lot 92, Registered Plan 1091 Appearances: In Support:Mr. B. Duncan 772 Stirling Ave. S. Kitchener, ON N2M 3K3 Contra:None Written Submissions: In Support:None Contra:None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct an attached carport having a westerly sideyard setback of 1.09 m (3.6 ft.), rather than the required 1.2 m (3.94 ft.) and a rear yard setback of 6.9 m (22.64 ft.), rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the subject land is located on the south-easterly corner of a bend on Sweetbriar Drive. The applicant wishes to construct a 97.54 square metre (1050 square foot) carport in the rear yard of COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTNOVEMBER 20, 2001 323 Submission No.: 5. A 2001-080 (Cont’d) the property. The carport would have dimensions of 6.96 m (20 feet) in width and 7.62 metres (25 feet) in depth, and would be located at the right side of the front façade, in line with the existing driveway. Application for minor variance is required to reduce the minimum rear yard requirement from 7.5 metres (24.6 feet) to 6.9 metres (22.64 feet) at the closest point (post “C”) and the minimum side yard from 1.2 metres (4 feet) to 1.09 metres (3.6 feet) at the closest point (post “B”), to permit the construction of the proposed carport. When constructed, the carport would encroach into the minimum rear yard depth by 0.6 metres (1.97 feet) and into the minimum side yard by 0.11 metres (0.36 feet). The proposed carport can be considered appropriate and desirable since it will be designed in general consistency with the existing dwelling. The carport will be flush with the front and rear facades of the dwelling, maintaining continuity with the existing form. Additionally, the proposal’s impact on the surrounding environment is minor in nature. Impacts to the adjacent property owner to the north and west will be minimal because the proposal only enhances the level of off-street parking on the site and is not an extension of living space. As well, the addition would only cover a small percentage of the required rear yard, and will be mainly located in the area that already functions as a driveway. Impacts that may be associated with the reduced setbacks to the north and west are minimal since the proposal will generally abut those properties’ rear yards, resulting in minimal nuisance overall 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 the use and designation of the site. Accordingly, Business and Planning Services recommends that Minor Variance Application A 2001-080 be approved, generally in accordance with the plan attached to this application. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building permit is required to construct the new carport and the owner shall ensure that all roof drainage is 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. The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the application subject to a building permit being obtained and roof drainage being directed onto the subject property. The Chair inquired if Mr. Duncan had anything further to add and Mr. Duncan advised that he did not. As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion. Moved by Mr. P. Britton Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse That the application of Calvin Bramley requesting permission to construct an attached carport having a westerly sideyard setback of 1.09 m (3.6 ft.), rather than the required 1.2 m (3.94 ft.) and a rear yard setback of 6.9 m (22.64 ft.), rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.), on Lot 92, BE APPROVED Registered Plan 1091, 45 Sweetbriar Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to construction of the new carport. 2. That the owner shall ensure that all roof drainage is directed onto the subject property. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTNOVEMBER 20, 2001 324 Submission No.: 5. A 2001-080 (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 The Committee then resumed consideration of Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 2001- 081 with all parties present earlier this date in attendance, except Mr. G. Schaffer. No other interested parties came forward to make submissions to the Committee with respect to this application. Submission No.: 1. A 2001-081 (Cont’d) In response to the Chair, Ms. J. Given advised that a permit is not required to install the retaining wall and suggested that a condition be imposed that a driveway plan be submitted to the satisfaction of Traffic & Parking showing the overall layout of the driveway and retaining wall and that construction be implemented in accordance with the approved plan by no later than May 31, 2002. The Committee concurred with Ms. Given’s request. Moved by Mr. P. Kruse Seconded by Mr. P. Britton That the application of Malcom Livermore requesting permission to construct a driveway, 4.57 m x 8.22 m (15 ft. x 27 ft.), having a sideyard setback of 2.13 m (7 ft.), rather than the required 3 m (9.84 ft.), and to allow the required parking space to be setback 2.74 m (9 ft.) from the front lot line, rather than the required 6 m (19.68 ft.), on Lot 90, Registered Plan 230, 40 BE APPROVED Pleasant Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall submit a detailed driveway plan to be approved by the Traffic & Parking Analyst, showing the layout of the driveway and retaining wall and including the grade of the driveway at no more than 10% and the provision of 4.57 m (15 ft.) driveway visibility triangles on both sides of the driveway. 2. That the owner shall construct the driveway and retaining wall in accordance with the approved driveway plan by no later than May 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 Submission No.: 6.A 2001-082 Applicant: Paul Leung Property Location: 19-21 Cameron Street South Legal Description: Part Lot 63, Registered Plan 303 Appearances: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTNOVEMBER 20, 2001 325 Submission No.: 6. A 2001-082 (Cont’d) In Support:Mr. T. Gallamore 89 Greengable Way Kitchener, ON N2N 3B1 Contra:None Written Submissions: In Support:None Contra:None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a cold storage addition, required to meet health regulations for the existing restaurant use, 6.8 m x 5.09 m (22.3 ft. x 16.7 ft.) in size, setback 0.4 m (1.3 ft.) from the lot line adjacent to Charles Street, rather than the required 3 m (9.84 ft.) and to reduce the number of required parking spaces for the new addition from 5 spaces to 0. The Committee noted the comments of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the subject property is located at the corner of Charles Street East and Cameron Street South. The building on the property is used as a restaurant. The purpose of the application is to request a variance from the side yard setback in order to construct an addition to the building to provide additional cold storage for the restaurant. The required side yard set back abutting a street is 3.0 metres (10’) and the proposed setback is 0.39 metres (1’3”). As well, the proposed area of the addition would require 5 additional parking spaces under the Zoning By-law. The applicant is requesting a variance to provide zero parking spaces for the proposed addition. The intent of the setback requirement in the Zoning By-law is primarily to ensure safe visibility and an aesthetically pleasing site. While the proposed variance would reduce a side yard setback abutting a street, there is a mix of building types and building setbacks in the immediate area surrounding the subject lands. Therefore, the addition would be compatible with the surrounding buildings. Further, Charles Street, is a primary arterial road with a width in this section that will not be impacted greatly by the proposed reduced setback. There is sufficient room for landscaping on the site to provide some visual relief and the owner has indicated a commitment to landscaping. With respect to visibility, it is the opinion of City staff that visibility for traffic leaving and entering the site will not be substantially impacted by the proposed location of the addition. City staff concur that since the proposed addition is for cold storage and no additional seating space in the restaurant is proposed, no additional parking will be generated. This approval will be limited to a restaurant with the floor area no greater than that existing. In conclusion, 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. There is no site plan required for the proposed addition. Business and Planning Services recommends that Minor Variance Application A2001-082, be approved, only for a restaurant with a maximum of 1035 square feet (96.15 square metres) of seating area, to permit a side yard setback abutting a street of 0.39 metres and zero additional parking spaces as a result of the proposed addition. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building permit is required to construct the new addition. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst, the Region of Waterloo and the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no concerns or comments with respect to this application. The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the application and inquired if Mr. Gallamore had anything further to add. Mr. T. Gallamore, agent for the applicant, advised that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation. He further noted COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTNOVEMBER 20, 2001 326 Submission No.: 6. A 2001-082 (Cont’d) that he had canvassed neighbouring property owners all of whom indicated they had no objection to this application. Mr. P. Britton questioned if it was necessary to impose a condition relative to obtaining a building permit. Mr. T. Gallamore advised that a Stop Work Order was issued because construction had commenced prior to approval of this application. Accordingly, it was agreed that a condition requiring the applicant to obtain a building permit would be imposed. Ms. J. Given advised that she wished to clarify that staff are recommending approval on the basis that the existing restaurant seating area is not being increased and requested that approval be limited to a restaurant seating area of 96.15 m (1,035 sq. ft.). The Committee concurred with Ms. Given’s request. As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion. Moved by Mr. P. Britton Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse That the application of Paul Leung requesting permission to construct a cold storage addition, 6.8 m x 5.09 m (22.3 ft. x 16.7 ft.) in size, setback 0.4 m (1.3 ft.) from the lot line adjacent to Charles Street, rather than the required 3 m (9.84 ft.) and to allow a reduction in the number of required parking spaces for the new addition from 5 spaces to 0, on Part Lot 63, Registered Plan 303, 19- BE APPROVED 21 Cameron Street South, Kitchener, Ontario, , only for a restaurant with a 2 maximum of 96.15 m (1,035 sq. ft.) of seating area and subject to the following condition: 1. 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 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 Submission No.: 1.B 2001-062 Applicant: Old Chicopee Estates Limited Property Location: Tisdale Court Legal Description: Block 129, Registered Plan 1823 and Blocks 45 & 46, Registered Plan 58M-190 Mr. P. Britton declared a pecuniary interest in this application as his firm acts on behalf of the applicant and did not participate in any discussion or voting with respect to this application. Mr. Britton left the meeting 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. B. Clarkson MHBC Planning Ltd. 171 Victoria St. N. Kitchener, ON N2H 5C5 Contra:None COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTNOVEMBER 20, 2001 327 Submission No.: 1. B 2001-062 (Cont’d) Written Submissions: In Support:None Contra:None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a vacant parcel of land as a lot addition to an abutting property for single residential use, having a lot width of 2 11.153 m (36.59 ft.), by an average depth of 25.021 m (82.09 ft.) and an area of 464.4 m (4,998.92 sq. ft.). The Committee noted the comments of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the subject property, Block 129 is located within registered plan 1823 and was intended to be developed with a single detached dwelling fronting Tisdale Court. With the lotting of the abutting lands through Registered Plan 58M-190, it became apparent that Block 129 would require further subdivision to be developed as two lots. It is therefor intended that Part 1 of the draft reference plan, the severed lands, be added to Block 45 and held in identical ownership, and that Part 2, the retained lands be developed together with Block 46. All servicing and development matters have been addressed through the two subdivision agreements and as such, the proposed consent, as a lot addition only, is appropriate. Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission B 2001-062 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 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. In response to Mr. P. Kruse, Mr. B. Clarkson advised that the subject area is comprised of two different subdivision plans registered at different times. He pointed out that Parts 1 and 2 of Block 129 as shown on the draft reference plan had not been lotted out as part of the subdivision plan; however, the intention was always to add these two parts to the lands to the south. He stated that in essence the severance is to accommodate consolidation of part lots owned by different parties. In response to the Chair, Mr. Clarkson clarified that Part 1 as shown on the draft reference plan is to be severed as a lot addition to Block 45, Registered Plan 58M-190 and Part 2 of the draft reference plan is to be retained. He further advised that Part 2 of the draft reference plan and Block 46 of Registered Plan 58M-190 will become remnant parcels and can be conveyed after the severance of Part 1 is completed. Members of the Committee questioned if a severance to add Part 2 of the draft plan to Block 46 would be required and Mr. Clarkson clarified that this would not be necessary, pointing out that Blocks 45 and 46 are separate blocks on a registered plan of subdivision. As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion. Moved by Mr. S. Kay Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse That the application of Old Chicopee Estates Limited requesting permission to convey a vacant parcel of land for single residential use as a lot addition to Block 45, Registered Plan 58M-190, COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTNOVEMBER 20, 2001 328 Submission No.: 1. B 2001-062 (Cont’d) having a lot width of 11.153 m (36.59 ft.), by an average depth of 25.021 m (82.09 ft.) and an 2 BE area of 464.4 m (4,998.92 sq. ft.), on Block 129, Registered Plan 1823, Tisdale Court, GRANTED, subjectto thefollowing conditions: 1. That the lands to be severed shall be added to the abutting lands legally described as Block 45, Registered Plan 58M-190, 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 November 20, 2003. Carried Submission No.: 2.B 2001-063 Applicant: Harry & Irmgard Reinert Property Location: 24 Marketa Crescent Legal Description: Part Lot 4, Registered Plan 1009 Appearances: In Support:Mrs. I. Reinert Ms. K. Reinert 24 Marketa Cres. Kitchener, ON N2B 3B6 Contra:None Written Submissions: In Support:None Contra:None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to create one new lot by severing a parcel of land for single residential use, having frontage on Smetana Drive of 19.96 m 2 (65.5 ft.), by an average depth of 25 m (82 ft.) and an area of 467.23 m (5,029.39 sq. ft.). The Committee noted the comments of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the subject property is located on the northwest corner of Marketa Crescent and Smetana Drive and contains an existing single detached dwelling that was constructed in approximately 1961. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTNOVEMBER 20, 2001 329 Submission No.: 2. B 2001-063 (Cont’d) The owner would like to sever a parcel of land from the rear of the subject property which would have a frontage on Smetana Drive of approximately 20 metres (65.5 feet), a depth of approximately 23.5 metres (76.8 feet) at the shortest point, and an area of approximately 467 square metres (5,027 square feet). The retained parcel would have a frontage on Marketa Crescent of 29 metres (95 feet), a depth of approximately 39 metres (128 feet), and an area of approximately 984 square metres (10,592 square feet) and would contain the existing single detached dwelling. In regards to the criteria identified in section 51(24) of the Planning Act, the proposed consent is consistent with matters of provincial interest, is not premature, conforms with the Municipal Plan, and is suitable for a single detached residential use. The severed lot will be of a sufficient size to accommodate a one or two-storey single detached dwelling having a ground floor area of approximately 173 square metres (1,862 square feet) that will be able to meet all zoning requirements. The retained lot will be of a sufficient size to accommodate the existing single detached dwelling and both lots will enjoy good size rear yard amenity areas. Engineering Services has confirmed that adequate municipal services are available to the severed parcel of land. The proposed severance will not impact the servicing of the existing dwelling which will remain on municipal water and private septic services. The City’s Municipal Plan recognizes that the creation of additional housing through infill and redevelopment is an appropriate response to changing housing needs and is a way to make efficient use of existing infrastructure. Several of the lots and blocks in this area have been previously subdivided to provide for additional dwelling units, including many of the corner lots on Smetana Drive and the block of land on Smetana Drive located to the east of Rothsay Avenue. As the proposed residential use and configuration of the lots will be in conformity with the “R-3” zone and will be compatible with the existing uses and pattern of development in the surrounding area, it would be appropriate to recommend approval of Consent application B2001-063. Accordingly, Business and Planning Services recommends that Consent Application B2001-063 be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for park dedication equal to 5% of the value of lands to be severed. 2. That the owner make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Assistant General Manager of Engineering Services for the installation of all sanitary, storm and water connections to the severed lands. 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. 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 documentation that the septic system on the retained parcel of land is located a minimum distance of 3 metres from the new lot line be confirmed by a qualified professional to the satisfaction of the City’s Principal Planner and Chief Building Official. 6. That the owner shall submit, for the review of the City’s Chief Building Official, a geotechnical investigation completed by a professional engineer confirming the suitability of the retained lot for the private in-ground sewage disposal system. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building, the Traffic & Parking Analyst and the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no concerns or comments with respect to this application. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTNOVEMBER 20, 2001 330 Submission No.: 2. B 2001-063 (Cont’d) The Committee noted the comments of the Region of Waterloo in which they advised that Regional staff have no objection to the application though they note the proposed severance, if approved, would appear to alter the parcel fabric and character of the surrounding neighbourhood. The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the application subject to certain conditions and inquired if the applicant had anything further to add. Ms. K. Reinert advised that she had reviewed the staff comments and had nothing further to add. As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion. Moved by Mr. P. Kruse Seconded by Mr. P. Britton That the application of Harry & Irmgard Reinert requesting permission to convey a parcel of land for single residential use having frontage on Smetana Drive of 19.96 m (65.5 ft.), by an average 2 depth of 25 m (82 ft.) and an area of 467.23 m (5,029.39 sq. ft.), on Part Lot 4, Registered Plan BE GRANTED 1009, 24 Marketa Crescent, 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 lands to be severed. 2. That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Assistant General Manager of Engineering Services for the installation of all sanitary, storm and water connections to the severed lands. 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 documentation that the septic system on the retained parcel of land is located a minimum distance of 3 metres from the new lot line shall be confirmed by a qualified professional to the satisfaction of the City’s Principal Planner and Chief Building Official. 6. That the owner shall submit, for the review of the City’s Chief Building Official, a geotechnical investigation completed by a professional engineer confirming the suitability of the retained lot for the private in-ground sewage disposal system. 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 ADJUSTMENTNOVEMBER 20, 2001 331 Submission No.: 2. B 2001-063 (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 November 20, 2003. Carried Submission No.: 3.B 2001-064 Applicant: 3876381 Canada Inc./Rona Inc. Property Location: 730 Ottawa Street South & 245 Strasburg Road Legal Description: Part Lots 4 & 5, Municipal Compiled Plan 1022, designated as Parts 6, 8, 15, 16 & 17 on Reference Plan 58R-12520 and Part Lot 9, Municipal Compiled Plan 1021 & Part Lots 4 & 5, Municipal Compiled Plan 1022, designated as Parts 10, 11, 13 & 14 on Reference Plan 58R-12520 Mr. P. Britton declared a pecuniary interest in this application as his firm was involved in the initial planning stages of this site and did not participate in any discussion or voting with respect to this application. Mr. Britton left 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. P. Griffis Craft Construction 462 Wellington St. W. Toronto, ON M5V 1E3 Contra:None Written Submissions: In Support:None Contra:None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting the granting of a right-of-way having 2 2 an area of 297.585 m (3,203.28 sq. ft.) and a right-of-way having an area of 31.131 m (335.10 sq. ft.), both for the purpose of access, over 730 Ottawa Street South in favour of 245 Strasburg Road. The Committee noted the comments of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that an application has been received to create two rights-of-way over a property on the former Best Pipe lands located at the intersection of Ottawa Street South and Strasburg Road. More specifically, 1427852 Ontario Inc. is seeking to gain access across property in the ownership of Rona Inc. in order to access driveways to be located on the Rona Inc. lands. In July of 2000, Reference Plan 58R-12520, which includes the entire former Best Pipe property, was approved including numerous rights-of-way and easements. At that time, a full detailed site plan for the entire former Best Pipe property was incomplete, therefore it was not unlikely that further rights-of-way or refinement of existing rights-of-way might be necessary. Further detailed site plan application submissions and pre-application meetings involving other portions of the former Best Pipe property are on-going. Additional rights-of-way are now required over Parts 25 and 26 for the benefit of the most northerly of the four properties, namely that property owned by 1427852 Ontario Inc where a Business Depot (also known as “Staples”) is proposed (Parts 10 to 14). A site plan for the Business Depot has now been approved and one condition of site plan approval is registration of the required rights-of-way prior to occupancy. Planning staff consider that the proposed rights-of- COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTNOVEMBER 20, 2001 332 Submission No.: 3. B 2001-064 (Cont’d) way are both necessary and appropriate. The rights-of-way are required in order to provide adequate turning radii and driveway width for both personal and service vehicles to access the Business Depot site, and to fulfil a condition of site plan approval. Accordingly, Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission B 2001-064 subject to the following conditions: 1.That a draft reference plan showing the proposed rights-of-way be approved by the City’s Principal Planner. 2.That a joint maintenance agreement, to be approved by the City Solicitor, be registered against title of both the severed and retained lands, to ensure that rights-of-way for access to both properties are maintained in perpetuity. 3.That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building, the Traffic & Parking Analyst, 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 comments of the Ministry of Transportation in which they advised that the Ministry does not anticipate a problem with its highway system as a result of this application. The owner should be made aware that entrance, building/land use and sign permits are required from the Ministry of Transportation before any grading/construction commences. The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the application subject to certain conditions and inquired if the applicant had anything further to add. In regard to the second condition outlined in the staff report, Mr. P. Griffis advised that approximately 15 joint maintenance agreements already exist on title as a result of previous severances and suggested that rather than imposing a condition that a new joint maintenance agreement be prepared the City Solicitor would be satisfied with existing agreements. The Committee stated that while this may be the case, the City Solicitor would make that decision and accordingly, advised the condition would be imposed. Mr. P. Griffis then questioned the third condition relative to payment of taxes and local improvement charges noting that the owners of the subject property have entered into an arrangement for annualized payments. The Chair clarified that the Committee was not concerned with the financial arrangements for the payment of taxes and local improvements and that the purpose of the condition is only to ensure that payments are up to date. As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion. Moved by Mr. P. Kruse Seconded by Mr. S. Kay That the application of 3876381 Canada Inc./Rona Inc. requesting the granting of two rights-of- way both for the purpose of access, firstly over Part 25 as shown on the plan submitted with 2 Consent Application, Submission No. B 2001-064 and having an area of 297.585 m(3,203.28 sq. ft.) and secondly, over Part 26 as shown on the aforementioned plan and having an area of 2 31.131 m(335.10 sq. ft.), both in favour of lands known municipally as 245 Strasburg Road, on Part Lots 4 and 5, Municipal Compiled Plan 1022, designated as Parts 6, 8, 15, 16 and 17 on BE GRANTED Reference Plan 58R-12520, 730 Ottawa Street South, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions: 1.That a draft reference plan showing the proposed rights-of-way shall be approved by the City’s Principal Planner. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTNOVEMBER 20, 2001 333 Submission No.: 3. B 2001-064 (Cont’d) 2.That a joint maintenance agreement, to be approved by the City Solicitor, shall be registered against title of both the severed and retained lands, to ensure that rights-of-way for access to both properties are maintained in perpetuity. 3.That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1.A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. 2.The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. 3.The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above- noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being November 20, 2003. Carried ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 11:25 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 20th day of November, 2001. J. Billett Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTNOVEMBER 20, 2001 334