Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2001-05-29COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD MAY 29, 2001 MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. P. Britton, D. Cybalski, and B. Isaac OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. C. Ladd, Director of Planning and Ms. J. Billett, Secretary-Treasurer. Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac That Mr. P. Britton be appointed Acting Chair for the Committee of Adjustment meeting of May 29, 2001. Carried Mr. P. Britton, Acting Chair, called this meeting to order at 10:25 a.m. Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment of May 1, 2001, as mailed to the members, be accepted. Carried NEW BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE Submission No.: 1.A 2001-022 Applicant: 1427853 Ontario Inc. Property Location: 740 Ottawa Street South Legal Description: Part Lot 4, Municipal Compiled Plan 1022, designated as Parts 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 & 23 on Reference Plan 58R-12520 Mr. P. Britton declared a pecuniary interest in this application as his firm has acted on behalf of the agent, Mr. P. Griffis, and did not participate in any discussion or voting with respect to this application. Mr. Britton left the meeting and Mr. D. Cybalski chaired the meeting during consideration of this application and in accordance with the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, this application was considered by the remaining two members. Appearances: In Support:Mr. P. Griffis C.R.A.F.T. Construction Group Inc. 462 Wellington Street West, Suite 401 Toronto ON M5V 1E3 Contra:None Written Submissions: In Support:None Contra:None COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT118MAY 29, 2001 Submission No.: 1.A 2001-022 (Cont’d) The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing ground supported canopy with a maximum encroachment into the front yard of 2.2 m (7.22 ft.), rather than the permitted 1.8 m (5.91 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business and Planning Services in which they advised that the canopy has already been constructed and is attached to a new Montana’s Restaurant on the former Best Pipe property at the corner of Ottawa Street South and Strasburg Road. The site plan for the newly constructed restaurant was approved in June, 2000. The site plan indicated a patio, but no reference was made to a canopy over the patio. The building was subsequently constructed with a canopy over the patio area at the front and sides. The Zoning By-law requires that canopies encroach no more than 1.8 metres into any yard, and in this instance, the canopy projects 2.2 metres into the yard abutting Ottawa Street South. The intent of the maximum 1.8 metre encroachment is to provide sufficient area for landscaping, parking or required driveways on private property in front of buildings as well as ensure an even projection of canopies along a street. The canopy as constructed blends well into the material and design of the building and provides an attractive feature at the front of the building for motorists and pedestrians, as well as a functional outdoor space for restaurant patrons. An attractive landscaping scheme has been developed in front of the building, further enhancing the appearance of the building and streetscape. The additional 0.4 metre projection beyond the maximum permissible 1.8 metre projection in no way detracts from the appearance or function of the site or building. The application is minor in nature, is appropriate for the development of the lands, and conforms to the general intent of the Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law. Should this application be approved, a minor amendment will be required to the site plan indicating the canopy and the approved setback from the street line. Staff consider that this can be accommodated without the need for a condition attached to the recommendation of the application. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission A- 2001-022 without conditions. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the Building Division has no concerns with respect to this application. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst in which he advised that the Traffic & Parking Division has reviewed this application and has no comment. The Committee noted the comments of the Planning, Housing & Community Services Department, Region of Waterloo, in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed the application and have no concerns; however, any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 99-038 or any successor thereof and may require the payment of Regional Development Charges for this development prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no objection with respect to this application. The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the application. The Chair further pointed out that staff have indicated a minor amendment will be required to the site plan which indicates the canopy and the approved setback from the street line; however, staff indicate that a condition of approval in this regard is not necessary. The Chair inquired if Mr. Griffis had anything further to add. Mr. P. Griffis advised that the site plan already shows the canopy and questioned why an amendment to the site plan was necessary. Ms. C. Ladd advised that this is a housekeeping matter to document the setback as approved by the Committee. As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT119MAY 29, 2001 Submission No.: 1. A 2001-022 (Cont’d) Moved by Mr. B. Isaac Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski That the application of 1427853 Ontario Inc. requesting permission to legalize an existing ground supported canopy having a maximum encroachment into the front yard of 2.2 m (7.22 ft.), rather than the permitted 1.8 m (5.91 ft.), on Part Lot 4, Municipal Compiled Plan 1022, designated as Parts 18 to 23 incl. on Reference Plan 58R-12520, 740 Ottawa Street South, BE APPROVED 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 2.Submission No.: A 2001-023 Applicant: Adanac Door & Hardware Inc. Property Location: 1248 Victoria Street North Legal Description: Part Lot 122, German Company Tract Appearances: In Support:None Contra:None Written Submissions: In Support:None Contra:None As no one was in attendance to support the application, the Committee agreed to delay consideration of the application to allow an opportunity for the applicant to arrive. The application was brought forward several times during the meeting with no response. At the conclusion of the meeting, as there was still no one in attendance to support the application, it was agreed to defer this application to the Committee’s next meeting scheduled for Tuesday, June 19, 2001. 3.Submission No.: A 2001-024 Applicant: Rick Stahlbaum & Alberta Reinders Property Location: 95 Brubacher Street Legal Description: Part Lots 136 & 137, Registered Plan 414 Appearances: In Support:Mr. R. Stahlbaum Ms. A. Reinders 95 Brubacher Street Kitchener ON N2H 2W3 Contra:None COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT120MAY 29, 2001 Submission No.: 3. A 2001-024 (Cont’d) Written Submissions: In Support:None Contra:None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a 3.81 m x 1.97 m (12.5 ft. x 6.46 ft.) addition onto the top of an existing porch, having a front yard setback of 2.45 m (8 ft.), rather than the required 4.5 m (14.76 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business and Planning Services in which they advised that the subject land is located on the southerly side of Brubacher Street east of Simeon Street and west of Lydia Street. The property contains a two storey single family dwelling with a covered front porch spanning across the entire length of the front façade. A small second floor porch and exterior door exist above the ground floor porch. The front porch was constructed under a previous Zoning By-law and has legal non-conforming status as it encroaches into the required front yard. Zoning By-law 85-1 requires a frontyard setback of 4.5 metres (14.8 feet) whereas the covered front porch has a frontyard setback of 2.45 metres (8.04 feet). The property has an area of approximately 416.27 square metres (4480.8 square feet) and has 12.73 metres (41.8 feet) of frontage of on Brubacher Street. The surrounding neighbourhood consists primarily of single detached residential dwellings, many of which have large covered porches. A minor variance is required to reduce the minimum frontyard setback from 4.5 metres (14.8 feet) to 2.45 metres (8.04 feet) to permit the proposed construction of a second floor addition over the existing first floor porch. The applicant wishes to construct a 7.56 square metre (81.4 square foot) addition from the second floor directly over the westerly portion of the existing porch. The addition would be constructed with the same depth as the first floor porch (1.97 metres) and access to the room would be from the second floor of the dwelling through the existing exterior door. The proposed addition can be considered desirable and appropriate given that most of the other homes in the neighbourhood have large front porches and many with second floor porches or balconies. The application can be considered minor in nature as the proposed addition would be constructed directly above the existing front porch and within the existing building footprint. The construction would therefore, not further reduce the existing front yard of the property. Considering the requested reduction of the front yard would not negatively impact the existing streetscape or the adjacent properties, they are considered to be 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. Accordingly, the Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Minor Variance Application A2001-024. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that minor variance application A 2001-024 be approved, to reduce the minimum front yard setback requirement from 4.5 metres (14.8 feet) to 2.45 metres (8.04 feet) to permit the construction of the proposed second floor addition over the existing front porch and 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 an addition. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst in which he advised that the Traffic & Parking Division has reviewed the application and has no comment. The Committee noted the comments of the Planning, Housing & Community Services Department, Region of Waterloo, in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed the application and have no concerns; however, any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 99-038 or any successor thereof and COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT121MAY 29, 2001 Submission No.: 3. A 2001-024 (Cont’d) may require the payment of Regional Development Charges for this development prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no objection with respect to this application. The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the application and inquired if Mr. Stahlbaum had anything further to add. Mr. R. Stahlbaum advised that he had reviewed the staff report and had nothing further to add. As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion. Moved by Mr. B. Isaac Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski That the application of Rick Stahlbaum and Alberta Reinders requesting permission to construct a 3.81 m x 1.97 m (12.5 ft. x 6.46 ft.) second floor addition over the existing front porch having a front yard setback of 2.45 m (8.04 ft.), rather than the required 4.5 m (14.76 ft.), BE on Part Lots 136 & 137, Registered Plan 414, 95 Brubacher Street, Kitchener, Ontario, APPROVED , subject to the following conditions: 1. That the variance as approved in this application shall be generally in accordance with the plan submitted with Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 2001-024. 2. That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to construction of the second floor addition. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1.The variance requested in this application is minor in nature. 2.This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3.The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission No.: 4.A 2001-025 Applicant: John Cicuttin & Karen Mayfield Property Location: 199 Lydia Street Legal Description: Lot 20, Registered Plan 284 Appearances: In Support:Mr. J. Cicuttin 199 Lydia Street Kitchener ON N2H 1W2 Contra:None Written Submissions: In Support:None Contra:None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a family room addition to the rear of the existing dwelling, having a westerly side yard setback of 0.68 m (2.26 ft.), rather than the required 1.22 m (4 ft.). COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT122MAY 29, 2001 Submission No.: 4. A 2001-025 (Cont’d) The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business and Planning Services in which they advised that the footprint of the addition would be 4.5 m (15 ft.) in depth and 7.5 m (25 ft.) in width. The property was developed with a single family dwelling having a northerly side yard of 0.68 m (2.26 ft.) in approximately 1934. There was a previous minor variance approving this reduced setback in 1983. As well, the dwelling has an attached garage with a southerly side yard of 0.15 m (0.49 ft.) which was also approved by the Committee of Adjustment by way of minor variance in 1986. The survey of the property reflecting the existing setbacks on the property was completed in November of 1973, and accordingly, under By-law 85-1, these setbacks are now considered to comply under Section 5.15 Vacuum Clause as the single family dwelling use existed on October 11, 1994 and is currently permitted. With respect to the requested setback of 0.68 m (2.26 ft.) for an addition 4.5 m (15 ft.) to the rear of the dwelling, staff note that the dwelling has existed for many years with this reduced setback and the addition would have no greater impact on the neighbouring property. The reduced setback will provide enough side yard area to ensure the eaves do not encroach over the property line while still allowing enough room for any required exterior maintenance. Further, the addition should be constructed of maintenance free material, as the owner would not have legal entitlement to encroach onto the neighbouring property for either construction or ongoing maintenance. In conclusion, given that the existing sideyard is 0.68 m (2.26 ft.), the building addition maintaining the same sideyard can be considered minor. The intent of the Zoning By-law, to provide adequate building separation for Building Code issues and maintenance can be achieved by appropriate construction materials. Provided the new building is adequately set back to prevent any encroachment, the variance can be considered desirable in accordance with the contemplated objectives of the Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of application A2001- 025 to permit the building addition to have a minimum sideyard of 0.68 m (2.26 ft.) provided no part of the building extends beyond the lot line. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised a building permit is required to construct the new addition; there shall be no openings in a wall located less than 4 ft. from the property line; and, the wall shall have a 45 minute fire resistance rating. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst in which he advised that the Traffic & Parking Division has reviewed the application and has no comment. The Committee noted the comments of the Planning, Housing & Community Services Department, Region of Waterloo, in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed the application and have no concerns; however, any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 99-038 or any successor thereof and may require the payment of Regional Development Charges for this development prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no objection with respect to this application. The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the application provided no part of the building extends beyond the lot line, and inquired if Mr. Cicuttin had anything further to add. Mr. J. Cicuttin advised that he had reviewed the staff comments and was in agreement with the recommendation contained therein. As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion. Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT123MAY 29, 2001 Submission No.: 4. A 2001-025 (Cont’d) That the application of John Cicuttin and Karen Mayfield requesting permission to construct a family room addition to the rear of the existing dwelling having a westerly sideyard setback of 0.68 m (2.26 ft.), rather than the required 1.22 m (4 ft.), on Lot 20, Registered Plan 284, 199 BE APPROVED Lydia Street, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to construction of the new addition. 2. That no part of the building shall extend beyond the lot line. 3. That the wall to be located less than 1.2 m (4 ft.) from the property line shall have no openings and shall have a 45 minute fire-resistant rating. 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.: 5.A 2001-026 Applicant: Christina Brown Property Location: 84 St. Clair Avenue Legal Description: Lot 40, Registered Plan 670 Appearances: In Support:Ms. C. Brown 84 St. Clair Avenue Kitchener ON N2M 3Z4 Contra:None Written Submissions: In Support:None Contra:None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a second driveway, 14.96 m x 2.59 m (49.1 ft. x 8.5 ft.), setback 1.68 m (5.5 ft.) from the southerly side yard, on a lot having a frontage of 15.24 m (50 ft.), rather than the required 30 m (98.42 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business and Planning Services in which they advised that the intent of the regulation restricting the number of driveways on a lot is to maintain the aesthetics of the neighbourhood by ensuring that driveways do not dominate the streetscape. The existing driveway is located to the left side of the house and shared with the neighbour located at 80 St. Clair Avenue. The driveway leads to separate detached garages located at the rear of each property. Staff note that it is difficult, given the limited space between the homes, for a car to access either garage if there is a vehicle parked in front of, or between, the homes. It is not possible to widen the driveway further between the two houses. The situation is not considered adequate for a functional driveway for either home. A second driveway located on the opposite side of the dwelling would allow the applicant to have unobstructed access in their own driveway. The intent of the by-law is to ensure a pleasing streetscape by limiting the amount of driveways. However a second driveway on the subject property would not be detrimental to the streetscape COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT124MAY 29, 2001 Submission No.: 5. A 2001-026 (Cont’d) as the original driveway is shared with the neighbouring property and it would appear from the street that one driveway exists for each of the two dwellings. As shown on the submitted drawing the new driveway would be 2.6 metres (8.5 feet) wide by 15 metres (49.8 feet) long. This would be sufficient to accommodate a legal off-street parking space. The drawing submitted with the application indicates that the right side is 4.9 metres (16 feet). Staff note that there is no survey for the subject property and that it is the responsibility of the applicant to locate the lot lines and ensure that they do not encroach onto the neighbouring property. Based on the above comments, it is the opinion of staff that the requested variance would not appear to have an adverse effect on neighbouring properties and could therefore be considered appropriate development of the property and surrounding area. The requested variance meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law and can be considered minor in nature. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of minor variance A 2001-026 as shown on the drawings submitted with the application. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the Building Division has no concerns with respect to this application. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst in which he advised that the Traffic & Parking Division has reviewed the application and has no comment. The Committee noted the comments of the Planning, Housing & Community Services Department, Region of Waterloo, in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed the application and have no concerns; however, any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 99-038 or any successor thereof and may require the payment of Regional Development Charges for this development prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no objection to this application. The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the application and inquired if Ms. Brown had anything further to add. Ms. C. Brown advised that she had reviewed the staff comments and questioned if there would be a requirement for the driveway to be paved as opposed to gravel. Ms. C. Ladd advised that City standards require the driveway ramp between the curb and the property line to be paved; however, there is no standard requirement for the portion of the driveway within the limits of the lot lines of the property. In response to a question from the Chair, Ms. Ladd stated that it would be appropriate to include paving of the driveway ramp as a condition of approval should the Committee wish to do so. She further advised that she was uncertain if a permit was still required for curb cuts and suggested that Ms. Brown make inquiries to the Traffic & Parking Division in this regard. Mr. D. Cybalski suggested that a further condition be added to require the owner to restore City land with sod between the curb and boulevard and the Committee agreed. Moved by Mr. B. Isaac Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski That the application of Christina Brown requesting permission to construct a second driveway, 14.96 m x 2.59 m (49.1 ft. x 8.5 ft.), setback 1.68 m (5.5 ft.) from the southerly sideyard, on a lot having frontage of 15.24 m (50 ft.), rather than the required 30 m (98.42 ft.), on Lot 40, BE APPROVED Registered Plan 670, 84 St. Clair Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT125MAY 29, 2001 Submission No.: 5. A 2001-026 (Cont’d) 1. That the variance as approved in this application shall be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 2001-026. 2. That the driveway ramp between the curb and the lot line of the subject property shall be paved. 3. That the owner shall restore City lands with sod between the curb and boulevard. 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.: 6.A 2001-027 Applicant: Loblaw Properties Limited Property Location: 750 Ottawa Street South Legal Description: Part Lot 9, Municipal Compiled Plan 1021, Part Lots 4 & 5, Municipal Compiled Plan 1022, designated as Parts 1 to 5 incl. on Reference Plan 58R-12479 Mr. P. Britton declared a pecuniary interest in this application as his firm has acted in the past on behalf of the applicant, and did not participate in any discussion or voting with respect to this application. Mr. Britton left the meeting and Mr. D. Cybalski chaired the meeting during consideration of this application and, in accordance with the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, this application was considered by the remaining two members. Appearances: In Support:Mr. H. Handy, Senior Planner Zelinka Priamo Ltd. 34 Carrington Place Guelph ON N1G 5C2 Contra:None Written Submissions: In Support:Mr. H. Handy, Senior Planner Zelinka Priamo Ltd. 34 Carrington Place Guelph ON N1G 5C2 Contra:None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a retail outlet 2 primarily involved in the sale of food having a total gross floor area of 9,786.09 m (105,340 sq. 2 ft.), rather than the permitted 7,500 m (80,731.99 sq. ft.). Of the total gross floor area, 5,916.34 2 m (63,685 sq. ft.) is intended to be used for traditional food store space. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business and Planning Services in which they advised that the subject lands form part of the site formally known as Best Pipe at 245 Strasburg Road. The lands are designated Service Commercial in the City’s Municipal Plan COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT126MAY 29, 2001 Submission No.: 6. A 2001-027 (Cont’d) with a special policy permitting a large food store to a maximum of 7,500 square metres (80,000 square feet). They are zoned Service Commercial (C-6) with a special use provision permitting a “retail outlet primarily involved in the sale of food…provided the maximum gross floor area does not exceed 7,500 square metres.” A special regulation provision also applies to the lands allowing office up to 100 percent of the gross floor area. This application for minor variance seeks approval under Section 45 subsection (2) b) for an interpretation of the City’s Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law that would determine that a building which will have a gross floor area of 9,840 square metres (105,930 square feet) but in which the retail of food will not exceed 5,507 square metres (59,284 square feet) and the remaining gross floor area will be devoted to non-food retail conforms with the uses permitted in the Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law. The proposed development for this property is a large Zehrs store, which would consist of the following: · 8,979.5 square metres (96,658 square feet) ground floor area - 5,507 square metres (59,284 square feet) will be devoted to food sales - 3,472 square metres (37,374 square feet) will be devoted to non-food retail or non-retail uses such as back room storage, bank, pharmacy, photo lab, dry cleaner, wine shop, bed and bath, floral, children’s clothes and entertainment, seasonal garden centre among others · 861 square metres (9,272 square feet) of floor area in the mezzanine that is totally devoted to non-retail uses such as photo lab, community room, teaching kitchen, offices, washrooms, and storage areas. Many of the uses intended to be included in the new Zehrs store are otherwise permitted in the C- 6 zone. These include ‘building materials and decorating supply’ (bed and bath component); ‘convenience retail’ (photo lab, video film outlet, florist, pharmacy); ‘financial establishment’ (bank); ‘garden centre and nursery’ (seasonal garden centre); ‘office’; and ‘personal service’ (dry cleaner). Had all these uses been developed in a traditional strip plaza fashion with the food store as the anchor, there would be no issue relative to its conformance with the Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law. However, because of the new format retailing approach being taken by Zehrs, where all uses are contained within one building, some within independent kiosks, it was suggested that a formal interpretation under Section 45 (2) b) of the Planning Act would be beneficial. The Department fully supports the proposal by Zehrs on the basis that it meets the intent of the Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law particularly given that the traditional food retail component meets the maximum set out in the site specific implementing Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law and given that most of the non-traditional food retail uses are otherwise permitted in the C-6 zone. In addition, the Department is in the process of reviewing its commercial land use policies and has tabled a new commercial policy structure with City Council. Council has accepted this new commercial structure for public review, which is underway, and the final policy recommendations are intended to be presented to City Council for approval in August of this year. The new structure proposes to redesignate these lands are ‘Planned Commercial Campus’ which would permit a foodstore with no maximum gross floor area restriction. Therefore the proposed development is in keeping with the intended use of these lands by the City. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission A- 2001-027 under Section 45 (2)b) to permit a building containing a gross floor area of 9,840 square metres as meeting the intent of the Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law on the basis that the gross floor area devoted to the sale of food does not exceed 7,500 square metres. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the Building Division has no concerns with respect to this application. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst in which he advised that the Traffic & Parking Division has reviewed the application and has no comment. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT127MAY 29, 2001 Submission No.: 6. A 2001-027 (Cont’d) The Committee noted the comments of the Planning, Housing & Community Services Department, Region of Waterloo, in which they advised that Regional staff recognize that this is a variance application and, while we have no objection to this application, the applicant should be made aware of the Region’s requirements upon submission of a site plan application. This plan orients the proposed building facing into the property with a proposed right-in, right-out only access onto Ottawa Street in addition to the previously approved shared access to Ottawa Street. In principle, we have no objection to the right-in, right-out only access; however, this will require the construction of a raised concrete median on Ottawa Street to restrict the operation of the access at the developer’s cost. The centre island, in the access as shown on the plan, will not be required. The developer will also be required to construct a right turn deceleration lane into this access similar to the lane at Ottawa Street and the main access to the property at their cost. The inclusion of the raised concrete island and the right turn lane may require the dedication of additional land to the Region for the widening of Ottawa Street along this portion of the frontage. A functional plan and cost estimate will be required for these works from the developer. The developer’s consultant would have to ensure that the raised island will not conflict with the full movement operation of the Ottawa Street gas station accesses on the southeast corner of Ottawa Street and Strasburg Road. Grand River Transit staff would like to undertake discussions with the developer to include a bus transit terminal on these lands. In this regard, the applicant should contact Paula Sawicki, Transit Planner at 575-4035. It would be beneficial if these discussions could occur prior to the formal preparation of a site plan for the building. Revisions to the lot grading and stormwater management plans for this property reflecting the new building location will also be required. Please be advised that any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 99-038 or any successor thereof and may require the payment of Regional Development Charges for this development prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no objection with respect to this application. The Committee noted the written comments of Mr. H. Handy, Senior Planner, Zelinka Priamo Ltd. in which he advised that since filing our application, we have had further discussions with staff of the City Business and Planning Services Department and note that the size of the store is slightly larger on the fixture plans (105,930 sq. ft.), than on the site plan (105,340 sq. ft.). This discrepancy can be attributed to some fine tuning which often occurs when finalizing the fixture plans. We would ask that the Committee consider the dimensions noted on the fixture plans. Secondly, the sale of food will be limited to the main floor of the store. In error, we included the area noted as “total traditional mezzanine area” (4,401 sq. ft.) on the mezzanine fixture plan (DWG. No. SKO1.2 – March 14, 2001) in our “traditional food store space” calculation. The “total traditional grocery ground floor area” noted on the main floor fixture plan (DWG. No. 1F.1 – March 6, 2001) is 59, 284 sq. ft. The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the application and inquired if Mr. Handy had anything further to add. Mr. H. Handy provided a brief overview of the application, including the revisions outlined in his written submission. He noted that the intent is to provide a new format of retailing that allows diversification of retail uses within one building as a matter of convenience for the customer. He pointed out that the traditional food store space will not exceed the maximum gross floor space allowed and the remaining floor space would be devoted to non-food retail uses. Mr. Handy then provided a sketch of the proposed building structure and reviewed the architectural features for benefit of the Committee. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT128MAY 29, 2001 Submission No.: 6. A 2001-027 (Cont’d) In response to a question from the Chair, Ms. Ladd advised that staff fully support approval of the proposal as it meets the intent of what was originally envisioned for this site. The Chair inquired if the non-food retail uses are all permitted uses and Mr. Handy stated that he believed the proposed uses to be permitted under the current zoning of the property. Ms. Ladd further noted that she had reviewed the drawings in detail relative to the floor space provided for the proposed uses and all appeared to be permitted within the current zoning. She stated that if the proposed uses were developed in a traditional strip plaza fashion there would be no question of their conformity and it is only because a new retailing format is proposed that the application has been brought forward for interpretation by the Committee. 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 Loblaw Properties Limited requesting interpretation under Section 45(2)b) of the Planning Act to permit the construction of a building primarily involved in the sale 2 of food, having a total gross floor area of 9,840 m (105,930 sq. ft.), rather than the permitted 2 7,500 m (80,731.99 sq. ft.), as meeting the intent of the Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law, on the basis that the gross floor area of that area of the building devoted to the sale of food does 2 not exceed 7,500 m (80,731.99 sq. ft.), on Part Lots 4 & 5, Municipal Compiled Plan 1022, Part Lot 9, Municipal Compiled Plan 1021, designated as Parts 1 to 5 inclusive, on Reference BE APPROVED Plan 58R-12479, 750 Ottawa Street South, 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.: 7.A 2001-028 Applicant: Garfield & Sandra Gadke Property Location: 20 MacVille Avenue Legal Description: Part Lots 59 & 60, German Company Tract, Together with ROW Appearances: In Support:Mr. R. Fleming Apple Creek Building Group Inc. 3-48 Bridgeport Road East Waterloo ON N2J 2J6 Contra:None Written Submissions: In Support:None Contra:None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a 6.7 m x 8.2 m (22 ft. x 28 ft.) detached garage to the rear of the property, having a maximum lot coverage of 12.2%, rather than the permitted 10%. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT129MAY 29, 2001 Submission No.: 7.A 2001-028 (Cont’d) The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business and Planning Services in which they advised that the subject land is located on the north-easterly side of MacVille Avenue, a dead ended road located off of Woolwich Street. The property contains a two-storey, single family dwelling with an attached carport. The property has 14.0 metres (45.9 feet) of frontage on MacVille Avenue and a lot area of 474.35 square metres (5,106 square feet). The applicant wishes to construct a 57 square metre (616 square foot) detached garage in the rear yard of the property. The maximum allowable area for the garage is 47.5 square metres (511.0 square feet) since the Zoning By-law states that the maximum lot coverage is 10 percent for a building accessory to a dwelling in a Residential Zone. Application for minor variance is necessary to increase the maximum allowable lot coverage from 10 percent to 12 percent for an accessory structure in the rear yard of the subject lands. The proposed addition can be considered desirable and appropriate given that its intended use is for the storage of a motor vehicle and the items presently being stored outside in the rearyard and visible from the street such as extension ladders, wheel barrows and concrete blocks. The storage of these materials could be considered as an aesthetic improvement to the property. The adjacent properties would not be negatively impacted by the proposed addition. The southerly adjacent property is a large vacant parcel of land and the rear adjacent property is a residential lot of approximately 5.5 acres bounded by a chain link fence. The northerly adjacent property is sheltered from view by many large trees and bushes. The proposed detached garage would be constructed with the required sideyard and rearyard requirement of 0.6 metres (2 feet). The agent, Robert Fleming also confirmed on the telephone that the garage would be constructed at or below the maximum height requirement as specified in the Zoning By-law. The proposed detached garage can be considered minor in nature since the garage would not be easily visible to any adjacent neighbours and would, therefore, not infringe on the ability of these neighbours to enjoy their own properties. Additionally, the total lot coverage for the property would be approximately 41 percent whereas the Zoning By-law states that the maximum lot coverage permitted in the R-3 Zone is 55 percent. The construction of the accessory structure would therefore leave a sufficient outdoor amenity space for the dwelling. Considering the application to increase in the maximum allowable lot coverage for an accessory structure would not negatively impact the subject lands or the adjacent properties and would allow for increased storage and aesthetic appeal, it is considered to be 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. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that minor variance application A 2001-028 be approved, to increase the maximum allowable lot coverage from 10 percent to 12 percent to permit the construction of an accessory structure in the rear yard of the subject lands and 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 garage. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst in which he advised that the Traffic & Parking Division has reviewed this application and has no comment. The Committee noted the comments of the Planning, Housing & Community Services Department, Region of Waterloo, in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed the application and have no concerns; however, any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 99-038 or any successor thereof and may require the payment of Regional Development Charges for this development prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no objection with respect to this application. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT130MAY 29, 2001 Submission No.: 7. A 2001-028 (Cont’d) The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the application and inquired if Mr. Fleming had anything further to add. Mr. R. Fleming advised that he had reviewed the staff report and was in agreement with the recommendation contained therein. As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion. Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac That the application of Garfield and Sandra Gadke requesting permission to construct a 6.7 m x 8.2 m (22 ft. x 28 ft.) accessory structure to the rear of the subject property, having a maximum lot coverage of 12.2%, rather than the permitted 10%, on Part Lot 59 and Part Lot BE 60, German Company Tract, together with ROW, 20 Macville Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, APPROVED , subject to the following condtions: 1. That the variance as approved in this application shall be generally in accordance with the plan submitted with Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 2001-028. 2. That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to construction of the new accessory building. 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.: 8.A 2001-029 Applicant: Juli-Ann & Raymond Aaron Property Location: 143 Weber Street East Legal Description: Part Lot 3, Registered Plan 370 Appearances: In Support:Mr. A. Wells 143 Weber Street East Kitchener ON N2H 1E1 Contra:None Written Submissions: In Support:None Contra:None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to convert an existing duplex to a triplex on a lot having frontage of 12.19 m (40 ft.), rather than the required 15 m (49.21 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business and Planning Services in which they advised that the subject property is located on the south side of Weber Street between Madison Avenue and Cameron Street and contains a one and a half storey brick building which was constructed prior to 1948. The building is currently being used as a duplex and the applicant would like to create an additional dwelling unit within the existing building. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT131MAY 29, 2001 Submission No.: 8. A 2001-029 (Cont’d) The CR-1 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. Staff has reviewed the subject property and note that the following minor variances are required in order to bring the building into compliance with the zoning requirements for a multiple dwelling: · a reduction of the minimum lot width for a multiple dwelling from 15 metres (49.2 feet) to 12.19 metres (40 feet); · a reduction of the minimum front yard for a multiple dwelling from 3 metres (9.8 feet) to 0.48 metres (1.6 feet); · a reduction of the minimum side yard requirement on the easterly side of the dwelling from 1.2 metres (3.94 feet) to 0.55 metres (1.8 feet). As the applicant has only requested a minor variance for a reduction of the minimum lot width requirement, staff recommends that the application be amended to include variances for reductions of the minimum front yard and minimum side yard requirements as well. 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 City’s Municipal Plan supports the creation of additional housing through conversion and infill in developed areas to make better use of existing infrastructure. As noted previously, the additional dwelling unit is proposed to be created within the existing brick building. As the lot and the location of the building thereon have existed for several years without negatively impacting neighbouring properties or the streetscape, the effects of the variances to permit the additional dwelling unit will be minor. Based on the size of the proposed dwelling units, the parking requirement for the multiple dwelling will be one parking space. As this parking space can be accommodated on the existing driveway on the westerly side of the building on the subject lands, the creation of an additional dwelling unit will not adversely impact the functioning of the building on the lot. The variances are desirable, as they will allow the applicants to intensify the residential use of the existing building, which will help satisfy the demand for rental accommodations. As the effects of the variances will be minor, the general intent of the Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan will be maintained. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that minor variance application A 2001-029, as amended, to permit the existing duplex to be converted into a multiple dwelling containing three dwelling units, be approved. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building permit is required to convert from a duplex to a triplex. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst in which he advised that the Traffic & Parking Division has reviewed this application and has no comment. The Committee noted the comments of the Planning, Housing & Community Services Department, Region of Waterloo, in which they advised that, as indicated on the Applicant’s survey plan, a 13 foot road allowance widening is required from this lot to increase the road allowance width to its designated 86 feet. Requiring the road allowance widening is not appropriate through this application but must be considered when determining the best use of this property. The Region further advised that any developments on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 99-038 or any successor thereof, and may require the payment of Regional Development Charges for this development prior to the issuance of a building permit. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT132MAY 29, 2001 Submission No.: 8.A 2001-029 (Cont’d) The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no objection with respect to this application. The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the application subject to it being amended to include variances for reductions in the minimum frontyard and minimum sideyard requirements. The Chair inquired if Mr. Wells had anything further to add and Mr. Wells advised that he had reviewed the staff comments and was prepared to amend the application to include the additional variances. In response to the Chair, Ms. C. Ladd advised that the additional variances can be considered covered under the City’s Vacuum By-law; however, it has been the practice of staff to include such variances as the opportunity arises so that there is no question of their legal non-conformity in future. She noted that the variances are not being created through renovations or enlargement to the existing structure and are really a housekeeping issue. Accordingly, it was her opinion that no further notice is necessary. The Chair then referred to the comments of the Region regarding a 13 ft. road allowance widening and inquired if it was necessary to impose a condition in this regard. Ms. C. Ladd pointed out that, while the Region has identified this as a requirement, it indicates that it is not appropriate to acquire the road allowance widening through this application. As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion. Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac That the application of Juli-Ann & Raymond Aaron requesting permission to convert an existing duplex into a multiple dwelling containing three dwelling units having a minimum lot width of 12.19 m (40 ft.), rather than the required 15 m (49.21 ft.); a minimum front yard setback of 0.48 m (1.57 ft.), rather than the required 3 m (9.84 ft.); and a minimum easterly sideyard of 0.55 m (1.8 ft.), rather than the required 1.2 m (3.94 ft.); on Part Lot 3, Registered Plan 370, 143 BE APPROVED Weber Street East, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to conversion of the existing duplex to a triplex. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1.The variances requested in this application are minor in nature. 2.This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3.The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission No.: 9.A 2001-030 Applicant: Bill Christou Property Location: 705 Belmont Avenue West Legal Description: Part Lot 6, Registered Plan 343 Appearances: In Support:Mr. G. PapadopoulosMr. B. Christou 171 Parkview Hill Crescent309 Wiltshire Place Kitchener ON N4B 1R9Waterloo ON N2T 1R4 Contra:None COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT133MAY 29, 2001 Submission No.: 9. A 2001-030 (Cont’d) Written Submissions: In Support:None Contra:None The Committee was advised that the applicant is proposing to construct an addition and enlarge an existing restaurant use for which permission is requested to reduce the number of required parking spaces from 17 spaces to 2 spaces. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business and Planning Services in which they advised that the property forms part of a block of commercial uses within Belmont Village. The property is mostly covered by building with the exception of the rear portion, which contains sufficient area for 2 parking spaces. A previous owner received approval from the Committee of Adjustment to provide 3 parking spaces rather than the required 17 spaces in order to permit renovations to an existing variety store/restaurant (application no. A213/82). Staff consider that 3 parking spaces are not possible on this property, and only 2 can be properly accommodated. The restaurant portion of the approval under A213/82 was 52.46 square metres. The current gross floor area for the restaurant (without the addition) is 100.3 square metres. Therefore, since the minor variance approval in 1982, the restaurant portion of the building expanded without the benefit of additional required minor variance approval. Under the 1982 approval, 14 of the 17 spaces were required for the restaurant use, so any significant expansion to the floor area used for restaurant would have indicated the need for further variance approval. The variety store use does not exist and the restaurant is presently closed for internal renovations. The owner is intending to build an addition with a gross floor area of 23.8 square metres in order to permit an expansion to the kitchen area. A minor amount of additional seating area would be added in the place of an existing service area. The important issue to assess in this application is the potential impact of allowing 15 parking spaces to be located off-site, either in the form of on-street parking or parking in adjacent public parking areas. Belmont Village has traditionally developed without the benefit of on-site parking. Parking for most uses are provided within the street or on a public parking lot at the end of Argyle Street located approximately 30 metres north west of the subject lands. Rear lanes are used to access any rear parking or for loading and unloading for businesses fronting Belmont Avenue. Given this parking situation, it is unrealistic to expect business to provide much, if any, on-site parking. The proposed expansion of the restaurant includes only an addition to the kitchen area at the rear of the building and a minor expansion of the seating. As such, it is anticipated that there will be only a minor increase in the number of potential patrons, if any increase at all. In addition, restaurants are often busy at off-peak hours i.e. evenings and weekends, so it is unlikely that there will be any heavy demand for parking for the restaurant during regular business hours when parking is required by adjacent businesses i.e. bank, convenience retail, office, etc.. While the total relief requested would appear significant i.e. 15 parking spaces, the actual anticipated impact will be relatively minor given the amount of public parking in the immediate vicinity. Finally, given the previous minor variance in 1982, and the fact that to staff’s knowledge there have not been any major parking concerns in Belmont Village caused by the subject restaurant, there is evidence that parking relief for this use is acceptable. The application is considered minor in nature, appropriate for the development of the lands, and conforms to the general intent of the Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law. For committee’s information, a minor revision will be required to the existing site plan in order to indicate the 2 parking spaces at the rear of the proposed addition, although this not need be a condition of the approval of this application. Given the above comments, the Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that minor variance application A200-030 be approved. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT134MAY 29, 2001 Submission No.: 9. A 2001-030 (Cont’d) 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 and to add more restaurant seating. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst in which he advised that the Traffic & Parking Division has reviewed this application and has no comment. The Committee noted the comments of the Planning, Housing & Community Services Department, Region of Waterloo, in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed the application and have no concerns; however, any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 99-038 or any successor thereof and may require the payment of Regional Development Charges for this development prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no objection with respect to this application. The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the application and inquired if Mr. Papadopoulos had anything further to add. Mr. G. Papadopoulos advised that, previously, this property had been used as a variety store and restaurant; however, the variety store use has since been eliminated. The current owner wishes to increase the kitchen area for the existing restaurant and install additional seating. As a result of these plans, parking has become an issue and, accordingly, an application has been made to the Committee. In response to questions, Mr. Papadopoulos advised that the hours of operation for the restaurant are 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. with the peak period being during dinner time, and the number of seating will increase from 58 to 64. The Chair expressed the opinion that parking shortages are characteristic of the Belmont Village environment and businesses are used to dealing with the situation. He noted that no complaints have been received and off-site parking has been factored in along with the two parking spaces proposed. Accordingly, he considered the variance requested to be minor given the overall unique functionality of the Village. As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion. Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac That the application of Bill Christou requesting permission to reduce the number of required parking spaces for an addition and enlargement of an existing restaurant use from 17 parking spaces to 2 spaces, on Part Lot 6, Registered Plan 343, 705 Belmont Avenue West, Kitchener, BE APPROVED Ontario, , subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to construction of the new addition and additional restaurant seating. 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 ADJUSTMENT135MAY 29, 2001 CONSENT Submission Nos.: 1.B 2001-021 & B 2001-022 Applicant: Samuel & Zuzanna Kralik Property Location: 30 & 32 Jansen Avenue Legal Description: Lots 69 & 70, Registered Plan 308, designated as Parts 4 & 5 on Reference Plan 58R-5275. Appearances: In Support:Mr. S. Kralik 122 Forfar Avenue Kitchener ON N2B 2Z8 Contra:None Written Submissions: In Support:None Contra:Mr. & Mrs. R. Ertel 47 Gay Crescent Kitchener ON N2A 2C2 The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to create one new lot to be developed as a single residential dwelling by severing two parcels of land from the rear of adjacent properties. The first parcel to be severed (32 Jansen Avenue) will have frontage on Hubert Street of 9.553 m (31.34 ft.), by a depth of 31.733 m (104.11 ft.) and an average area of 2 270 m (2,906.35 sq.ft.). The second parcel to be severed (30 Jansen Avenue) will be combined with the first as a lot addition, having a lot width of 9.15 m (30.02 ft.) by a depth of 8.766 m (28.76 2 ft.) and an average area of 80.2 m (863.29 sq. ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the subject site is located on the northwest corner of Jansen Avenue and Huber Street, just east of the Weber Street and King Street East intersection. The site has been developed with a brick and vinyl-clad semi-detached house that is split down the middle into two separate properties (30 and 32 Jansen Avenue). One property (30 Jansen Avenue) has frontage and current driveway access only to Jansen Avenue while the other property (32 Jansen Avenue) has frontage on Jansen Avenue and Huber Street with current driveway access to Huber Street. The applicant is proposing to create one new lot with frontage and access to Huber Street to be developed with a single residential dwelling by severing and combining two parcels of land from the rear of both adjacent properties. The first parcel of land to be severed from 32 Jansen Avenue would have frontage on Huber Street of 9.55 metres (31.33 feet) and a depth ranging between 20.36 metres (66.80 feet) and 23.40 metres (76.77 feet). The second parcel of land to be severed from 30 Jansen Avenue as a lot addition to the severed parcel from 32 Jansen Avenue would have a lot width of approximately 9.15 metres (30.02 feet) with a depth ranging between 8.33 metres (27.33 feet) and 8.77 metres (2,877 feet). The first parcel of land to be severed, combined with the lot addition would create one new lot with a frontage of 9.55 metres (31.33 feet), a depth ranging between 29.13 metres (95.57 feet) and 31.73 metres (104.10 feet) 2 and an area of 270 m (2,906 square feet). The surrounding lands and the subject property are designated Low Rise Residential in the Municipal Plan. This designation allows for a range of residential housing types including single detached and semi-detached dwellings. The subject property is zoned Residential Four Zone (R- 4) which permits single detached and semi-detached dwellings. The proposed lot sizes and frontages for the retained lands and the severed land combined with the lot addition comply with the minimum requirements of the R-4 zone. In addition, all other zoning regulations pertaining to the retained lands would be satisfied, with consideration given to the fact that the dwelling units are attached at a common property line. The majority of the surrounding lands to the north, east, immediate west are developed primarily COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT136MAY 29, 2001 Submission Nos.: 1.B 2001-021 & B 2001-022 (Cont’d) with single detached dwellings generally ranging between 12.2 metres (40 ft.) and 18.3 metres (60 ft.) wide lots, in addition to some existing semi-detached dwellings. These areas are also zoned Residential Four Zone (R-4) with minimum lot widths of 7.5 metres for semi-detached, 9.0 2 metres for singles and minimum lot areas of 235 m. Lands to the immediate east across Huber Street are zoned Residential Six Zone (R-6) and are developed with a low rise, multiple residential dwelling. Lands further to the west and south are zoned and developed with Service Commercial (C-6) uses near the King and Weber Street intersection. The City’s Public Works Department has identified that there is no sanitary or water service currently on this portion of Huber Street. As such, the applicant would be responsible for making financial arrangements to cover the cost of providing those services to the proposed new lot. The applicant should be advised that providing such services for one lot could be an expensive undertaking. The subject consent applications for a severance and a lot addition from the rear of 30 and 32 Jansen Avenue to create a new lot are appropriate as they would allow for the development of the land in accordance with the Municipal Plan designation and the Zoning By-law requirements. Furthermore, the retained properties would maintain their existing lot width and the resultant lot area would generally be compatible with those existing semi-detached dwellings in the surrounding area. Although the lot width of the new lot would be smaller than the existing properties in the area that have single detached dwellings, the proposed lot width exceeds the minimum requirements of the R-4 zone, it would be the only lot fronting this part of Huber Street, the new lot would have two semi-detached dwellings backing on to it and would be across the street from a property zoned R-6 with a slightly higher intensity of residential development. As such, the proposed new lot would generally be compatible with the immediate surrounding area. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Applications B 2001-021 and B2001-022 subject to the following conditions: 1. That the lands to be severed from 30 Jansen Avenue (Part 5, 58R-5275) be added to the abutting lands to be severed from 32 Jansen Avenue (Part 4, 58R-5275) and title be taken in identical ownership. Any subsequent conveyance of the parcels 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. 3. That the owners pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for park dedication equal to 5% of the value of the new lot (Part of Parts 4 and 5 of 58R-5275). 4. That the owners make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City’s General Manager of Public Works for the installation of new services to the new lot (Part of Parts 4 and 5 of 58R-5275). 5. That the owners make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City’s General Manager of Public Works for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping including street trees, and a paved driveway ramp to the new lot (Part of Parts 4 and 5 of 58R-5275). The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the Building Division has no concerns with respect to these applications. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst in which he advised that the Traffic & Parking Division has reviewed these applications and has no comment. The Committee noted the comments of the Planning, Housing & Community Services Department, Region of Waterloo in which they advised that Regional staff have no objection to the applications which propose to create a residential lot and provide a lot addition to an existing lot. The Region further advised that any future development on the subject lands will be subject COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT137MAY 29, 2001 Submission Nos.: 1.B 2001-021 & B 2001-022 (Cont’d) to the provisions of Regional Development Change By-law 99-038, or any successor thereof; and there may be a Regional fee assessed for development agreements, if required. The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no objection with respect to these applications. The Committee noted the written comments of Mr. & Mrs. R. Ertel in which they note that we own property at 163 Huber Street. The proposed frontage of this application would be next to our property. Granted, this area is not a prestigious residential area but erecting a single residential dwelling on such a small frontage (31.34 ft.) could and would be an eyesore (all other properties have large lots). The proposed home would have to go straight up or very long; either would be an eyesore. The original builder of those homes, Valleyview Construction, tried to sever that land when all construction was started and was not allowed to do so by the City of Kitchener. The only way I would even consider withdrawing my objection is if a 5 or 6 foot cedar fence was erected at time of construction between proposed lot and 163 Huber Street at the applicant’s expense. The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the application subject to certain conditions and inquired if Mr. Kralik had anything further to add. Mr. S. Kralik briefly reviewed the purpose of the applications and, in response to questioning, advised that he understood the conditions recommended by staff and had no concerns in this regard. The Chair referred to the written submission of Mr. & Mrs. Ertel and inquired of staff if it is normal procedure to require the owner to install a fence on request of an adjacent owner. Ms. C. Ladd advised that it was not normal practice; however, the Committee may wish to consider the circumstances and whether or not it would resolve concerns between neighbours. Ms. Ladd further advised that any fence installed would have to be constructed in accordance with the City’s Fence By-law. For clarification, Ms. Ladd advised that the Ertel property is located at the corner of Florence Avenue and Huber Street with the rear of their property abutting the proposed severed lands. She pointed out that the depth of the Ertel property, together with the location of the driveway and an accessory shed, provides a significant separation buffer between the Ertel’s dwelling and the proposed severance. As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion. Consent B 2001-021 Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac That the application of Samuel and Zuzanna Kralik requesting permission to convey a parcel of land to be developed as a single residential dwelling having frontage on Huber Street of 9.553 m 2 (31.34 ft.), by a depth of 31.733 m (104.11 ft.) and an average area of 270 m (2,906.35 sq. ft.), on Lot 69, Registered Plan 308, designated as Part 4 on Reference Plan 58R-5275, 32 Jansen BE GRANTED Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the lands to be severed from 30 Jansen Avenue (Part 5, 58R-5275) shall be added to the abutting lands to be severed from 32 Jansen Avenue (Part 4, 58R-5275) and title shall be taken in identical ownership. Any subsequent conveyance of the parcels 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. 3. 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 new lot (Part of Parts 4 and 5 of 58R-5275). 4. That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City’s General Manager of Public Works for the installation of new services to the new lot (Part of Parts 4 and 5 of 58R-5275). COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT138MAY 29, 2001 Submission Nos.: 1.B 2001-021 & B 2001-022 (Cont’d) 5. That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City’s General Manager of Public Works for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping including street trees, and a paved driveway ramp to the new lot (Part of Parts 4 and 5 of 58R-5275). 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 May 29, 2003. Carried Consent B 2001-022 Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac That the application of Samuel and Zuzanna Kralik requesting permission to convey a parcel of land as a lot addition to the lands to be severed from 32 Jansen Avenue under Consent Application, Submission No. B 2001-021, having a lot width of 9.15 m (30.02 ft.), by a depth of 2 8.766 m (28.76 ft.) and an average area of 80.2 m (863.29 sq. ft.), on Lot 70, Registered Plan 308, designated as Part 5 on Reference Plan 58R-5275, 30 Jansen Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED , subject to the following conditions: 1. That the lands to be severed from 30 Jansen Avenue (Part 5, 58R-5275) shall be added to the abutting lands to be severed from 32 Jansen Avenue (Part 4, 58R-5275) and title shall be taken in identical ownership. Any subsequent conveyance of the parcels 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. 3. 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 new lot (Part of Parts 4 and 5 of 58R-5275). 4. That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City’s General Manager of Public Works for the installation of new services to the new lot (Part of Parts 4 and 5 of 58R-5275). 5. That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City’s General Manager of Public Works for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping including street trees, and a paved driveway ramp to the new lot (Part of Parts 4 and 5 of 58R-5275). 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT139MAY 29, 2001 Submission Nos.: 1.B 2001-021 & B 2001-022 (Cont’d) 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 May 29, 2003. Carried Submission No.: 2.B 2001-023 Applicant: Estate of Josef Kowalevski Property Location: 260 & 264 Frederick Street Legal Description: Part Lot 3, Registered Plan 429 Appearances: In Support:None Contra:None Written Submissions: In Support:None Contra:None As no one was in attendance to support the application, the Committee agreed to delay consideration of the application to allow an opportunity for the applicant to arrive. The application was brought forward several times during the meeting with no response. At the conclusion of the meeting, as there was still no one in attendance to support the application, it was agreed to defer this application to the Committee’s next meeting scheduled for Tuesday, June 19, 2001. Submission Nos.: 3.B 2001-024 & B 2001-025 Applicant: Stoltzlawn Farms Limited Property Location: 1241 Glasgow Street & Glasgow Street/Westhill Drive Legal Description: Part Lot 39, German Company Tract, designated as Parts 5 to 10 incl. on Reference Plan 58R-11362 Appearances: In Support:Mr. I. DuncanMr. K. Stoltz SolicitorStoltzlawn Farms Limited PO Box 45755 Crane Drive 45 Erb Street EastElmira ON N3B 3J5 Waterloo ON N2J 4B5 Mr. P. Hagarty 22 Water Street South Kitchener ON N2G 4K4 Contra:None COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT140MAY 29, 2001 Submission Nos.: 3.B 2001-024 & B 2001-025 (Cont’d) Written Submissions: In Support:None Contra:None The Committee was advised that the lands involved in these applications comprise part of a plan of subdivision. Under Submission No. B 2001-024, the applicant is requesting permission to create one new lot by severing a vacant parcel of land and retaining a parcel of land containing an existing residential dwelling having an area of 14.7173 ha (36.37 ac). The lands to be severed will have frontage on Glasgow Street of 322.61 m (1,058.43 ft.) and an area of 0.4214 ha (1.04 ac). Under Submission No. B 2001-025, the applicant is requesting permission to create one new lot by severing a vacant parcel of land and retaining a parcel of land having an area of 0.4214 ha (1.04 ac). The lands to be severed will have frontage on Glasgow Street of 403.75 m (1,324.64 ft.) and an area of 13.7622 ha (34 ac). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services with respect to Submission No. B 2001-024 in which they advised that the lands are bounded by Glasgow Street to the north, Resurrection Drive to the east, and CN Rail to the south. Lands immediately to the west, which are currently used for agricultural purposes, are designated General Industrial in the City’s Municipal Plan. The severed portion of the subject lands is proposed for commercial and industrial development in conformity with the General Industrial designation in the City’s Municipal Plan. The Department of Public Works has indicated that municipal services for the proposed lands will be provided through the plan of subdivision anticipated for the retained lands. Since the proposed severed lands abut a CN Rail line, comments from CN Rail were received requesting the implementation of conditions for the mitigation of rail noise, vibration and safety. These conditions are more appropriately included in a future plan of subdivision or site plan approval when the development specifics of the property are known and conditions can be set accordingly. The retained lands, which are occupied by a vacant house and barn, are currently used for agricultural operations. It is anticipated that these lands will be the subject of a future residential plan of subdivision since they have recently been the subject of a pre-submission meeting for this purpose. The future Ira Needles Boulevard right-of-way, forms the westerly limit of the retained lands, known as Part 7 of Plan 58R-11362. These lands are required for the construction of the Ira Needles Boulevard, which is currently proposed for 2006. Staff and the Region agree that this portion of the retained lands, and any lands required for road widening purposes to accommodate the future Ira Needles Boulevard, can be obtained by the Region through the Plan of Subdivision anticipated for the retained lands. As a result, staff have no concerns with this application for consent, as it recognizes the limits of future development for this area. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Submission B 2001-024 be approved 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 Department of Business & Planning Services with respect to Submission No. B 2001-025 in which they advised that the subject property is bounded by the future University Avenue extension to the north, Glasgow Street to the south, and West Hill Drive to the east. Lands immediately to the west, which are currently used for agricultural purposes, are designated General Industrial in the City’s Municipal Plan. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT141MAY 29, 2001 Submission Nos.: 3.B 2001-024 & B 2001-025 (Cont’d) The severed lands are proposed for commercial and industrial development in conformity with the General Industrial designation in the City’s Municipal Plan. The Department of Public Works has indicated that municipal services for these lands will be provided through the plan of subdivision anticipated on the lands across West Hill Drive to the east. The retained lands are vacant, currently being used for agricultural operations. The applicant has identified the future use of the retained lands, known as Part 9 of Plan 58R-11362, for residential development. However, these lands have been designated by the Region of Waterloo to form part of the future Ira Needles Boulevard right-of-way, currently proposed for 2006. Staff is concerned that approval of this application could have potential effects on the proposed alignment of the future Ira Needles Boulevard. In addition, lands to the east, across existing West Hill Drive, are also owned by the applicant and were the subject of a pre- submission meeting for a proposed plan of subdivision. It would be more appropriate to consider and determine the alignment of new Ira Needles Boulevard through this or another subdivision process. It is not the City’s, nor the Region’s practice to create road right-of-ways through the consent process, since Planning Act approval is not required to convey lands to a public authority. As a result, staff and the Region cannot support this application for consent since it has no other purpose except for the creation of a road allowance. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Submission No. B 2001- 025 be refused. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building with respect to both applications in which he advised that the location of the future wall and septic system shall be in accordance with Ministry of Environment guidelines. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst in which he advised that the Traffic & Parking Division has reviewed both applications and has no comment. The Committee noted the comments of the Planning, Housing & Community Services Department, Region of Waterloo with respect to Submission No. B 2001-024 in which they advise that the Region requires Part 7 of Plan 58R-11362 for the construction of Ira Needles Boulevard currently proposed for 2006. Part 7 can be acquired by the Region at such time as the lands to the east are the subject of a plan of subdivision. Further road allowance widening may be required for Ira Needles Boulevard at the plan of subdivision stage to accommodate side slopes for a future overpass over the CN rail line. With respect to Submission No. B 2001-025, they advise that the retained lands indicated as Part 9 of Plan 58-11362 are required for the construction of Ira Needles Boulevard proposed for 2006. The Region will not support the creation of Part 9 as a separate lot for residential purposes. The Region will only support the consent if Part 9 is conveyed to the Region for the Ira Needles Boulevard road allowance. The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority with respect to Submission No. B 2001-024 in which they advise that, while the Grand River Conservation Authority regulates the subject property, there is area outside the regulated areas for development. On this basis, we have no objection to the severance application. Our concerns pertaining to the watercourse will be addressed in the subdivision approval process. With respect to Submission No. B 2001-025, the GRCA advised that they have no objection to this application. The Committee noted the comments of the Development Review Coordinator of CN Rail with respect to Submission No. B 2001-024 in which he advised that they wish the following comments to be considered: 1. The Owner must install and maintain at his own expense, a chain link fence of minimum 1.83 metre height along the mutual property line. 2. Any proposed alterations to the existing drainage pattern affecting Railway property must receive prior concurrence from the Railway and be substantiated by a drainage report which considers Regional or 100 year Storm conditions, whichever is most severe. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT142MAY 29, 2001 Submission Nos.: 3.B 2001-024 & B 2001-025 (Cont’d) In addition, conditions should be included in the decision to ensure that appropriate rail noise, vibration and safety impact mitigation measures are considered in the design of the development to the satisfaction of the municipality. CN’s current guidelines recommend that the acceptable protective measures for the land uses permitted include the following: 1. A minimum 30 metre building setback from the railway right-of-way, in conjuction with an earthen berm for commercial or office use. The berm should be 2.0 metres above grade at the property line having side slopes not steeper than 2.5 to 1, adjoining and parallel to the railway right-of-way with returns at the ends. 2. A minimum 15 metre building setback from the railway right-of-way, in conjunction with an earthen berm for industrial use. The berm should be 2.0 metres above grade at the property line, having side slopes not steeper than 2.5 to 1, adjoining and parallel to the railway right-of-way with returns at the ends. 3. We recommend that the Owner engage a consultant to undertake an analysis of noise and vibration and to undertake appropriate measures to mitigate any adverse effects from noise and/or vibration that were identified. Regarding Submission No. B 2001-025, the Development Review Coordinator of CN advised that they recommend the owner engage a consultant to undertake an analysis of noise and vibration and to undertake appropriate measures to mitigate any adverse effects from noise and/or vibration that were identified. Mr. I. Duncan advised that he was the Solicitor for the applicant and provided a brief overview of the two consent applications. He advised that the lands proposed to be severed are to be sold to Mr. Hagarty’s client for industrial development. The retained lands under Submission B 2001-024 are part of a residential plan of subdivision currently underway and under Submission B 2001-025 the retained lands are to form part of future Ira Needles Boulevard. Mr. Duncan stated that the latter is not intended for development and his client is in agreement that the lands will be conveyed to the Region. A discussion was then entered into with respect to the retained lands under Submission B 2001- 025, during which the following issues were raised: · if the only purpose is to convey the retained lands to the Region, being Part 9, the application is considered to be unnecessary by staff as lands can be conveyed without consent approval to the Region · concern that timing of the conveyance of Part 9 to the Region may delay the purchaser’s ability to proceed with development on the lands proposed to be severed; establishment of Ira Needles Boulevard is not proposed until 2006 · concerns relative to prematurity and the possibility lands could be developed on private services rather than full municipal services · imposing conveyance of Part 9 to the Region as a condition of approval · agreement that servicing could be dealt with as part of the zone change process. Following this discussion, the Committee advised that they would be prepared to approve both consent applications provided that a condition of approval be applied to Submission No. B 2001- 025 requiring conveyance of Part 9 to the Region. Consent B 2001-024 Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac That the application of Stoltzlawn Farms Limited requesting permission to convey a parcel of land proposed for future industrial development having frontage on Glasgow Street of 322.61 m (1,058.43 ft.) and an area of 5.5855 ha (13.8 ac), on Part of Lot 39, German Company Tract, designated as Parts 5, 6, 7 and 8 on Reference Plan 58R-11362, 1241 Glasgow Street, BE GRANTED Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following condition: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT143MAY 29, 2001 Submission Nos.: 3.B 2001-024 & B 2001-025 (Cont’d) 1. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding 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 May 29, 2003. Carried Consent B 2001-025 Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac That the application of Stoltzlawn Farms Limited requesting permission to convey a parcel of land for future industrial development having frontage on Glasgow Street of 403.75 m (1,324.64 ft.) and an area of 13.7622 ha (34 ac), on Part of Lot 39, German Company Tract, designated as Parts 9 and 10 on Reference Plan 58R-11362, Glasgow Street and Westhill Drive, Kitchener, BE GRANTED Ontario, , subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding property taxes and/or local improvement charges. 2. That Part 9 on Reference Plan 58R-11362 shall be conveyed to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo for the Ira Needles Boulevard road allowance. 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 May 29, 2003. Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT144MAY 29, 2001 Submission No.: 4.B 2001-026 Applicant: Manchester Greene Inc. Property Location: 86 & 90 Forfar Avenue Legal Description: Part Lot 11, Registered Plan 1526, designated as Part 2 on Reference Plan 58R-4973; Part Lot 12, Registered Plan 1526, designated as Part 2 on Reference Plan 58R-4555 Appearances: In Support:Mr. & Mrs. J. Schropp 6 Elroy Road Breslau ON N0B 1M0 Contra:None Written Submissions: In Support:None Contra:None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to divide the subject 2 lands by severing a parcel of land and retaining a parcel of land having an area of 465 m (5,005.38 sq. ft.). Both parcels contain an existing single residential dwelling. The lands to be severed (86 Forfar Avenue) will have frontage on Forfar Avenue of 14.071 m (46.16 ft.), by an 2 average depth of 35.512 m (116.51 ft.), and an area of 465 m (5,005.38 sq. ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the subject site is located on the south side of Forfar Avenue, south of Victoria Street North and east of River Road East beside Forfar Park. The site consists of two parcels of land, 90 Forfar Avenue (Part Lot 11, R.P. 1526, more specifically Part 2, from 58R- 4973) and 86 Forfar Avenue (Part of Lot 12, R.P. 1526, more specifically Part 2, from 58R-4555). Both parcels contain single detached dwellings that were built in 1988-89. Prior to being developed, a small portion of the rear of Lot 11 and Lot 12 were severed as a lot addition to the adjacent lots on Manchester Street by the Committee of Adjustment in 1986 and 1984, respectively. The remaining part of Lots 11 and 12 then merged in title as one legal parcel of land as there was no change in ownership two years after the severances were granted. However, building permits were issued in 1988 for two separate single detached dwellings and the homes were built on 86 and 90 Forfar Avenue and have subsequently been used as two separate lots since the time of construction. The applicant is proposing the subject consent application to restore the site to two separate lots and then subsequently correct the respective deeds on title. The lands intended to be severed would have a frontage on Forfar Avenue of 14.1 metres (46.3 feet), a depth ranging 2 between 29.2 metres (95.8 feet) and 31.5 metres (103.3 feet) and an area of 465 m (5,005 square feet). The lands intended to be retained would have a frontage on Forfar Avenue of 14.4 metres (47.2 feet), a depth ranging between 29.3 metres (96.1 feet) and 30.6 metres 2 (100.4 feet) and an area of 465 m(5,005 square feet). Considering that the proposed severed and retained lands were originally part of a plan of subdivision, comply with the Low Rise Residential designation and the current Residential Three zoning and were developed, serviced and intended to be two separate lots compatible with the rest of the subdivision, the Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Application B2001-026 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 in which he advised that the Building Division has no concerns with respect to this application. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT145MAY 29, 2001 Submission No.: 4. B 2001-026 (Cont’d) The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst in which he advised that the Traffic & Parking Division has reviewed the application and has no comment. The Committee noted the comments of the Planning, Housing & Community Services Department, Region of Waterloo in which they advise that staff have no objection to the application; however, any future development on the subject lands will be subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Change By-law 99-038, or any successor thereof, and there may be a Regional fee assessed for development agreements, if required. The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no objection with respect to this application. The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the application and inquired if Mr. Schropp had anything further to add. Mr. J. Schropp stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation; however, questioned why a consent approval was necessary given the lands had originally been part of a plan of subdivision. The Chair noted that through a technicality the lands had merged on title creating the need for a consent. 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 Manchester Greene Inc. requesting permission to convey a parcel of land containing an existing single residential dwelling having frontage on Forfar Avenue of 14.071 m 2 (46.16 ft.), by an average depth of 35.512 m (116.51 ft.) and an area of 465 m (5,005.38 sq. ft.), on Part of Lots 11 and 12, Registered Plan 1526, designated as Part 2 on Reference Plan 58R- BE 4973 and Part 2 on Reference Plan 58R-4555, 86 & 90 Forfar Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, GRANTED , 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 May 29, 2003. Carried CHANGE OF CONDITION Submission No.: 1.CC 2001-001 (B 2000-077) Applicant: Monarch Construction Ltd. Property Location: 10 Oregon Drive Legal Description: Part Lots 3 & 4, Biehn’s Tract; Part Biehn’s Tract Unnumbered; Part 2, Beasley’s New Survey; Lot 14, Registered Plan 594 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT146MAY 29, 2001 Submission No.: 1.CC 2001-001 (B 2000-077) (Cont’d) Appearances: In Support:Mr. R. Mounsey Green Scheels Pidgeon Planning Consultants Limited 201-72 Victoria Street South Kitchener ON N2G 4Y9 Contra:None Written Submissions: In Support:None Contra:None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to change the conditions of the Committee of Adjustment’s decision for Consent Application, Submission No. B 2000-077 granted on January 9, 2001, by deleting Condition No. 7. City staff have determined that an alteration/demolition application with respect to the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District Plan is not the appropriate mechanism to deal with the 15.24 m (50 ft.) wide visual/landscape easement requirement of the District Plan. Accordingly, Condition No. 7 cannot be implemented. It is now intended to consider the matter of the width of the corridor as a condition of subdivision approval. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business and Planning Services in which they note that Condition 7 requires Council’s approval of a Designated Heritage Property Alteration/Demolition Application relative to the visual easement prior to the endorsement of deeds for this property. It has since been determined that an alteration/demolition application is not the appropriate mechanism to deal with the proposed revision to the visual easement since there is no structure associated with this easement. Alternatively, the matter is being dealt with by Council through a report that deals with modifications to the subdivision which contains the visual easement. Accordingly, Condition 7 of B2000-077 should be revised to require final approval of the revised design and location of the visual easement by Council prior to deed endorsement. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Condition 7 of B2000- 077 be revised as follows: 7. That the revised design and location of the visual easement shall be approved by the City’s General Manager of Business and Planning Services. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the Building Division has no concerns with respect to this application. The Committee noted the written comments of the Planning, Housing & Community Services Department, Region of Waterloo, in which they advised that they have no objection to the removal of Condition 7 from consent B 2000-077 granted on January 9, 2001, as it will be dealt with through Council approval. The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no objection with respect to this application. The Chair reviewed the staff comments noting that staff are recommending that Condition 7 of consent application B 2000-077 be revised and inquired if Mr. Mounsey had anything further to add. Mr. R. Mounsey advised that he had reviewed the staff report and had nothing further to add. In response to the Chair, Ms. C. Ladd advised that the visual easement was a requirement of a Heritage Impact Assessment that recommended a consistent 50 ft. buffer to the south of Ayr COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT147MAY 29, 2001 Submission No.: 1.CC 2001-001 (B 2000-077) (Cont’d) Court. When the final detailed drawings were presented, the developer proposed a scalloped design resulting in certain parts of the buffer being either more than or less than 50 ft. Accordingly, the Heritage Planner determined that an alteration application would be required to accommodate the modifications to the buffer. Final approval of the alteration application was made a condition of the original Consent application, B 2000-077. When the alteration application was considered by the City’s Heritage Kitchener Committee, staff of the Legal Department determined there was no authority to modify the easement through an alteration application as only structures could be dealt with and the easement is not considered a structure. Alternatively, it is now proposed to deal with the issue of the easement as a condition of subdivision approval and the revised design and location of the easement will require approval of the General Manager of Business and Planning Services. Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac That the application of Monarch Construction Ltd. requesting permission to change the conditions of Provisional Consent B 2000-077, on Part Lots 3 and 4, Biehn’s Tract; Part Biehn’s Tract Unnumbered; Part 2, Beasley’s New Survey; Lot 14, Registered Plan 594, 10 BE GRANTED Oregon Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, , so that the following shall now apply to Submission No. B 2000-077: “That the application of Monarch Construction Limited requesting permission to convey a parcel of land containing an existing single residential dwelling having frontage on Oregon Drive of 43.17 m (141.63 ft.), by an average depth of 47 m (154.2 ft.) and an area of 0.2 ha (0.495 ac), on Part Lots 3 & 4, Biehn's Tract; Part Biehn's Tract Unnumbered; Part 2, Beasley's New Survey; Lot 14, Registered Plan 594, 10 Oregon BE GRANTED Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions: 1.That the existing septic system on the severed parcel of land shall be modified/relocated in such a way to ensure that it is located a minimum distance of 3 metres from the new lot line. Documentation that the septic system on the severed parcel has been relocated/modified to be 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. 2.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 severed lot for the modified private in-ground sewage disposal system. 3.That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. 4.That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City’s General Manager of Public Works, for the installation of all new service connections to the severed lands. 5.That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City’s General Manager of Public Works for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping including street trees, and a paved driveway ramp, on the portion of the severed lands abutting Oregon Drive. 6.That the owner shall prepare a grading plan to the satisfaction of the City’s General Manager of Public Works to demonstrate that the grading on the severed lands will be compatible with the grading on the lands to be retained. 7.That the revised design and location of the visual easement shall be approved by the City's General Manager of Business and Planning Services. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT148MAY 29, 2001 Submission No.: 1.CC 2001-001 (B 2000-077) (Cont’d) 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 May 29, 2003.” Carried ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 11:35 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 29th day of May, 2001. J. Billett Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment