HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2001-12-11COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
FOR THE
CITY OF KITCHENER
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD DECEMBER 11, 2001
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Messrs. S. Kay, B. Isaac, P. Britton and D. Cybalski.
OFFICIALS PRESENT:
Ms. J. Given, Principal Planner and Ms. J. Billett, Secretary-Treasurer.
Mr. S. Kay, Chair, called this meeting to order at 9:55 a.m.
Moved by Mr. B. Isaac
Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski
That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment of November 20, 2001, as
mailed to the members, be accepted.
Carried
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
MINOR VARIANCE
Submission No.:
1.A 2001-041
Applicant:
Frances Furlong
Property Location:
30 Chapel Street
Legal Description:
Part Lot A, German Company Tract, Registered Plan 363 and
Subdivision of Lot 2, Lot 4 and Part Lot 3, German Company Tract
The Chair advised that the Committee was in receipt of a letter dated December 5, 2001 from Mr.
R. Lawson, Kruse, Lawson & Haller, agent for the applicant Ms. F. Furlong, in which he advised
that the applicant is requesting deferral of this application for a period of two months.
By general consent, it was agreed to defer Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 2001-
041 to the February 19, 2002 Committee of Adjustment meeting.
Submission No.:
2.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 December
10, 2001 from Mr. W. Boehler, Artindale & Partners, agent for the applicant Bridal Penthouse
Limited, 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 January 8, 2002 Committee of Adjustment meeting.
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
The Chair advised that the Committee was in receipt of a letter dated December 5, 2001 from Mr.
B. Kowalchuk, agent for the applicant Mr. Ivan Biuk, requesting deferral of these applications for a
period of four months.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTDECEMBER 11, 2001
335
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2001-048 to B 2001-050 Inclusive (Cont'd)
By general consent, it was agreed to defer Consent Applications, Submission Nos. B 2001-048 to
B 2001-050 inclusive, to the April 16, 2002 Committee of Adjustment meeting.
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 Chair advised that the Committee was in receipt of a facsimile transmission dated November
21, 2001 from Mr. J. Benjamins, agent for the applicants Mike Joly & Theresa Perry, advising that
the applicants are withdrawing this application. Accordingly, this application was not considered
by the Committee.
The Committee then recessed the meeting, temporarily, at 9:56 a.m. in order to consider applications for
minor variance to the City of Kitchener’s Sign and Fence By-laws. This meeting reconvened at 10:15
a.m.
NEW BUSINESS
MINOR VARIANCE
Submission No.:
1.A 2001-083
Applicant:
Anne C. Zeller
Property Location:
25 Severn Avenue
Legal Description:
Lot 70, Registered Plan 203
Mr. S. Kay declared a pecuniary interest in this application as he has acted on behalf of the
applicant and the applicant’s agent 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 three members.
Appearances:
In Support:Ms. R. Irvine
25 Severn Avenue
Kitchener ON N2M 2V3
Contra:None
Written Submissions:
In Support:None
Contra:None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to enclose an existing
covered porch with glass having a front yard setback of 3.5 m (11.48 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 site is located on the south side of Severn Avenue in the Westmount
neighbourhood. The owner wishes to enclose an existing covered porch with glass in the front
yard.
An application for minor variance is required to reduce the current minimum setback requirement
from 4.5 metres (14.76 feet) to 3.5 metres (11.48 feet) from the front lot line to permit the glassing
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTDECEMBER 11, 2001
336
Submission No.:
1. A 2001-083 (Cont'd)
in of the existing porch. When constructed, the porch would operate as an extension of living
space that would encroach into the minimum front yard depth by 1.0 metre (3.28 feet). 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 proposed enclosure of the porch can be considered appropriate and desirable since it will not
change the structure of the existing dwelling. The porch will retain its general design, which is
consistent with other porches on Severn Avenue and within this neighbourhood. Enclosing the
porch will not change its overall dimensions and therefore the street’s existing character will be
maintained. Since the porch already exists, changes made by enclosing it with glass can be
considered minor in nature and this encroachment will have no impact on adjacent property
owners.
th
The property has a previously approved minor variance dated September 14, 1982, permitting a
front yard setback of 5.45 metres (17.89 feet) and the side yard for a detached garage to be 0.32
metres (1.08 feet) rather than the required 5.48 metres (18 feet) and 0.60 metres (2 feet)
respectively.
Given that the minor variance is appropriate, desirable and the changes are minor in nature, the
general intent of the Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan are maintained. Accordingly, Business
and Planning Services recommends approval of Minor Variance Application A2001-083.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building
permit is required to close in the existing porch.
The Committee noted the written comments of the Traffic and Parking Analyst, 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.
Mr. P. Britton reviewed the staff report, noting that staff are recommending approval of the
application and inquired if Ms. Irvine had anything further to add. Ms. R. Irvine, agent for the
applicant Anne Zeller, advised that the purpose of this application is to enclose an existing porch
to make the porch useable for a longer period of time.
Mr. P. Britton referred to the Director of Building’s comments in which it is suggested the
application be subject to a building permit and inquired if there was a need to impose such a
condition. Ms. J. Given responded that it was not necessary to impose this condition as the
permit would be required in any event.
Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski
Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac
That the application of Anne C. Zeller requesting permission to enclose an existing covered porch
with glass having a front yard setback of 3.5 m (11.48 ft.), rather than the required 4.5 m (14.76
BE APPROVED
ft.), on Lot 70, Registered Plan 203, 25 Severn Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, .
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan
is being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTDECEMBER 11, 2001
337
Submission No.:
2.A 2001-084
Applicant:
816784 Ontario Ltd./JR Painting Inc.
Property Location:
102 College Street
Legal Description:
Part Lot 8, Registered Plan 401
Mr. S. Kay declared a pecuniary interest in this application as he has acted on behalf of the
applicant 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 three members.
Appearances:
In Support:Mr. R. PentsaMr. K. Cameron
JR Painting Inc.210 Hedgestone Court
R.R.#1Kitchener ON N2E 3K4
Ayr ON N0B 1E0
Contra:None
Written Submissions:
In Support:None
Contra:None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing
triplex having frontage on College Street of 8.43 m (27.67 ft.), rather than the required 15 m
(49.21 ft.); a front yard setback of 2.18 m (7.18 ft.), rather than the required 3 m (9.84 ft.); a
northerly sideyard setback of 0.48 m (1.6 ft.) and a southerly sideyard of 0.43 m (1.42 ft.), rather
than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.); and a reduction in the number of required parking spaces from 3
spaces to 0.
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 College Street between Weber Street
and Ahrens Street and contains a two-storey brick building which was constructed in
approximately 1908. The building is currently being used as a multiple dwelling containing three
dwelling units.
The building on the subject property was previously used as a duplex and the property enjoyed
legal non-conforming status as a duplex until an additional dwelling unit was created in 1995. The
“CR-3” zone allows a multiple dwelling containing three dwelling units as a permitted use of the
subject property, provided the lands and building thereon comply with all zoning requirements. As
the existing lot and building do not meet the minimum requirements for a multiple dwelling, the
variances as outlined above are required.
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.
From approximately 1946 to 1995, the building on the subject property was used as a duplex
without a history of complaint. Although the creation of the additional dwelling unit in 1995 brought
the use of the property into conformity with the “CR-3” zone, the property lost its legal non-
conforming status with respect to lot width, building location, and lack of off-street parking.
The lot width of the subject property is similar to the widths of other properties on College Street
and is sufficient given that the property does not have the ability to accommodate a driveway or
off-street parking. The location of the building on the property is compatible with the setbacks of
other buildings on the street and does not adversely impact the character of the streetscape.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTDECEMBER 11, 2001
338
Submission No.:
2. A 2001-084 (Cont'd)
Due to the constraints of building location and lot width, the subject property is not able to and
has never been able to accommodate off-street parking. As noted, the building on the subject
property existed for several years as a duplex in the absence of off-street parking without a
history of complaint. The addition of a dwelling unit and the need for an additional parking space
should not negatively impact the neighbourhood given the property’s close proximity to parking
areas on Weber Street and public transit.
The variances are desirable and appropriate as they will allow the subject property and the
building located thereon to legally be used as a multiple dwelling. The use of the building on the
subject property for a multiple dwelling meets the intent of the Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan.
Accordingly, Business and Planning Services recommends that minor variance application A
2001-084, to recognize the existing multiple dwelling containing three dwelling units, be
approved.
The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic and Parking Analyst in which he advised that
Traffic and Parking have reviewed the application and cannot support the legalization of the
existing triplex, specifically the reduction of the required parking spaces from 3 to 0. With no on-
site parking and limited on-street parking there is nowhere to park any tenant vehicles.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building, the Region of Waterloo and the
Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no comments or
concerns with respect to this application.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the
application and inquired if Mr. Pentsa had anything further to add.
Mr. R. Pentsa advised that the current configuration of the buildings on the subject property do
not allow for parking on-site. He pointed out that the property was purchased in 1991 as a duplex
and subsequently converted to a triplex in 1995. Mr. Pentsa indicated that at the time of
conversion to the triplex the dwelling passed all fire inspection and has been kept up to required
codes. He advised that he was unaware there was a problem until the property was put up for
sale in March this year. At this time he was advised that the property had lost its legal non-
conforming status as a duplex and even though the use as a triplex is permitted, the dwelling did
not meet current zoning regulations. Accordingly, this application was required to be submitted.
Mr. Pentsa stated that he was seeking legalization of the triplex in order to complete the sale of
the property. With regard to parking, Mr. Pentsa advised that there is sufficient parking in the
vacinity of the subject property and tenants have not had any difficulty in making alternate
arrangements. He further indicated that some tenants do not have vehicles. Mr. Pentsa advised
that the existing dwelling was converted to a duplex around 1940 and suggested at that time
parking was not as critical and to date he has not experienced any difficulties with parking relative
to his tenants.
In response to Mr. P. Britton, Mr. Pentsa advised that the duplex was converted to a triplex in
1995 without permit and without any exterior alteration to the existing building.
Mr. P. Britton requested staff to comment on the differing view points between Planning staff and
Traffic staff. Ms. J. Given advised that because of the legal non-conforming status relative to the
use as a duplex staff have viewed this application as an increase in one unit only, even though
the variances apply to the total number of units. She pointed out that there has been ability to
accommodate the duplex use over a number of years and Traffic staff did not raise any concerns
regarding parking relative to the duplex use. She stated that technically relief of parking is really
for one space. She further commented that conversion to a triplex is in keeping with the City’s
infill policies and given the location of the property in the downtown there are other options for
parking.
In response to Mr. D. Cybalski, Mr. Pentsa advised that he has no formal agreement with other
property owners relative to parking as this requires registration of an agreement on title of the
other property. He stated that responsibility for parking arrangements has always been left to the
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTDECEMBER 11, 2001
339
Submission No.:
2. A 2001-084 (Cont'd)
tenant. In response to Mr. Britton, Mr. Pentsa further advised that a transit route exists along
Weber Street.
Mr. P. Britton commented that the provision of rental accommodation in the downtown has been
problematic and where an opportunity to provide such accommodation exists it should be
encouraged. He stated that in his opinion, the needs of tenants can be met given access to
transit routes and opportunities for leasing of parking spaces within the downtown area.
Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski
Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac
That the application of 816784 Ontario Limited/JR Painting Inc. requesting permission to legalize
an existing triplex having frontage on College Street of 8.43 m (27.67 ft.), rather than the required
15 m (49.21 ft.); a front yard setback of 2.18 m (7.18 ft.), rather than the required 3 m (9.84 ft.); a
northerly sideyard setback of 0.48 m (1.6 ft.) and a southerly sideyard setback of 0.43 m (1.42 ft.),
rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.); and a reduction in the number of required parking spaces
from 3 spaces to 0; on Part Lot 8, Registered Plan 401, 102 College Street, Kitchener, Ontario,
BE APPROVED
.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1.The variances requested in this application are minor in nature.
2.This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3.The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan
is being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission No.:
3.A 2001-085
Applicant:
PricewaterhouseCoopers
Property Location:
403-409 Highland Road West
Legal Description:
Part Lots 39 & 40, Registered Plan 786, Part Lot 20, GCT,
designated as Parts 1, 3 & 4 on Reference Plan 58R-1543
Appearances:
In Support:Mr. H. Handy
Zelinka Priamo Ltd.
1240 Commissioners Road West, Suite 206
London ON N6K 1C7
Contra:None
Written Submissions:
In Support:None
Contra:None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to increase the maximum
2 2
gross floor area of a convenience retail use from 225 m(2,422 sq. ft.) to 375 m (4,036 sq. ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of Business and Planning Services in which they advised
that the subject property is located on the southwest corner of Highland Road West and Butler
Lane and contains a two-storey concrete block commercial building having a gross floor area of
1,178.05 square metres (12,681 square feet). A portion of the first floor of the existing building is
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTDECEMBER 11, 2001
340
Submission No.:
3. A 2001-085 (Cont'd)
presently being occupied by a liquor store and the other portion of the first floor of the building is
currently vacant. The second floor of the commercial building is partially occupied by office use.
Supreme Sausage proposes to purchase the subject property and utlize the portion of the first
floor, which is currently vacant for use as a delicatessen. The “C-6” zone permits convenience
retail uses, provided that the single convenience retail use does not exceed a maximum gross
leasable floor area of 225 square metres (2,422 square feet). As the delicatessen is proposed to
occupy a floor area of 375 square metres (4,036 square feet) a minor variance is required.
The minor variance application as submitted by the applicant also needs to be amended to
include a variance for a reduction of the minimum rear yard requirement from 7.5 metres (24.6
feet) to 0.65 metres (2.15 feet). This variance is required as the deficiency in the rear setback can
only be considered legal non-complying relative to the use, which existed at the time of the
building’s construction.
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 building on the subject property has been used for retail uses, specifically a liquor store,
since the building’s construction in 1976. The liquor store use, which is presently legal non-
conforming, has functioned appropriately on the site for several years without adversely impacting
abutting properties. As the subject property is able to provide the required number of parking
spaces for all of the proposed uses of the building, the effects of the variance to permit an
increase in the amount of convenience retail will be minor.
On September 17, 2001, Council adopted Municipal Plan Amendment No. 36 to implement the
new commercial policy structure for the City of Kitchener. Upon the approval of MPA 36 by the
Region of Waterloo and the lapsing of the appeal period, the subject property will be designated
“Mixed Use Node”. The “Mixed Use Node” designation will allow retail as a permitted use of the
building on the site subject to a Zoning By-law amendment. The prospective purchaser has
submitted a zone change application to permit the building to be used for retail uses other than
convenience retail. The zone change application is proposed to facilitate the expansion of the
delicatessen use upon the relocation of the liquor store. In the interim, the minor variance will
allow the prospective purchaser to occupy the vacant ground floor portion of the building. Staff
are of the opinion that the delicatessen is an appropriate use of the existing building and that the
variance to permit an increase in the maximum permitted floor area for convenience retail meets
the intent of the Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan.
At the time of the building’s construction in 1976, the Zoning By-law in effect did not require a rear
yard setback for corner lots and the site plan to permit the construction of the building was
approved with a rear yard setback of 0.6 metres (2 feet). The building was actually constructed
0.65 (2.15 feet) from the rear lot line. The rear yard of the building on the subject property abuts a
parking area on the property to the west. Consequently, the reduced rear yard setback of the
existing commercial building does not adversely impact this property. The variance to recognize
the deficiency in the rear yard setback is desirable and appropriate as it will legalize the location
of the building and allow it to be used for the delicatessen use. As the effects of the variance for a
reduced rear yard setback are minor, the intent of the Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan will be
maintained.
Accordingly, Business and Planning Services recommends that minor variance application A
2001-085, as amended, to permit an increase in the maximum gross leasable commercial space
of a convenience retail outlet from 225 square metres (2,422 square feet) to 375 square metres
(4,036 square feet) and to recognize the rear yard setback of the existing building of 0.65 metres
(2.15 feet), be approved.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building, the Traffic and Parking Analyst,
the Region of Waterloo and the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that
they have no comments or concerns with respect to this application.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTDECEMBER 11, 2001
341
Submission No.:
3. A 2001-085 (Cont'd)
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the
application subject to an amendment to recognize a rearyard setback of the existing building of
0.65 m (2.15 ft.). The Chair inquired if Mr. Handy was prepared to amend the application and Mr.
Handy stated that while he did not necessarily agree that it was necessary as the building has
been in this location for some time, he was willing to amend the application in accordance with
staff’s recommendation.
In response to Mr. P. Britton, Ms. J. Given provided clarification relative to compliance of the
requested variance in respect to the commercial designation and the impact of Municipal Plan
Amendment No. 36.
Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski
Seconded by Mr. P. Britton
That the application of PricewaterhouseCoopers requesting permission to increase the maximum
2
gross leasable commercial space of a convenience retail outlet from 225 m (2,422 sq. ft.) to 375
2
m (4,036 sq. ft.) and to legalize the existing building on the subject property having a rearyard
setback of 0.65 m (2.15 ft.), rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.), on Part Lots 39 & 40,
Registered Plan 786 and Part Lot 20, German Company Tract, designated as Parts 1, 3 & 4 on
BE APPROVED
Reference Plan 58R-1543, 403-409 Highland Road West, 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
Submission No.:
1.B 2001-065
Applicant:
Timothy Pynn
Property Location:
90 Florence Avenue
Legal Description:
Lot 108, Part Lots 109 & 116, Registered Plan 308
Appearances:
In Support:Mr. T. Pynn
Mr. D. Voisin
90 Florence Avenue
Kitchener ON N2A 2K8
Contra:Ms. L. Bettany
145 Walker Street
Kitchener ON N2A 1S4
Written Submissions:
In Support:None
Contra:Neighbourhood Petition
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to create one new lot for
residential use (duplex) having frontage on Walker Street of 15.24 m (50 ft.), by a depth of 20.73
2
m (68 ft.) and an area of 315.93 m (3,400.75 sq. ft.).
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTDECEMBER 11, 2001
342
Submission No.:
1. B 2001-065 (Cont'd)
The Committee noted the comments of Business and Planning Services in which they advised
that the subject site is located at the northwest corner of Florence Avenue and Walker Street. The
site is a corner lot that contains a single detached dwelling and detached garage.
The applicant is proposing to sever a portion of the property to create two separate parcels. The
lands intended to be retained would have a frontage on Florence Avenue of 20.7 metres (68 feet),
2
a depth of 36 metres (118 feet) and an area of approximately 745.6 m(8,026 square feet). The
existing single detached dwelling and garage would be located on the retained lands. The lands
intended to be severed would have a frontage on Walker Street of 15.2 metre (50 feet), a depth of
2
20.7 metres (68 feet) and an area of approximately 316 m (3,402 square feet). The applicant
proposes to construct a duplex dwelling on the severed lands. The subject site is within an
established neighbourhood that generally consists of single detached dwellings on lots with
frontages ranging between 13.7 to 22.7 metres (45 to 75 foot) and depths ranging between 36 to
49 metres (118 to 161 feet).
Both the severed and retained lands would comply with the Low Rise Residential designation in
the Municipal Plan and would comply with the minimum requirements of the Residential Four
2
Zone (R-4). The lot size of the severed lands (316 m) would be close to the minimum zoning
2
requirement (235 m).
When considering the subject consent application under Section 51 of the Planning Act, one of
the issues that must be considered is whether the plan conforms to adjacent plans of subdivision.
Another consideration is the suitability of the land for the purpose that it is to be subdivided. With
both of these considerations in mind, staff have concerns as to whether the size and usability of
the severed lot would be suitable and whether the lot would conform to the surrounding
subdivision. The frontage of the severed lands is not really a concern as it would exceed the
minimum zoning requirement and there are a few other lots with a similar size frontage in the
neighbourhood. However, the severed lot would seemingly be without the same “rear yard” as
the rest of the existing lots in the area. Creating a 20.7 metre (68 foot) deep lot through this
consent is quite a deviation from the 36 to 49 metres (118 to 161 feet) lot depths that currently
exists in this established neighbourhood. This is especially evident when comparing the severed
lands with the adjacent lots on Walker Street that are predominantly 161 feet deep. As a
measure, it appears as though the smallest single detached lot in the area is near the southeast
corner of Florence Avenue and Walker Street (possibly a corner lot previously severed) which
2
measures 15.5 metres wide by 25 metres deep for a lot area of approximately 390 m.
The concerns regarding compatibility and suitability of the lot size are further impacted by the
applicant’s proposal to develop the small severed lot with a duplex. The resultant buildable area
and minimal yard space may not be fully suitable for a two-unit dwelling. The resultant size of the
retained lot is not as much concern in regards to compatibility and suitability since there would be
ample yard space and it would be very similar to many of the other lots that front Florence
Avenue.
Furthermore, the Committee should consider that there appears to be very few, if any properties
in this subdivision that have been severed to create a lot that is as small as that proposed in the
subject severance application. To ensure proper and orderly development of land, staff suggest
that perhaps the most appropriate and compatible form of land subdivision at this corner would be
the combination of the rear of both 90 and 86 Florence Avenue to (re)create one lot fronting
Walker Street at the same time, as intended in the original registered plan of subdivision (Lot 116,
R.P. 308). In summary, since the subject consent would yield a severed lot that would not
conform to the surrounding subdivision, staff recommend that Application B-2001-065 be refused.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building, the Traffic and Parking Analyst,
the Region of Waterloo and the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that
they have no comments or concerns with respect to this application.
The Committee noted the written submission of Linda Bettany in which she advised that my
husband and I would like to voice our objections, in writing, to the annexing of this lot for the
purpose of building a duplex. The reasons for the objections are as follows:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTDECEMBER 11, 2001
343
Submission No.:
1. B 2001-065 (Cont'd)
a) The building of a duplex right up to our property line would reduce the saleability and value
of our house.
b) The size of the lot is very small for a duplex and, I assume, parking for 2 residencies. It
would look and be crowded.
c) Most houses on Walker Street and Florence Street have a lot and a half for their property.
They are small houses, most are bungalows and allowing a duplex to be built on a
severed lot, would create a bad precidence for the rest of the street.
d) The renting out of a duplex on this very quiet street would bring an unknown element of
noise and living conditions to it, with regards to the number of tenants.
I have included a list of neighbours’ objections for this proposal. We implore your committee to
send a building inspector down to view the site, to see if it’s feasible to build a duplex and parking,
on this small lot, to City code, before agreeing to this proposal.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending refusal of the
application. In response to the Chair, Ms. J. Given advised that the subject property is zoned R-4
and permits single, semi-detached and duplex dwellings. She further advised that the subject
property complies with all duplex zoning requirements and that the issue of concern for staff
relates to the suitability of the size and usability of the severed lot and whether the lot would
conform to the surrounding subdivision.
Mr. T. Pynn stated that he had not been able to afford to purchase his own home and was
assisted by Mr. Voisin who was looking for a property suitable for a duplex use. Mr. Pynn stated
that City staff were consulted regarding their plans prior to purchasing the property and a
favourable response was given. He further stated that in his opinion, the size of the lot would not
be out of place and sighted several examples of other area properties that have little, if any, rear
yards. He also pointed out that the proposed lot exceeds all zoning requirements.
Ms. L. Bettany advised that she was concerned with the proposed duplex and having such a
small lot in between two larger lots. Ms. Bettany inquired how far back the dwelling was required
to be located from the front lot line. Mr. Pynn stated that he had been advised the dwelling was
required to be setback 16 ft. from the front lot line. He further stated that the duplex is to be
designed in the style of a single family dwelling so as to fit within the existing character of the
neighbourhood and would not be like an apartment building.
Ms. L. Bettany commented that the neighbouring street is very small and quiet, with only about 20
houses and presented a neighbourhood petition in opposition to the application. Mr. Pynn stated
that having a single family dwelling next door would not guarantee quiet neighbours. Ms. Bettany
questioned if sufficient parking could be accommodated and Mr. Pynn advised that there was
ample room for parking, reiterating that the proposed lot exceeds all minimum zoning
requirements.
Mr. P. Britton inquired if a sketch had been prepared to show the proposed structure and how it is
to be situate on the severed parcel. Mr. Pynn advised that a sketch had not been prepared. Mr.
D. Voisin further clarified that he had looked at plans and was considering a raised bungalow
style with entrance to the second unit at the side of the dwelling; however, had not proceeded to
formalize any plans pending the outcome of the consent application.
Mr. D. Cybalski and Mr. P. Britton were of the opinion that plans showing the proposed dwelling
and its location on the severed parcel would be helpful in determining this proposals compatability
with the surrounding neighbourhood. Mr. Britton suggested that it may be appropriate to defer
the application to allow a sketch to be prepared and would also provide an opportunity for the
applicant to investigate the possibility of acquiring additional land from the adjoining property
owner at 86 Florence Avenue.
Mr. Pynn commented that the suggestion to acquire additional lands should not interfere with
consideration of this application and had he been aware plans would be required he would have
presented them at this time. Mr. Britton assured Mr. Pynn that investigation of acquiring
additional lands was only a suggestion that the applicant may wish to explore given it may
provide an opportunity to bring the proposed lot in keeping with the surrounding subdivision.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTDECEMBER 11, 2001
344
Submission No.:
1. B 2001-065 (Cont'd)
The Chair agreed that deferral may be appropriate to allow the applicant to provide additional
information and further suggested that it would also provide the applicant with an opportunity to
review their plans with the signators to the neighbourhood petition.
Ms. L. Bettany expressed concern that Mr. Voisin, having bought the property specifically to build
a duplex, did not intend to live in the proposed dwelling and instead it would be rented.
The Chair advised Ms. Bettany that whether the property was owned or rented it was not within
the Committee’s purvue to consider the human nature of the persons living in the dwelling.
The Chair then inquired if the applicants were in agreement with deferring the application for the
purpose of providing additional information and undertaking additional investigation as suggested
by members of the Committee. Mr. Pynn and Mr. Voisin advised that they were in agreement
with deferring the application to the Committee’s next meeting.
Accordingly, by general consent it was agreed to defer Consent Application, Submission No. B
2001-065, to the January 8, 2002 Committee of Adjustment meeting.
Submission No.:
2.B 2001-066
Applicant:
1357440 Ontario Limited & 1421281 Ontario Limited /
carrying on business as Old Mill Partnership
Property Location:
3040 Old Mill Road & 400 Doon Valley Drive
Legal Description:
Part Lot 11, Beasley’s Old Survey
Appearances:
In Support:Mr. Craig Robson
675 Riverbend Drive
Kitchener ON N2K 3S3
Contra:None
Written Submissions:
In Support:None
Contra:None
Mr. P. Britton advised that he had acted on behalf of an adjacent property owner in a previous
matter in which he was instrumental in mediating zoning issues on the subject property and
inquired if Mr. Robson had concern with Mr. Britton participating in consideration of this
application. Mr. C. Robson stated that he had no objection or concern with Mr. Britton’s
participation in consideration of this application.
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to convey a triangular
shaped parcel of land for residential use as a lot addition to an abutting property known
municipally as 400 Doon Valley Drive, having a maximum lot width of 41.148 m (135 ft.), by an
average depth of 61.24 m (200.92 ft.) and an area of 0.081 ha (0.2 ac).
The Committee noted the comments of Business and Planning Services in which they advised
that the applicant proposes to sever a parcel of land along the east boundary of the subject lands
at 3040 Old Mill Road and convey this parcel to the rear portion of 400 Doon Valley Drive, as a lot
addition. The retained lands are approximately 7.0 hectares. The proposed lot addition is
approximately 0.08 hectares in size and is developed with a storage shed. The lands at 400 Doon
Valley Drive have an approximate lot frontage of 41.14m (135.0 ft), a depth of 60.9m (199.8 ft.),
and are approximately 2508 m² in size.
The subject lands are bounded by the residential development to the west, the Grand River to the
north, the Doon Valley Golf Course to the east, and Conestoga College to the south. Both
properties at 3040 Old Mill Road and 400 Doon Valley Drive are currently developed with single
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTDECEMBER 11, 2001
345
Submission No.:
2. B 2001-066 (Cont'd)
detached residential dwellings, although the retained lands have recently been the subject of a
site plan approval for 76 townhouses units.
The applicant had always intended to retain the use of the storage shed by adding the subject
parcel to the property at 400 Doon Valley Drive. Thus, the property around the storage shed has
been maintained and a physically sufficient access to the shed has been created to 400 Doon
Valley Drive. In addition, no site plan revision is required for the parcel at 3040 Old Mill Road, as
the site plan approval does not include the lands proposed to be added to 400 Doon Valley Drive.
Staff considers the lot addition appropriate, as the conveyance of the subject lands to the abutting
property has no impact on the ability to develop the retained lands. In addition, there is no
change to the existing impacts to the Golf Course property.
Accordingly, Business & Planning Services recommends approval of Application B2001-066
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 and Parking Analyst,
the Region of Waterloo and the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that
they have no comments or concerns with respect to this application.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the
application subject to certain conditions and inquired if Mr. Robson had anything further to add.
Mr. C. Robson 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. D. Cybalski
That the application of 1357440 Ontario Limited and 1421281 Ontario Limited as partnership
property carrying on business as Old Mill Partnership requesting permission to convey a
triangular shaped parcel of land for residential use as a lot addition to an abutting property known
municipally as 400 Doon Valley Drive, having a maximum lot width of 41.148 m (135 ft.), by an
average depth of 61.24 m (200.92 ft.) and an area of 0.081 ha (0.2 ac), on Part Lot 11, Beasley’s
BE GRANTED
Old Survey, 3040 Old Mill Road, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the lands to be severed shall be added to the abutting lands known municipally as
400 Doon Valley Drive 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.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTDECEMBER 11, 2001
346
Submission No.:
2. B 2001-066 (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 December 11, 2003.
Carried
Submission No.:
3.B 2001-067
Applicant:
Cydev Holdings Inc.
Property Location:
Bridge Street & Woolwich Street
Legal Description:
Part Lot 59, GCT, designated as Parts 1, 2 & Part of Part 3 on
Reference Plan 58R-8513
Mr. D. Cybalski declared a pecuniary interest in this application as a family member is a principal
owner of the subject lands and did not participate in any discussion or voting with respect to this
application.
Mr. Cybalski 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 three
members.
Appearances:
In Support:Mr. R. Sutherland
300 - 255 King St N
Waterloo ON N2J 4V2
Contra:Mrs. G. Indoe
65 Bridge St W
Kitchener ON N2K 1K6
Written Submissions:
In Support:None
Contra:None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to create one new lot for
residential use having frontage on Bridge Street of 97.853 m (321.04 ft.), by an irregular depth of
171.188 m (561.64 ft.) and an area of 1.0027 ha (2.48 ac).
The Committee noted the comments of Business and Planning Services in which they advised
that the parcel proposed to be severed is vacant and is approximately 1.0027 hectares in size,
with frontage on Bridge Street. The retained lands have frontage onto Woolwich Street and are
developed with townhouse dwellings. The retained lands were the subject of previous consent
and minor variance applications (B-2000-52 to B-2000-62 and A-2000-57 to A-2000-67). The
deeds have been endorsed for these parcels and the lots created have been deemed to conform
to the Zoning By-law.
The purpose of B-2001-067 is to sever a large vacant parcel of land, fronting onto Bridge Street,
from the existing townhouse dwellings. The townhouse dwellings (retained lands) are separate
parcels but are still in the same ownership as the parcel proposed to be severed and it has been
determined that a consent application is required to separate the subject lands. The applicant
has indicated that the severed lands will be developed for residential use. Under the R-8 zone
multiple residential use is permitted and would be subject to site plan approval.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTDECEMBER 11, 2001
347
Submission No.:
3. B 2001-067 (Cont'd)
The subject lands are located within the Bridge Street Traffic Study Area as defined by Regional
Council. Regional staff have confirmed that they have no objection to this consent as it was
recognized during the study that these lands were zoned to permit multiple residential and the
density has been taken into consideration for the purposes of the study.
Business and Planning Services staff have no objections to this proposal to sever a parcel of
land from adjacent lands that are in the same ownership.
Accordingly, Business and Planning Services staff recommends that Application B 2001-067 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 satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any
outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building, the Traffic & Parking Analyst and
the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no comments or
concerns with respect to this application.
The Committee noted the comments of the Region of Waterloo in which they advised that this
property has been identified as 'committed development' for the purposes of the Bridge Street
Transportation Study and is zoned to permit multiple dwellings. A preliminary archaeological
assessment indicated a moderate to high potential for the recovery of archaeological remains. In
accordance with Policy 6.2.10 in the Regional Official Policies Plan, an archaeological
assessment will be required prior to final approval of the consent. The owner must submit the
archaeological assessment for the severed parcel to the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and
Recreation for approval. A copy of the completed assessment must be forwarded to the Regional
Commissioner of Planning, Housing and Community Services. The only acceptable location for
access to Bridge Street for the severed lands is immediately adjacent to the northern property
line. A Regional Road Access Permit will be required and can be deferred to the site plan stage.
The owner must be made aware that depending upon the intensity of the proposed development,
they be responsible for costs associated with the construction of a southbound left turn lane on
Bridge Street into the property. As well, prior to final site plan approval, the owner will be required
to construct a sidewalk on Bridge Street and provide pedestrian connections to the sidewalk from
the proposed development, and provide a lot grading and drainage plan. Furthermore, prior to
final approval of the consent, the owner must enter into an agreement to conduct a noise study to
address the impacts of traffic noise from Bridge Street. If a noise wall is not required, the owner
will be required to construct a 1.82 m high chain link fence abutting Bridge Street 0.15 m off-set
from the property line on the Regional Road allowance at the site plan stage. The construction
specifications for the chain link fence are to be in accordance with Region of Waterloo
specifications. Regional staff must complete an inspection of the fence and boulevard restoration
prior to issuing a final release. In summary, Regional staff have no objection to this application,
subject to the above-noted requirements.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff is recommending approval of the
application subject to certain conditions.
Mrs. G. Indoe advised that she was the owner of 65 Bridge Street West and was in attendance to
inquire if the grading of the property would be lowered when developed with regard to access to
Bridge Street. The Chair advised Mrs. Indoe that the Committee would not be considering the
aspects of development of the property. He pointed out that the Committee would consider the
merits of the severance of land only and that future development of the property would be dealt
with under the site planning process. The Chair inquired if Mrs. Indoe objected to the severance
and Mrs. Indoe stated that she was only concerned with the future development of the property
and, in particular, the issue of grading. The Chair suggested that Mrs. Indoe speak with Planning
staff to obtain information regarding the site planning process. Ms. J. Given provided Mrs. Indoe
with her business card as a contact and Mrs. Indoe then left the meeting.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTDECEMBER 11, 2001
348
Submission No.:
3. B 2001-067 (Cont'd)
Mr. P. Britton referred to the comments of the Region of Waterloo and questioned if the
requirement for an archaeological assessment and noise study would be more appropriately dealt
with at the site plan stage. Ms. J. Given advised that both of these requirements are typically
dealt with through the consent application and issues relative to access are dealt with at the site
plan stage. Ms. Given pointed out that this is how the Region are requesting these matters to be
dealt with.
Mr. P. Britton requested Mr. Sutherland to comment on the conditions in the Planning staff report
and those of the Region of Waterloo. Mr. R. Sutherland advised that he had only received the
comments this date and had not had sufficient time to consider them. He stated that the subject
lands had previously been the subject of consent applications and the lands involved in this
application were the retained lands under the previous consent applications. In this regard, he
stated that this consent application was only required because of a technical breach of the
Planning Act wherein the lands subject to this application cannot be sold as several of the
previously severed lands remain under the same ownership. Mr. Sutherland stated that he would
prefer the conditions outlined by staff and the Region of Waterloo to be deferred to the
development stage.
In response to Mr. Britton, Ms. Given advised that the condition relative to a cash-in-lieu
contribution for park dedication could be revised to require the owner to enter into an agreement
with the City of Kitchener for payment at the appropriate time and, similarly, the Regional
requirements could be dealt with through an agreement between the owner and the Region.
The Chair expressed concern that deferring the conditions by way of an agreement would allow
the property to be sold, leaving responsibility for completing these requirements with the
purchaser.
In response to Mr. Britton, Ms. Given advised that the contribution for park dedication could be
taken at the site planning stage; however, was normally requested as a condition of approval of a
consent application.
Mr. Britton commented that Bridge Street is a busy street and a noise study should be done;
however, it was his opinion this condition would more appropriately be imposed at the site plan
stage when the design of the building is completed and attenuation is known. He further
commented that the winter season is approaching and is not an ideal time to undertake an
archaeological assessment. Mr. Britton stated that his concern was related to the appropriate
timing for such conditions to be imposed and advised he would be more comfortable with
requesting the owner to enter into an agreement for these requirements to be completed at the
site plan stage. Mr. Britton further stated that he was prepared to impose the contribution for park
dedication at this time depending on the City's preference and cautioned that deferring this
payment may result in an increased amount to be paid at a later date.
Ms. J. Given stated that she would prefer that the contribution for park dedication be required at
this time. She also advised that if the archaeological assessment was deferred by way of an
agreement it would be required prior to any grading or building permit being issued. Ms. Given
further pointed out that the Region has anticipated that the noise study will be deferred by
requesting in their comments that an agreement be entered into relative to the noise study.
Mr. Sutherland stated that he felt the conditions should be deferred as this application was
submitted based only on a technicality and the purchaser's development plans are not yet known.
He pointed out that this land has previously been before the Committee and is only before the
Committee again as he is unable to obtain endorsement of the Committee's consent on the
retained lands under the previous applications. He stated that he is unable to convey the
retained lands as several of the previously severed lands remain under the same ownership. He
reiterated that this is an application of a technical nature only and he had not anticipated any
further conditions at this time.
Mr. Britton questioned if any conditions had been imposed on the retained lands under the
previous consent applications and Mr. Sutherland stated that to his knowledge there were no
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTDECEMBER 11, 2001
349
Submission No.:
3. B 2001-067 (Cont'd)
conditions imposed on the retained lands. Ms. Given advised that she could not recall what
conditions were imposed under the previous applications; however, pointed out that it is not
normal practice to impose conditions on retained lands. She further pointed out that she did
recall a second earlier consent application on these lands which she assumed had lapsed given
that two subsequent applications have been submitted.
Mr. Britton questioned why the severed parcels of the previous consent application could not be
conveyed separately, given they had received endorsement of the Committee's consent. Mr.
Sutherland stated that this could be done; however, he would have legal fees and land transfer
taxes to pay and had opted to return to the Committee of Adjustment to obtain consent on the
lands subject to this application.
Mr. Britton commented that in his opinion, the Regional conditions could be deferred; however,
given the applicant could otherwise create the subject lands he saw no harm in imposing the
contribution for park dedication at this time. The Chair pointed out that if the applicant chose to
create the parcel in question by completing transactions for the remaining severed parcels under
the previous consent application, the issue of the contribution for park dedication would be a mute
point as nothing would be required of this Committee. He further pointed out that if this
application is approved with conditions deferred, completion of the requirements would become
an issue between the vendor and the purchase, which he felt to be inappropriate.
Mr. Britton felt it may be helpful if the decisions of the previous consent applications could be
viewed. In this regard, it was agreed to adjourn the meeting temporarily to allow the Secretary-
Treasurer to retrieve the files and in addition, Ms. Given agreed to retrieve her file on an earlier
consent application relative to this property.
In response to the Chair, Ms. Given confirmed that the contribution for park dedication could be
included in the site plan agreement; however, this was normally required at the time of
consideration of a consent application.
Mr. Britton inquired if the offer to purchase was entered into on the basis of this application or the
previous consent applications. Mr. Sutherland advised it was based on the previous applications
as it had been anticipated those lands would have been disposed of by this time. Mr. Sutherland
also noted in reference to the Regional conditions that he had a copy of an agreement but was
unsure if it was presently on title of the subject lands. Ms. Given stated that she believed there
may have been an agreement on title relative to the earlier consent.
At this time, the Committee briefly recessed and the previous consent files were retrieved.
Copies of the decisions of the previous consent applications were provided to the Committee, as
well as an earlier consent, when the meeting reconvened.
The documents pertaining to the previous consent applications were examined and it was
determined that no conditions had been imposed on the retained lands at that time. In an earlier
consent which lapsed (B 49/92) a condition was imposed requiring the owner to enter into an
agreement with the Region. It was further established that a condition to enter into a Section 40
Development Agreement with the City was not imposed as a condition of approval relative to B
49/92 as one already existed on title at that time. Ms. Given commented that in all likelihood the
Development Agreement was released from title given the application lapsed. She further
advised that a new agreement would be imposed at the site plan stage should the current
application be approved.
Further discussion took place regarding the appropriateness of imposing the contribution for park
dedication, during which Mr. Britton pointed out that the current application is not really of a
technical nature but rather a choice the applicant has made in using the Committee of Adjustment
process to create the desired parcel rather than completing the transactions under the previous
consent applications. Mr. Sutherland stated that the reason he had submitted the application was
because he had been refused endorsement of the Committee's consent on the retained lands.
Ms. J. Billett clarified that the Planning Act does not provide authority for endorsement of a deed
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTDECEMBER 11, 2001
350
Submission No.:
3. B 2001-067 (Cont'd)
relative to retained lands. She pointed out that the Committee's decisions are relative only to the
lands being severed and accordingly, there is no authority to provide the requested endorsement
for the retained lands under the previous consent applications. Mr. Sutherland suggested that
this is a flaw in the Planning Act in that, while the lands are deemed separate, the retained lands
cannot be disposed of until transactions are completed for the severed parcels.
Mr. Britton advised that given the applicant has alternative means to create the desired parcel, he
was prepared to recommend approval of the application conditional upon the contribution for park
dedication being required prior to endorsement of the Committee's consent on the Deed/Transfer
of Land and subject to the owner entering into agreements with the Region of Waterloo relative to
the archaeological assessment, to be completed prior to area grading and building permit
issuance, and a noise study, to be completed prior to building permit issuance.
Moved by Mr. P. Britton
Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac
That the application of Cydev Holdings Inc. requesting permission to convey a parcel of land for
residential use having frontage on Bridge Street of 97.853 m (321.04 ft.), by an irregular depth of
171.188 m (561. 64 ft.) and an area of 1.0027 ha (2.48 ac), on Part Lot 59, German Company
Tract, designated as Parts 1, 2 and Part of Part 3 on Reference Plan 58R-8513, Bridge Street
BE GRANTED
and Woolwich Street, 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 owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the
payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
3.That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, to
be prepared by the Regional Solicitor, and registered on title of the severed lands which
shall require that prior to the commencement of any area grading on the site and prior to
the issuance of any building permits, the owner shall submit an archaeological
assessment for the severed lands to the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation for
approval. A copy of the completed assessment shall be forwarded to the Regional
Commissioner of Planning, Housing and Community Services.
4.That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, to
be prepared by the Regional Solicitor, and registered on title of the severed lands which
shall require that prior to the issuance of any building permits the owner shall complete a
noise study to address the impacts of traffic noise from Bridge Street. A copy of the
completed study shall be forwarded to the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Housing
and Community 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.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTDECEMBER 11, 2001
351
Submission No.:
3. B 2001-067 (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 December 11, 2003.
Carried
Submission No.:
4.B 2001-068
Applicant:
1021269 Ontario Limited
Property Location:
71 Morrison Road & 165 Chandos Drive
Legal Description:
Part of Lot 53, GCT, designated as Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-
13111
Appearances:
In Support:Ms. D. Biuk
Green Scheels Pidgeon Planning
Consultants Limited
201-72 Victoria St S
Kitchener ON N2G 4Y9
Contra:None
Written Submissions:
In Support:None
Contra:None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting granting of an easement, 40 m x 72
m (131.23 ft. x 21.95 ft.) in size, for storm water management over the subject lands in favour of
an abutting property known municipally as 165 Chandos Drive.
The Committee noted the comments of Business and Planning Services in which they advised
that the owner proposes to create an easement on the subject lands in favour of abutting lands
immediately to the west which is being developed as a 64-unit townhouse condominium project
(165 Chandos Drive). An 8-unit townhouse condominium (Waterloo Condominium Plan 211) was
developed on the lands in 1990 and represents an earlier, first phase of the 64-unit development.
The purpose of the easement is to provide a permanent storm water management facility in
favour of the abutting townhouse project. The lands where the easement is located are in the
ownership of a separate company from that of 165 Chandos Drive, although both properties are
effectively controlled by the developer of 165 Chandos Drive.
Through the review and approval of the site plan for 165 Chandos Drive, it was considered that
the most appropriate method of dealing with storm water was through the development of a storm
water management facility at the southerly edge of the site, on lands lying lower than the
townhouse site. The site of the proposed 64 townhouses is steeply sloping and is intended to be
developed to its fullest extent in accordance with the Zoning By-law through the approved site
plan. The registered site plan agreement requires a storm water management facility. The lands
which are the subject of the proposed easement lie below the townhouse site and provide the
best location for a pond facility which will drain through overland flow into the Grand River to the
east. Approvals for the facility have already been given by the Grand River Conservation
Authority and City of Kitchener.
The owner of the lands which are the subject of the proposed easement has discussed the
potential of developing a golf course on these lands with City staff, although discussions have
only been on a preliminary basis. Staff consider that the storm water management facility should
not have a detrimental impact on the development of these lands given that:
1. The P-3 zone has very limited development potential given the type of permitted uses
(agriculture, campground, flood protection works and outdoor recreation), therefore a
detrimental impact on other uses is not anticipated either by way of use or design;
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTDECEMBER 11, 2001
352
Submission No.:
4. B 2001-068 (Cont'd)
2. A golf course could be designed either around, or include, the storm water management
facility, and;
3. The proposed storm water block (0.28 hectares) is relatively small in size in comparison to
the lands on which it is located (approximately 40 hectares).
Accordingly, Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission B 2001-068,
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owners of Part of Lot 53, German Company Tract, and Part of Block 85,
Registered Plan 1692, Part 7 to 11 inclusive, Plan 58R-8315 and Parts 1 and 2 Plan 58R-
13004, and Waterloo Condominium Plan 211, enter into an agreement, to be approved by
the City Solicitor, which will ensure that an easement for storm water management and a
joint maintenance agreement for both properties are maintained in perpetuity, and provide
confirmation that said agreement has been registered against the title of both properties.
2.That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any
outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building, the Traffic and Parking Analyst,
the Region of Waterloo and the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that
they have no comments or concerns with respect to this application.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the
application subject to certain conditions. The Chair inquired if Ms. Biuk had anything further to
add and Ms. Biuk advised she had reviewed the staff comments and was in agreement with the
recommendations contained therein.
In response to Mr. P. Britton regarding the direction of flow of the storm water outlet, Ms. Biuk
advised that she was not able to comment on the technical design of the easement; however,
noted that it was approved as part of the site plan process. Mr. Britton commented that he
assumed the outlet would drain into the Grand River and his reason for asking for clarification
was to ensure this portion of the flow was covered by the easement and properly maintained.
Ms. Biuk advised that she would have to inquire as to the specifics of the design. She noted that
the easement had been reviewed by the applicant's solicitor during which this issue was not
identified. Ms. Biuk suggested that the application be deferred to allow her an opportunity to
obtain additional information.
In response to the Chair, Ms. Biuk reviewed the plans submitted and identified the location of the
abutting condominium complex. The Chair agreed that deferral would be appropriate to clearly
identify the location of the easement and to determine any need to extend the easement to the
Grand River to cover the storm water outlet.
By general consent, it was agreed that Consent Application, Submission No. B 2001-068, would
be deferred to the January 8, 2002 Committee of Adjustment meeting to determine if there is a
need to extend the requested easement to the Grand River.
Submission Nos.:
5.B 2001-069 to B 2001-073 inclusive
Applicant:
Grand River Conservation Authority
Property Location:
584 & 625 Pioneer Tower Road
Legal Description:
Part of Lot 12, Beasley’s Broken Front Concession
Mr. P. Britton declared a pecuniary interest in these applications as his Firm acts on behalf of the
applicant and did not participate in any discussion or voting with respect to these applications.
Mr. Britton left the meeting during consideration of these applications and in accordance with the
Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, these applications were considered by the remaining three
members.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTDECEMBER 11, 2001
353
Submission Nos.:
5. B 2001-069 to B 2001-073 inclusive (Cont'd)
Appearances:
In Support:Ms. A. Kutler
MHBC Planning Limited
171 Victoria St N
Kitchener ON N2H 5C5
Contra:None
Written Submissions:
In Support:None
Contra:None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to convey 3 parcels of
land for residential use as lot additions to abutting properties, with lot widths ranging from 15.34 m
(50.33 ft.) to 57.37 m (188.22 ft.) and areas ranging from 0.088 ha (0.22 ac) to 0.262 ha (0.65 ac).
The applicant also requests permission to create one new block for residential development
having frontage on the north side of Pioneer Tower Road of 349.41 m (1,146.36 ft.) and an area
of 2.337 ha (5.77 ac); together with a right-of-way for access over the severed lands in favour of
the retained lands. Finally, the applicant requests permission to create one new block for
residential development having frontage on the south side of Pioneer Tower Road of 185.73 m
(609.35 ft.) and an area of 2.246 ha (7.37 ac).
The Committee noted the comments of Business and Planning Services in which they advised
that the subject applications affect lands owned by the Grand River Conservation Authority which
are contained within draft plan of subdivision 30T-97023. The severed lands in all applications are
zoned residential and will be developed according to the detailed draft plan approval.
Applications B 2001-069, 070 and 071 are intending to sever part lots from other lands owned by
the GRCA north of Pioneer Tower Road and including all lands presently in Stage 1 of the plan of
subdivision. These lands, identified in the plan of subdivision as Blocks 7, 8 and 9 are planned to
be consolidated with adjacent part lots in registered Plan 58M-88, having frontage onto Deer
Ridge Court. As lot additions, these consents will facilitate the same outcome as that set out in
the draft plan, and as such, are appropriate.
It is noted that the City is also in receipt of applications which would see Plan of Subdivision 30T-
97023 split into two draft plans, one north of Pioneer Tower Road, and one south.
Application B 2001-072 seeks to sever the lands identified in the present draft plan as Stage 1
from their remaining lands to the west, consisting of an equestrian centre. This would permit the
sale of the development lands before the registration of the plan of subdivision. It also requests
approval of a right-of-way over a future road widening and turning circle which are a block in the
present draft approval. This right-of-way would permit the continued access to the stables from
Pioneer Tower Road over lands that would be under separate ownership once the deed were
endorsed, necessary only until the plan is registered and the road widening and turning circle are
dedicated to the City as public highway. Given that the draft approval already makes a distinction
between the stable lands, zoned open space, and the development lands, staff are supportive of
the application to convey a block of land and to create a right-of-way over the retained lands in
favour of the severed lands.
Finally, application B 2001-073 seeks approval to separate the development lands south of
Pioneer Tower Road from other lands owned by the GRCA, and open space block containing a
future trail connection, and other lands surrounding the river’s edge. The severed lands are zoned
for residential development and at present for Stage 2 of Plan of Subdivision 30T-97023. A new
application has been filed to create this parcel as Plan of Subdivision 30T-01206. Staff have no
concerns with this severance as all draft approval conditions continue to apply, ensuring proper
development of the lands.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTDECEMBER 11, 2001
354
Submission Nos.:
5. B 2001-069 to B 2001-073 inclusive (Cont'd)
Accordingly, Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission Nos. B 2000-
069 to B 2001-071 inclusive, 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.
Business and Planning Services also recommends approval of Submission B 2000-072, subject
to the following conditions:
1.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 a right-of-way for
access to the retained lands is maintained until the dedication of the lands for public
highway. At such time, the right-of-way shall be quit claimed.
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.
Business and Planning Services also recommends approval of Submission B 2000-073, subject
to the following condition:
1.That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any
outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building, the Traffic and Parking Analyst,
the Region of Waterloo and the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that
they have no comments or concerns with respect to this application.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the
applications, subject to certain conditions. The Chair inquired if Ms. Kutler had anything further to
add.
Ms. A. Kutler, MHBC Planning Limited, agent for the applicant, provided an overview of the
consent applications for benefit of the Committee.
Ms. J. Given also provided an overview of the Planning staff comments and in response to a
question from the Chair, clarified details of the requested right-of-way for access relative to B
2001-072. In this regard, she pointed out that the right-of-way is intended as temporary access
for the lands to the north (equestrian facility) and will be part of a future road widening within the
plan of subdivision. Ms. Kutler advised that the right-of-way will form a turning circle when
constructed and will be conveyed to the City at the time the road is completed.
As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion.
Consent B 2001-069
Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski
Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac
That the application of the Grand River Conservation Authority requesting permission to convey a
parcel of land as a lot addition to an abutting property legally described as Part Blocks 1 and 5,
Registered Plan 58M-167, designated as Part 14 on Reference Plan 58R-12771, having a lot
width of 15.34 m (50.33 ft.), by an average depth of 57.3 m (187.99 ft) and an area of 0.088 ha
(0.22 ac), on Part of Lot 12, Beasley's Broken Front Concession, 584 and 625 Pioneer Tower
BE GRANTED
Road, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTDECEMBER 11, 2001
355
Submission Nos.:
5. B 2001-069 to B 2001-073 inclusive (Cont'd)
1.That the lands to be severed shall be added to the abutting lands legally described as Part
Blocks 1 and 5, Registered Plan 58M-167, designated as Part 14 on Reference Plan 58R-
12771, 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 December 11, 2003.
Carried
Consent B 2001-070
Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski
Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac
That the application of the Grand River Conservation Authority requesting permission to convey a
parcel of land as a lot addition to an abutting property legally described as Block 4, Registered
Plan 58M-167, having a lot width of 25.88 m (84.9 ft.), by an average depth of 49.8 m (163.38 ft)
and an area of 0.262 ha (0.65 ac), on Part of Lot 12, Beasley's Broken Front Concession, 584
BE GRANTED
and 625 Pioneer Tower Road, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following
conditions:
1.That the lands to be severed shall be added to the abutting lands legally described as
Block 4, Registered Plan 58M-167, 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.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTDECEMBER 11, 2001
356
Submission Nos.:
5. B 2001-069 to B 2001-073 inclusive (Cont'd)
Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-
noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision.
Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall
lapse two years from the date of approval, being December 11, 2003.
Carried
Consent B 2001-071
Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski
Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac
That the application of the Grand River Conservation Authority requesting permission to convey a
parcel of land as a lot addition to an abutting property legally described as Block 3, Registered
Plan 58M-167, having a lot width of 57.37 m (188.22 ft.), by an average depth of 57.5 m (188.64
ft) and an area of 0.219 ha (0.54 ac), on Part of Lot 12, Beasley's Broken Front Concession, 584
BE GRANTED
and 625 Pioneer Tower Road, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following
conditions:
1.That the lands to be severed shall be added to the abutting lands legally described as
Block 3, Registered Plan 58M-167, 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 December 11, 2003.
Carried
Consent B 2001-072
Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski
Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac
That the application of the Grand River Conservation Authority requesting permission to convey a
parcel of land for residential development, having frontage on the north side of Pioneer Tower
Road of 349.41 m (1,146.36 ft.), by an average depth of 100.57 m (329.95 ft) and an area of
2.337 ha (5.77 ac) and to grant a right-of-way for access over the severed lands in favour of the
retained lands, on Part of Lot 12, Beasley's Broken Front Concession, 584 and 625 Pioneer
BE GRANTED
Tower Road, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTDECEMBER 11, 2001
357
Submission Nos.:
5. B 2001-069 to B 2001-073 inclusive (Cont'd)
1.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 a right-of-way
for access to the retained lands is maintained until the dedication of the lands for public
highway. At such time, the right-of-way shall be quit claimed.
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 December 11, 2003.
Carried
Consent B 2001-073
Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski
Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac
That the application of the Grand River Conservation Authority requesting permission to convey a
parcel of land for residential development, having frontage on the south side of Pioneer Tower
Road of 185.73 m (609.35 ft.), by an average depth of 185.97 m (610.14 ft) and an area of 2.246
ha (7.37 ac), on Part of Lot 12, Beasley's Broken Front Concession, 584 and 625 Pioneer Tower
BE GRANTED
Road, 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 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 December 11, 2003.
Carried
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTDECEMBER 11, 2001
358
ADJOURNMENT
On motion, the meeting adjourned at 12:10 p.m.
th
Dated at the City of Kitchener this 11 day of December, 2001.
J. Billett
Secretary-Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment