HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2002-01-08COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
FOR THE
CITY OF KITCHENER
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD JANUARY 8, 2002
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Messrs. P. Kruse, S. Kay, and D. Cybalski.
OFFICIALS PRESENT:
Ms. J. Given, Principal Planner and Ms. J. Billett, Secretary-Treasurer.
Mr. P Kruse, Vice-Chair, called this meeting to order at 9:45 a.m.
Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski
Seconded by Mr. S. Kay
That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment of November 20, 2001, be
amended as follows:
·
Page 326 – to amend the Committee’s decision respecting Minor Variance Application, Submission
No. A 2001-082, by deleting from the second sentence of the first paragrah of the decision the
phrase “setback 0.4 m” and substituting therefore the phrase “setback 0.38 m”.
Carried
Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski
Seconded by Mr. S. Kay
That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment of December 11, 2001, as
mailed to the members, be accepted.
Carried
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
MINOR VARIANCE
Submission No.:
1.A 2001-059
Applicant:
Bridal Penthouse Limited
Property Location:
9 Stirling Avenue North and 762-778 King Street East
Legal Description:
Part Lots 1 and 2, Registered Plan 77
The Chair advised that the Committee was in receipt of a facimile transmission dated January 4,
2002 from Mr. W. Boehler, Artindale and Partners, agent for the applicant Bridal Penthouse
Limited, requesting deferral of this application to the Committee’s next meeting.
By general consent, it was agreed to defer Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 2001-
059, to the January 29, 2002 Committee of Adjustment meeting.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT2JANUARY 8, 2002
CONSENT
Submission No.:
1.B 2001-065
Applicant:
Timothy Pynn
Property Location:
90 Florence Avenue
Legal Description:
Lot 108, Part Lots 109 & 116, Registered Plan 308
Appearances:
In Support:Mr. T. Pynn
Mr. D. Voisin
90 Florence Avenue
Kitchener, ON N2A 2K8
Contra:None
Written Submissions:
In Support:None
Contra:Neighbourhood Petition
This application was previously considered by the Committee at its meeting held on December
11, 2001 at which time the application was deferred to allow an opportunity for the applicants to
prepare a plan showing the proposed dwelling and its location on the severed parcel, as well as
examples of the type of dwelling that is proposed to be constructed. In addition, it had been
suggested to the applicants that they investigate the possibility of acquiring additional land from
the adjoining property owner at 86 Florence Avenue and to review their plans with the signatories
to the neighbourhood petition.
The Committee was previously advised that the applicant is requesting permission to create one
new lot for residential use (duplex) having frontage on Walker Street of 15.24 m (50 ft.), by a
2
depth of 20.73 m (68 ft.) and an area of 315.93 m (3,400.75 sq. ft.).
The Committee noted previous comments of Business and Planning Services dated December 3,
2001, as documented in the minutes of the December 11, 2001 meeting, in which they
recommended refusal of this application.
The Committee noted previous comments of the Director of Building, the Traffic and Parking
Analyst, the Region of Waterloo and the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they
advised that they have no comments or concerns with regard to this application.
The Committee noted the previous written submission of Linda Bettany, as documented in the
minutes of December 11, 2001 meeting, in which she advised that she was opposed to this
application for the reasons as set out in her written submission.
The Committee noted the previous neighbourhood petition submitted at the December 11, 2001
meeting signed by a number of area residents in objection to this application.
Mr. Pynn and Mr. Voisin submitted a sketch of the proposed structure as well as a sketch of the
main floor plan of the dwelling for the Committee’s consideration.
The Chair advised that the drawings submitted only show what the structure will look like and
does not show how the structure will fit on the severed parcel. Mr. Voisin advised that
dimensions are shown on the sketch of the dwelling.
Ms. J. Given pointed out that the sketch does not show the setbacks or the parking area that are
expected to be seen on a site plan. She further pointed out that the dimension for the rear yard at
15 ft., as noted on the sketch, would not comply with current zoning regulations. Mr. Voisin
advised that the dimensions listed for the rear yard and front yard had been incorrectly reversed
and the rear yard was proposed to be 25 ft. Ms. Given stated that if the front yard setback was
then to be 15 ft. there would be insufficient space to provide the required 18 ft. setback for
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT3JANUARY 8, 2002
Submission No.:
1. B 2001-065 (Cont’d)
parking. Mr. Voisin stated that he had understood that if no garage was built he would only
require 15 ft. Ms. Given reiterated that 18 ft. is required for the parking setback.
Mr. D. Cybalski also pointed out that the sketch shows 2 driveways and Ms. Given advised that a
second driveway access is not permitted.
In response to the Chair, Ms. Given advised that not having seen a site plan, she was unable to
comment on any other inconsistencies with zoning regulations. She further stated that other
issues such as compatibility and how the proposed severance fits within the surrounding area
should be considered in addition to zoning.
The Chair expressed the opinion that the sketches provided were insufficient and given the
application is being recommended for refusal and is opposed by neighbouring property owners, it
may be in the applicants best interest to prepare a proper site plan to ensure that all zoning
requirements are being met. In this regard the Chair inquired if the applicant would like an
opportunity to defer the application to allow time for a site plan to be prepared.
Mr. Pynn acknowledged that the sketches had not been professionally prepared; however,
suggested that the driveway could be placed as required when the plans were finalized. Mr. S.
Kay pointed out that the parking space is required to be behind the building line and from the
sketch provided it did not appear this could be complied with. Mr. Voisin again stated that he had
been of the understanding that without a garage he would only require 15 ft. Mr. Kay pointed out
that staff have confirmed that the required setback is 18 ft. and questioned if Mr. Voisin was
prepared to have a proper site plan prepared. Mr. Voisin stated that if the sketches were
insufficient he would have them re-drawn.
The Chair clarified that a site plan is being requested that shows the severed parcel and the
building footprint of the proposed structure on the severed lot. In addition, the plan should show
all setbacks and the parking area.
Ms. Given advised that if the application was to be deferred so that a site plan could be prepared,
the plan would have to be submitted at least 1 ½ weeks prior to the deferral date to allow staff
sufficient time to review the plan and provide comment.
Mr. Pynn and Mr. Voisin advised that they could provide a revised plan within sufficient time for
the application to be considered at the Committee’s next meeting and were in agreement with
deferring the application.
Accordingly, by general consent it was agreed to defer this application to the Committee’s next
meeting to be held on Tuesday, January 29, 2002.
Submission No.:
2.B 2001-068
Applicant:
1021269 Ontario Limited
Property Location:
71 Morrison Road & 165 Chandos Drive
Legal Description:
Part of Lot 53, GCT, designated as Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-
13111
Appearances:
In Support:None
Contra:None
Written Submissions:
In Support:None
Contra:None
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT4JANUARY 8, 2002
Submission No.:
2. B 2001-068 (Cont’d)
This application was previously considered at the Committee’s meeting held on December 11,
2001 at which time the application was deferred to allow an opportunity to determine the design
and location of the stormwater management outlet and subsequent need, if required, to extend
the requested easement.
The Committee was previously advised that the applicant is requesting granting of an easement,
40 m x 72 m (131.23 ft. x 21.95 ft.) in size, for storm water management over the subject lands in
favour of an abutting property known municipally as 165 Chandos Drive.
The Committee noted previous comments of Business and Planning Services dated December 3,
2001, as documented in the minutes of the December 11, 2001 meeting in which they
recommended approval of this application subject to certain conditions.
The Committee noted revised comments of Business and Planning Services also dated
December 3, 2001 in which they request deferral of this application to the January 29, 2002
Committee of Adjustment meeting to permit additional opportunity to investigate the need for an
amended, or additional, easement to provide for an outlet from the stormwater management
facility.
The Committee noted previous comments of the Director of Building, the Traffic and Parking
Analyst, the Region of Waterloo and the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they
advised that they have no comments or concerns with respect to this application.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending the application be
further deferred.
As no one was in attendance to support this application, it was agreed to defer this application to
the Committee’s next meeting to be held on Tuesday, January 29, 2002.
The Committee then recessed the meeting, temporarily, at 10:00 a.m. in order to consider applications
for minor variance to the City of Kitchener’s Sign By-law. This meeting reconvened at 10:21 a.m.
NEW BUSINESS
MINOR VARIANCE
Submission No.:
1.A 2002-001
Applicant:
Roy & Karen Davey
Property Location:
435 Bridgeport Road East
Legal Description:
Lot 2, Registered Plan 674
Appearances:
In Support:Mr. & Mrs. R. Davey
435 Bridgeport Rd. E.
Kitchener, ON N2K 1N9
Contra:None
Written Submissions:
In Support:None
Contra:None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct an enclosed
entranceway having a front yard setback of 8.84 m (29 ft.) rather than the required 12 m (39.37
ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of Business and Planning Services in which they advised
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT5JANUARY 8, 2002
Submission No.:
1. A 2002-001 (Cont’d)
that the subject site is located on the south side of Bridgeport Road in the Bridgeport West
Community. The owner wishes to construct a second storey addition to the existing dwelling and
to enclose a front porch.
The application for minor variance is requesting a reduction in the minimum setback requirement
from 12 metres (39.37 feet) to 8.84 metres (29 feet) from the front lot line to permit the
construction of a second story and enclose the front porch. In looking at the survey and drawings
submitted, it appears that the porch may be set back 8.84 metres (29 feet) but the second storey
addition would be flush with or further recessed from the first floor front wall, which is 33.59 feet
(10.23 metres) from the front lot line. The Committee should consider two different required
setbacks in its decision.
Enclosing the vestibule is of no concern as it exists in this location now and does not add
habitable space. As such, it is minor, desirable, meets the intent of the by-law and Municipal Plan.
When constructed, the second storey addition extends living space within the same building
envelope as exists now. It should be noted that the dwelling unit has legal non-conforming status
for its front yard setback on a Primary Arterial Road. In considering the four tests for minor
variance as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended,
staff offers the following comments in relation to the requested variance.
The proposed second storey addition can be considered appropriate and desirable since the only
significant change is the height of the existing dwelling; it permits more usable floor area within
the existing building. The intent of the 12 metre setback is to govern new development fronting
Arterial Roads, to minimize the impact of noise. Given that this is an alteration to an existing
building which already encroaches into the setback, consistent with other dwellings along the
road, staff find that the intent of the by-law and Municipal Plan are not contravened. The variance
is minor as the building already exists and the second story addition is no closer than the existing
building floor area.
Business and Planning Services recommends that minor variance application A 2002-001 be
approved as revised to permit the enclosure of the first floor porch located 8.84 metres from the
front lot line and a second storey addition location no closer than 10.23 metres from the lot line
and generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building
permit is required prior to construction of the new addition and enclosure of the front porch.
The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic and Parking Analyst, the Region of Waterloo
and the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no concerns or
comments with respect to this application.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the
application subject to an amendment regarding the second storey addition which will have a
10.23 m setback from the lot line rather than the required 12 m (39.37 ft.).
The Chair inquired if Mr. & Mrs. Davey were in agreement with amending their application as
requested by staff. Mr. & Mrs. Davey advised that they were in agreement.
As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion.
Moved by Mr. S. Kay
Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski
That the application of Roy and Karen Davey requesting permission to construct a second storey
addition having a front yard setback of 10.23 m (33.59 ft.), rather than the required 12 m (39.37
ft.) and to enclose the first floor porch having a front yard setback of 8.84 m (29 ft.), rather than
the required 12 m (39.37 ft.), on Lot 2, Registered Plan 674, 435 Bridgeport Road East,
BE APPROVED,
Kitchener, Ontario, subject to the following conditions:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT6JANUARY 8, 2002
Submission No.:
1. A 2002-001 (Cont’d)
1. That the variances as approved in this application shall be generally in accordance with the
plan submitted with Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 2002-001.
2. That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to construction of the new addition and
enclosure of the front porch.
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.:
2.A 2002-002
Applicant:
Neil McChesnie
Property Location:
15 Henry Street
Legal Description:
Lot 19, Registered Plan 107
Appearances:
In Support:Mr. N. McChesnie
15 Henry St.
Kitchener, ON N2G 1P4
Contra:None
Written Submissions:
In Support:None
Contra:None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a rear yard
detached accessory building (garage) having a maximum lot coverage of 14% rather than the
permitted 10%.
The Committee noted the comments of Business and Planning Services in which they advised
that the applicant is requesting permission to erect a detached accessory building having lot
coverage of 14%, rather than the permitted 10%.
The applicant advises that he requires a garage large enough to accommodate two vehicles.
The proposal is to erect a 7.3 metre (24 ft.) by 29.2 metre (22 ft.) detached garage in the rear
2
yard having a total floor area of 49.0 square metres (528 ft.).
The by-law permits accessory structures to cover a maximum of 10% of the total lot area to
ensure that the lot is not compromised by an overabundance of structures and ensuring that
sufficient outdoor amenity area is maintained.
The property in question is 12.16 metres (39.9 ft.) wide and 29.27 metres (96 ft.) deep for a total
2
lot area of 356 square metres (3832 ft.). The maximum allowable accessory building size under
2
the by-law would be 35.6 square metres (383.2 ft.).
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT7JANUARY 8, 2002
Submission No.:
2. A 2002-002 (Cont’d)
The garage is proposed to be located 0.91 metres (3 ft.) from both the rear and side lot lines
which exceeds the by-law requirement of 0.6 metres (2 ft.) and would have a maximum height of
4.5 metres (14.76 ft.) which would also comply with the by-law.
The property is located in close proximity to Victoria Park, and backs onto a new residential 9-
storey apartment development. Staff are of the opinion that the detached structure in the rear
yard would have minimal impact on any of the neighbouring properties. The dwelling currently
does not have garage space and the addition of the detached structure is considered both
desirable and appropriate development of the property. As the detached garage would comply
with both the setback and height requirements of the by-law, the variance to increase the lot
coverage to 14% can be considered minor in nature.
The applicant should be advised that the property is located within the Victoria Park Area
Heritage Conservation District and has been designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act.
Any development on the property will require submission and approval of a Designated Heritage
Property Alteration/Demolition application prior to obtaining a building permit.
Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission A 2002-002 conditional
upon receiving Council’s approval of the Designated Heritage Property Alteration/Demolition
Application, under the Ontario Heritage Act.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building
permit is required prior to construction of the new garage; there shall be no window or door
openings in the wall located less than 1.2 m to the property line; and all roof drainage shall be
directed onto the subject property.
The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic and Parking Analyst, The Region of Waterloo,
and the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no concerns or
comments with respect to this application.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the
application subject to certain conditions. The Chair pointed out that the application is subject to
approval of a Designated Heritage Property Alterations/Demolition Application.
Mr. N. McChesnie advised that an alteration application has already been submitted and is to be
considered at the Heritage Kitchener meeting to be held later this date.
Moved by Mr. S. Kay
Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski
That the application of Neil McChesnie requesting permission to construct a rear yard detached
accessory building (garage) having a maximum lot coverage of 14%, rather than the permitted
BE APPROVED
10%, on Lot 19, Registered Plan 107, 15 Henry Street, Kitchener, Ontario, ,
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall submit, and receive approval of, a Designated Heritage Property
Alteration/Demolition Application under the Ontario Heritage Act.
2. That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to construction of the new garage.
3. That there shall be no window or door openings in the wall to be located less that 1.2 m (3.94
ft.) to the property line.
4. That the owner shall ensure that all roof drainage is directed onto the subject property.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1.The variance requested in this application is minor in nature.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT8JANUARY 8, 2002
Submission No.:
2. A 2002-002 (Cont’d)
3.The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan
is being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission No.:
3.A 2002-003
Applicant:
Bill Mallett
Property Location:
5 Lang Crescent
Legal Description:
Part Lot 59, German Company Tract
Appearances:
In Support:Mr. J. Markle
424 Grangewood Dr.
Waterloo, ON N2K 2E6
Contra:None
Written Submissions:
In Support:None
Contra:None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing
rear yard detached accessory building (garage) having an easterly sideyard setback of 0.009 m
(0.03 ft.) rather than the required 0.6 m (2 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of Business and Planning Services in which they advised
that the subject land is located on the southerly side of Lang Crescent near the intersection of
Lang Crescent and Lancaster Street West. The lot is occupied by a single detached dwelling and
detached garage. The detached garage was recently reconstructed on the original foundation
layed in 1960. The subject land has 15.0 metres (49.0 feet) of frontage on Lang Crescent and a
depth of 336.6 metres (102.6 feet).
The original detached garage was constructed in 1960 with dimensions of approximately 3.4
metres (11 feet) by 6.4 metres (21 feet) and with a sideyard setback of 0.08 metres (0.25 feet).
The eaves encroached onto the adjacent property by 0.34 metres (1.1 feet). The structure was
considered to have legal non-conforming status as the detached garage was built prior to 1961
under By-law 1823. Although the property has been rezoned to C-2, special use provision 200U
permits single detached dwellings.
Application for minor variance has been received to reduce the required sideyard setbacks from
0.6 metres (2 feet) to 0.03 feet (0.009 metres) to legalize the reconstructed detached garage. The
detached garage was recently reconstructed without a building permit on the original foundation
after a fire destroyed the original structure. The intent of the owner was to reconstruct the garage
on the same footprint on the existing foundation.
A recent survey indicates that the existing building is slightly larger than what previously existed
on the 1990 survey. The original garage was 0.08 metres (0.25 feet) from the property line and
the existing garage is 0.009 metres (0.03 feet) from the property line. The existing eaves
encroach onto the adjacent property by an additional 0.3 metres (1.1 feet) from what previously
existed. The detached garage has lost its legal non-conforming status as the structure is not the
same dimensions as the original detached garage and does not maintain the same setbacks.
Eaves are permitted to encroach up to a maximum of 0.6 metres (2 feet) into a required sideyard.
For this property they are permitted to be located up to the property line. The Planning Act does
not however have the authority to grant a minor variance to permit the eaves to encroach onto an
adjacent property. The encroachment of the eaves is in fact a civil matter and any disputes over
the eave location would have to be resolved between the property owners.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT9JANUARY 8, 2002
Submission No.:
3. A 2002-003 (Cont’d)
Staff feels that the slight increase in original size of the detached garage will not increase the
impact on the adjacent property owner. The structure will continue to be used as a detached
garage as it has remained for the last approximately 42 years with no history of complaint or
problem related to its location. Additionally, staff are not aware of any letters of concern received
following circulation of the subject application.
Comments from the Building staff indicate that a building permit must be obtained for detached
garage and that the owner must provide a fire resistance rating in conformance with the Building
Code regulations for the wall adjacent to the property line.
The request for minor variance is considered to be minor in nature and also maintains the general
intent of both the Zoning By-law and the Municipal Plan. Accordingly, Business and Planning
Services recommends that Minor Variance Application A 2002-003 be approved to reduce the
required sideyard from 0.6 metres (2 feet) to 0.03 metres (0.009 feet) for the existing detached
garage only, subject to the owner directing all drainage onto the owner's own property.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building, the Traffic and Parking Analyst,
the Region of Waterloo, and the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that
they have no comments or concerns with respect to this application.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the
application subject to certain conditions and inquired if the applicant had anything further to add.
Mr. J. Markle advised that the original garage had burned down as a result of an accident and
through insurance the existing garage was rebuilt on the same building footprint. He stated that
the eaves had changed the side yard as they were not measured as part of the setback.
In response to Mr. Kay, Mr. Markle advised that the garage had been rebuilt approximately 6
years ago and a year and a half ago he had sold the property. At that time a new survey had
been done which showed that the new garage had in fact been reconstructed slightly larger than
the original structure. In response to a further question, Mr. Markle advised that he had applied
for the variance application on behalf of the current owner as part of the purchase agreement.
Mr. D. Cybalski stated that he was prepared to move approval of the application subject to all
drainage being directed onto the subject property.
Mr. S. Kay commented that in approving the application Mr. Markle should be aware that the
Committee is not sanctioning any encroachment of the structure onto the neighbouring property.
Ms. J. Given pointed out that in discussion with Building staff it had been indicated that a building
permit would have to be obtained and the wall less than 0.6 metres from the lot line would have to
have a fire resistance rating in conformance with the Building Code. She noted that while written
comments received from Building staff do not reflect discussions with Planning staff, she
suggested that the Committee consider including a condition to require a building permit to be
obtained and that the structure comply with all Building Code requirements.
The Committee then entered into discussion with respect to the merits of imposing such a
condition. Following discussion, it was agreed that as Mr. Markle had obligation under the
purchase agreement to legalize the garage, it would be appropriate to impose such a condition to
protect the current owner from potential liability should the property be sold in future.
Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski
Seconded by Mr. S. Kay
That the application of Bill Mallett requesting permission to legalize an existing rear yard detached
accessory building (garage) having an easterly side yard setback of 0.009 m (0.03 ft.), rather than
the required 0.6 m (2 ft.), on Part Lot 59, German Company Tract, 5 Lang Crescent, Kitchener,
BE APPROVED
Ontario, , subject to the following conditions:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT10JANUARY 8, 2002
Submission No.:
3. A 2002-003 (Cont’d)
1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit and ensure that the garage complies with the
requirements of the Building Code.
2. That the owner shall ensure all roof drainage is directed onto the subject property.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1.The variance requested in this application is minor in nature.
2.This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3.The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan
is being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission No.:
4.A 2002-004
Applicant:
Colleen Rumble
Property Location:
22 Bridlewreath Street
Legal Description:
Part Block 1, Registered Plan 58M-171, designated as Part 5 on
Reference Plan 58R-12779
Appearances:
In Support:Mr. T. Schnarr Ms. C. Rumble
G.T.S. Windows Inc. 22 Bridlewreath St.
990 Victoria St. N. Kitchener, ON N2E 3V5
Kitchener, ON N2B 3C4
Contra:None
Written Submissions:
In Support:None
Contra:None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a rear
addition, 3.66 m x 3.04 m (12 ft. x 10 ft.) in size, having a rear yard setback of 4.44 m (14.57 ft.)
rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of Business and Planning Services in which they advised
that the subject lands contain a recently constructed single family dwelling. Bridlewreath Street is
a part of a newly developing subdivision in Laurentian West. The subject lands are surrounded to
the north, west and east, as well as across the street to the south, by other single family
dwellings.
The owner is proposing to construct a single-storey rear addition at 4.44 metres from the rear lot
line rather than the required 7.5 metres. The rear wall of the dwelling has been built at 7.52
metres from the rear lot line, so any additional building would require a minor variance to at least
the required rear yard.
Staff are concerned over the impact of the requested variance for the following reasons:
·
the loss of outdoor amenity area
·
the extent of the variance requested
·
the potential precedent that the approval of such a variance would set.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT11JANUARY 8, 2002
Submission No.:
4. A 2002-004 (Cont’d)
The dwelling on the subject lands has been constructed to approximately the minimum required
setbacks at the front, side and rear yards. The existing rear yard represents the only useful
private outdoor amenity area. The portion of the lot in front of the dwelling is occupied largely by
a driveway, and represents a more “public” outdoor space. The introduction of additional building
in the rear yard would have the effect of further reducing the existing small outdoor rear amenity
area to a very small amount (to approximately 58 square metres). The underlying intent of the
minimum 7.5 metre rear yard in the R-4 zone is to ensure a sufficient amount of outdoor amenity
area for the occupants of the dwelling as well as to avoid visual intrusion on abutting properties to
the rear. While the proposed addition is a single storey only and is not expected to have any
serious negative impact on abutting properties, the intent of the Zoning By-law is not maintained
with the reduction of the rear yard from 7.5 metres to 4.44 metres due to the resulting small
amount of outdoor amenity area. Staff also do not consider that the extent of the variance
requested is minor in nature due to the fact that the variance represents an almost 50% reduction
in the required rear yard.
Staff are concerned over the potential undesirable precedent that would be set if this application
were approved. The dwelling on the subject lands is one of the few dwellings on Bridlewreath
Street located at the minimum rear yard. The large majority of dwellings on either side of
Bridlewreath Street appear to have a rear yard of approximately 9 or 10 metres. If this application
were to be approved, it is possible that other property owners would seek a similar approval,
leading to a subdivision of single family dwellings with very minimal private outdoor amenity
space.
In consideration of the four tests for a minor variance under the Planning Act therefore, staff do
not consider that the proposed variance is desirable for the development or use of the land, is not
minor in nature and does not maintain the intent of the Zoning By-law for all the reasons outlined
above. In general terms however, the intent of the Municipal Plan is maintained.
In conclusion, staff do not support the proposed variance and recommend that submission
A2002-004 be refused.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building
permit is required prior to construction of the new addition.
The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic and Parking Analyst, the Region of Waterloo
and the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no concerns or
comments with respect to this application.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending refusal of the
application and inquired if the applicant had anything further to add.
Mr. T. Schnarr, agent for Ms. Rumble, advised that the applicant wished to provide a comfortable
environment for her elderly mother who would be living with her. Mr. Schnarr provided
photographs of the neighbourhood to demonstrate that most of the homes have very little rear
yard and most side yards are taken up with driveways. He stated that although the proposed
addition limits the outdoor amenity space, Ms. Rumble’s property has adequate space in
comparison to others. Mr. Schnarr did not agree that the proposal would create an undesirable
precedent and suggested the number of residents that may come forward with a similar proposal
would be minimal.
Mr. D. Cybalski inquired if any comments had been received from area residents and was
advised none had been received. Ms. Rumble stated that she had talked to neighbours on either
side of her property and they had indicated they had no objection to her proposal.
Mr. Schnarr also pointed out that the reduction in rear yard was actually 40% rather than 50% as
indicated in the staff report. In addition, he pointed out that Ms. Rumble could legally construct a
utility structure on the property up to 107 sq. ft. and 10 ft. in height, which would also take away
outdoor space. In this regard, he provided an additional photograph of a similar structure.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT12JANUARY 8, 2002
Submission No.:
4. A 2002-004 (Cont’d)
Mr. S. Kay stated that having heard Mr. Schnarr’s comments and viewing the photographs which
show a fence along the rear yard, he was inclined to support the proposal. He stated that, in his
opinion, a one storey rear addition would not be obtrusive and noted that no objections had been
received from area residents. He further stated that given the facts, the possibility of setting an
undesirable precedent is circumspect. Mr. D. Cybalski commented that he was in agreement
with Mr. Kay’s comments.
Moved by Mr. S. Kay
Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski
That the application of Colleen Rumble requesting permission to construct a rear addition, 3.66
metres x 3.04 metres (12 ft. x 10 ft.) in size, having a rear yard setback of 4.44 metres (14.57 ft.),
rather than the required 7.5 metres (24.6 ft.), on Part Block 1, Registered Plan 58M-171,
designated as Part #5 on Reference Plan 58R-12779, 22 Bridlewreath Street, Kitchener, Ontario,
BE APPROVED
, subject to the following condition:
1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to construction of the new addition.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1.The 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 2002-005
Applicant:
673147 Ontario Inc.
Property Location:
236-264 Victoria Street North
Legal Description:
Part Lot 19, Subdivision of Lot 3, German Company Tract, Lots 33 to
42 and Part Lots 29 to 32, Registered Plan 374, Part Lots 41 and
122, Streets and Lanes
The Chair advised that the Committee was in receipt of a letter dated January 7, 2002 from Mr. R.
Hardie, Richard A. Hardie and Associates Inc., agent for the applicant, in which he advised that
the applicant is requesting deferral of this application to the Committee’s meeting in February.
By general consent, it was agreed to defer Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 2002-
005 to the February 19, 2002 Committee of Adjustment meeting.
Submission No.:
6.A 2002-006
Applicant:
George and Judith Booth
Property Location:
74 Ruskview Road
Legal Description:
Lot 59, Registered Plan 1122
Appearances:
In Support:Mr. L. Brubacher Mr. G. Booth
1185 King St. N. 74 Ruskview Rd.
St. Jacobs, ON N0B 2N0 Kitchener, ON N2M 4S2
Contra:None
Written Submissions:
In Support:None
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT13JANUARY 8, 2002
Submission No.:
6. A 2002-006 (Cont’d)
Contra:None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a 3.84 m x
8.1 m (12.6 ft. x 26.6 ft.) attached carport, having a southerly sideyard setback of 0.6 m (2 ft.)
rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of Business and Planning Services in which they advised
that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize the south side yard setback of 0.60 metres
(2.0 ft) instead of the required 1.2 metres (3.94 ft.). The subject property at 74 Ruskview Road is
located on the east side of Ruskview Road within close proximity to Sweetbriar Drive and the
Conestoga Parkway. The house on the subject property is a single detached residential dwelling
on an irregularly shaped lot with a frontage of 13.7 metres (45.0 ft.) and an approximate depth of
50.98 metres (167.29 ft.).
The applicant is proposing to construct a 27 m² (296 sq. ft.) carport approximately 3.8 metres
(12.6 ft) in width, instead of the 3.2 metres (10.6ft) required to maintain a full 1.2 metre (3.9 ft)
side yard setback required by the Zoning By-law. The applicant has indicated that the 3.2 metres
(10.6 feet) width is too narrow, preferring instead, a wider carport at 3.8 metres (12.6 ft.).
Staff has considered the effect of the proposed reduction in the side yard to the neighbouring
properties at 80 Ruskview Road and 207 Sweetbriar Drive. The subject property abuts the rear
yards of the neighbouring properties at 80 Ruskview Road and 207 Sweetbriar Drive. Staff feels
that the neighbours’ privacy would not be impeded to a greater extent than if the carport were
constructed with a full 1.2 metre (3.94 ft.) setback as required in By-law 85-1, as the rear yards at
both of these locations are currently open to the area where the carport is proposed to be
constructed. Further, access to the rear yard is still possible. As a result, staff feels that the
overall impact to 80 Ruskview Road and 207 Sweetbriar Drive would be minimal.
Based on the above comments, it is the opinion of staff that the subject variance is acceptable
and the impact of the variance would be minor as the request maintains the general intent of the
Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law
.
Accordingly, Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission A 2002-006
provided all drainage is directed to the applicant’s property.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building
permit is required prior to construction of the new carport and the owner shall ensure that all roof
drainage is directed onto the subject property.
The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic and Parking Analyst, the Region of Waterloo
and the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no concerns or
comments with respect to this application.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the
application and inquired if the applicant had anything further to add. Mr. L. Brubacher, agent for
Mr. Booth, advised that he had reviewed the staff report and was in agreement with the
recommendations contained therein.
As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion.
Moved by Mr. S. Kay
Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski
That the application of George and Judith Booth requesting permission to construct a 3.84 metre
x 8.1 metre (12.6 ft. x 26.6 ft.) attached carport, having a southerly side yard setback of 0.6 m (2
ft.), rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.), on Lot 59, Registered Plan 1122, 74 Ruskview Road,
BE APPROVED
Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to construction of the new carport.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT14JANUARY 8, 2002
Submission No.:
6. A 2002-006 (Cont’d)
2. That the owner shall ensure all roof drainage is directed onto the subject property.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1.The variance requested in this application is minor in nature.
2.This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3.The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan
is being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
CONSENT AND MINOR VARIANCE
Submission Nos.:
1.B 2002-001 to B 2002-003 inclusive & A 2002-007, A 2002-008
Applicant:
1010137 Ontario Ltd./Maple Freezer Inc.
Property Location:
Maple Avenue & Union Street
Legal Description:
Part Lot 117, Registered Plan 666, Part Lots 2, 8 & 9, MCPL of Lot
59, German Company Tract
Appearances:
In Support:Mr. G. Auer
Campbell Wyman Auer & Ims Ltd.
582 Frederick St.
Kitchener, ON N2B 2A9
Contra:None
Written Submissions:
In Support:None
Contra:None
The Committee was advised that the lands involved in these applications were the subject of a
previously approved consent (B 2001-035) which granted permission to create one new lot,
together with a right-of-way for the purpose of access. The purpose of these applications is to
replace the previous consent and the applicant is now requesting permission to create 3 new
parcels of land (designated as Parcels 1, 3 & 4 with Parcel 2 being retained), together with a
right-of-way for access over the retained lands in favour of the proposed Parcel 3 and variances
to the Zoning By-law relative to the retained lands and proposed Parcel 1, as follows:
st
·
1 severance - Parcel 1 contains an existing industrial use (warehouse) and will have frontage
on Maple Avenue of 31.68 m (103.94 ft.) and an area of 0.1166 ha. (0.29 ac.); a variance is
required to recognize a rear yard setback of 6.37 m (20.9 ft.) rather than the required 7.5 m
(24.6 ft.).
nd
·
2 severance - Parcel 3 contains an existing industrial use (meat packing, processing,
storage facility) and will have frontage on Maple Avenue of 145.48 m (477.3 ft.) and an area of
2.5435 ha (6.28 ac); a right-of-way for access is requested over the retained lands (Parcel 2)
in favour of the severed lands (Parcel 3); and variances are required relative to the retained
lands to recognize a frontage on Maple Avenue of 8.02 m (26.31 ft.) rather than the required
15 m (49.21 ft.) and a rear yard setback of 6.5 m (21.32 ft.) rather than the required 7.5 m
(24.6 ft.).
rd
·
3 severance - Parcel 4 is vacant land and will have frontage on Union Street of 21.12 m
(69.29 ft.) and an area of 0.4036 ha (0.997 ac).
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT15JANUARY 8, 2002
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2002-001 to B 2002-003 inclusive & A 2002-007, A 2002-008 (Cont’d)
The Committee noted the comments of Business and Planning Services in which they advised
that the subject site is located in an industrial area of the North Ward Neighbourhood with
frontage on Maple Avenue, Arnold Street and Union Street. The site contains three main
buildings that have historically been used for different purposes and at one time were separate
properties that have since merged into one lot. The applicant has identified Parcel #2 as being
the retained lands and Parcels #1, 3 & 4 as three separate lots proposed to be severed. Parcel
#1 contains a small brick building near the Maple Avenue frontage that has been used for
warehousing of plumbing equipment/supplies. Parcel # 2 contains a concrete block and brick
building that has been used for warehousing, storage of lumber and a woodworking business.
Parcel #3 contains a large industrial building that has a long history of being used as a meat
packing, processing and storage facility by several companies. Parcel #4 does not contain a
building but has been used for outdoor storage.
th
The owner received approval at the July 17, 2001 Committee of Adjustment meeting to severe
the subject site into two parcels and have a right-of-way over one parcel in favour of the other.
One parcel contained the meat packing facility (currently identified as Parcel #3) with frontage on
Maple Avenue and Arnold Street and that parcel also received minor variance approval to reduce
the side yard setback abutting Arnold Street. The other parcel contained two existing buildings
with frontage on Maple Avenue (currently Parcels #1 & 2) in addition to the land to the rear that
has frontage on Union Street (currently Parcel #4). That parcel also received minor variance
approval to legalize the left side yard setback of the woodworking building (Parcel #2). The
conditions of the approved severance have not been fulfilled to date. The applicant has indicated
that the intention is to withdraw the previous consent and right-of-way approval and replace it with
the subject consent and right-of-way application. The minor variance approvals would continue to
be in effect.
The owner proposes the following:
Consents to create three new lots (Parcels #1, 3 & 4)
ä
Consent to establish a right-of-way over a portion of Parcel #2 in favour of Parcel #3
ä
A minor variance to reduce the rear yard setback on Parcel #1 to 6.37 metres instead of the
ä
zoning requirement of 7.5 metres
A minor variance to reduce the rear yard setback on Parcel #2 to 6.5 metres instead of the
ä
zoning requirement of 7.5 metres
A minor variance to reduce the lot width of Parcel #2 to 8.02 metres instead of the zoning
ä
requirement of 15 metres
After reviewing the application as submitted, staff had some concerns primarily with the usability
of Parcels #2 & 4. The concerns ultimately relate to the configuration of the two intended lots and
the proposed minor variance to reduce the rear yard setback on Parcel #2. Staff also note that
when analyzing the plan as submitted, two further minor variances would have been required for
the parking area at the front of Parcel #1 in relation to the setback from the street line and backing
out onto a street. After discussing these items with the applicant,
an amended plan has been
submitted to planning staff by the applicant and is attached to this report for the Committee’s
. The amended plan alters the boundaries of Parcels #2 & 4 whereby the former rear
information
portion of Parcel #4 is now added to the rear of Parcel #2. By doing so, the rear yard setback
variance is no longer required. The applicant has amended the plan to show the required
parking spaces for Parcel #1 at the side of the building thus not requiring any minor variances.
As such, the application should be revised and considered as follows:
B2002-001 (Parcel #1) – Frontage on Maple Avenue of 31.68 metres, a depth of 37.50 metres and
an area of approximately 0.12 hectares.
B2002-002 (Parcel #3) - Frontage on Maple Avenue of 145.48 metres, a depth ranging between
139.45 metres and 217.06 metres along Arnold Street and an area of
approximately 2.54 hectares.
B2002-003 (Parcel #4) – Frontage on Union Street of 21.12 meters, a depth of 116.90 metres
and an area of approximately 0.29 hectares.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT16JANUARY 8, 2002
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2002-001 to B 2002-003 inclusive & A 2002-007, A 2002-008 (Cont’d)
Right-of-way for access – In favour of Parcel #3 over a portion of Parcel #2
A2002-007 (Parcel #1) – Variance to reduce the rear yard setback for the building on Parcel #1 to 6.37
metres instead of 7.5 metres as required in Zoning By-law 85-1.
A2002-008 (Parcel #2) – Variance to reduce the lot width for Parcel #2 to 8.02 metres instead of 15
metres as required in Zoning By-law 85-1.
As identified in the July application, the requested right-of-way should not pose any problems as
most of the non-building area is paved or gravel and most likely been historically shared between
the severed and retained lands for vehicle and truck access, circulation and loading at the
accessory building on Parcel #3.
In regard to the consent applications, Parcels #1, 2 & 3 were apparently each individual lots in the
past that have since merged into one lot. In addition, the buildings on the severed lands have
historically been occupied by separate uses and therefore are not functionally required to be one
lot. Therefore it seems reasonable to once again consider them to be separate lots. In this
regard, the applicant has indicated that approval of the severances would help facilitate an easier
sale or lease of any of the severed or retained lands given that they would all be separate and
smaller lots.
The previous severance created a new lot that had two separately used buildings and the long
rear portion of land that fronts on Union Street. The severances, as amended, provide for a more
appropriate lotting pattern with each separately used building on its own conveyable lot (Parcels
#1 & 2). Furthermore, the severances would provide needed space for parking, for storage at
the rear should the building on Parcel #2 be reused or for redevelopment of the Parcel in the
future. Staff do have some concern as to whether Parcel #4 is an adequate lot, however it does
appear that there is enough lot width and lot area that a reasonable building could be constructed
on the lot to ensure proper and orderly development. Furthermore, it has been suggested that
this may be sold to the owner of the lot to the west for comprehensive use.
The consent is appropriate for the use of the land in accordance with the Secondary Plan
designation for this area and maintains the requirements of the Zoning By-law, except for the two
variances for Parcel #1 and Parcel #2.
The first proposed variance would reduce the rear yard setback for the existing building on Parcel
#1 to 6.37 metres instead of the required 7.5 metres. This rear yard setback variance can be
considered minor and meeting the intent of the Zoning By-law. The variance is only a deviation of
about 1 metre from the by-law requirement. Also, if the setback was increased then a side yard
setback variance would be needed for the building on Parcel #2. There is still enough yard space
in the rear and with the side yard setbacks on both sides of the building that exceed the minimum
zoning requirements. Thus, the requested variance can be considered appropriate for the current
use of the land. In order that future development not be compromised by the variance, it should
apply to the existing building only.
The second proposed variance would reduce the minimum lot width for the retained lands (Parcel
#2) to 8.02 metres instead of the required 15 metres. The intent of the lot width requirement is
so that an adequately-sized building can be built and with appropriate driveway access and yard
space. In this regard, the entire lot is not 8.02 metres wide, only just the front portion until the
property widens behind Parcel #1. In fact, the majority of the lot far exceeds the minimum lot
width and complies with the other setback requirements in the M-2 zone (considering approval of
the previous minor side yard setback variance). The internal width of the intended lot is sufficient
2
enough that a 1663 m building was constructed and has operated for a long period of time. Staff
did explore the possibility of widening the lot width for Parcel #2 with the applicant. By doing so,
this would reduce the yard space and lot area available for the current and future use of Parcel #1
which is already proposed to be reduced somewhat by the variance requested for the rear yard
setback. Also, if the lot width for Parcel #2 was increased it may compromise the ability to access
the parking spaces at the side of the building on Parcel #1 and the applicant indicated that they
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT17JANUARY 8, 2002
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2002-001 to B 2002-003 inclusive & A 2002-007, A 2002-008 (Cont’d)
would not like to create yet another proposed right-of-way over Parcel #2 in favour of access to
parking spaces on Parcel #1.
In addition, when considering the test of being ‘minor’ and meeting the intent of the Zoning By-
law, the limited amount of impact on the surrounding area should be considered. Since this
situation has existed for quite a number of years and allows for consistent utilization of land for
employment and economic purposes then the amount of impact that the variance might have
should be quite limited. There has been no indication that the historic use of this land in this
fashion has not functioned properly.
Furthermore, the two requested variances should not negatively effect the usability of adjacent
properties or the two parcels themselves.
Therefore, the two requested variances can be considered to be minor in nature, meet the intent
of the Zoning By-law and the intent of the Municipal Plan and are appropriate for the use of the
land. The severances can generally be considered proper and orderly development and would
maintain the requirements of the Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan subject to the final approval
of the minor variances.
Thus, in considering the appropriateness of the applications on this long-standing industrial site,
staff supports the application for consents to create four separate parcels subject to certain
conditions, the creation of a right-of-way over Parcel #2 in favour of Parcel #3 and supports the
minor variances to reduce the rear yard setback for the existing building on Parcel #1 and reduce
the lot width requirement on Parcel #2 subject to the approval applying only to the
plan/applicationas revised.
Accordingly, Business and Planning Services recommends:
A. That Minor Variance Application A2002-007 to reduce the minimum rear yard setback from
7.5 metres as required in Zoning By-law 85-1 to a minimum of 6.37 metres for the existing
building on one of the severed lots (Parcel #1), be approved.
B. That Minor Variance Application A2002-008 to reduce the minimum lot width from 15 metres
as required in Zoning By-law 85-1 to a minimum of 8.02 metres for the retained lands (Parcel
#2), be approved.
C. That Consent Application B2002-001 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1.That the owner shall receive final approval of Submissions No. A2002-007 and A2002-
008.
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 satisfactory arrangements be made with the Assistant General Manager of
Engineering Services to ensure separate sanitary, water and storm (if applicable)
connections are available.
4. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener, to be prepared by
the City Solicitor and registered on title on both the severed and retained lands, which
shall require that prior to the commencement of any grading on the site, and prior to the
issuance of any building permits, the owner shall undertake a site assessment for each of
the severed lands and the retained lands in accordance with the Guidelines for Use at
Contaminated Sites in Ontario. A copy of the Record of Site Condition, acknowledged by
the Ministry of Environment and Energy shall be provided to the City’s Principal Planner.
D. That Consent Application B2002-002 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any
outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT18JANUARY 8, 2002
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2002-001 to B 2002-003 inclusive & A 2002-007, A 2002-008 (Cont’d)
2. That a joint maintenance agreement, to be approved by the City Solicitor, be registered
against title of both the severed and retained lands, to ensure that rights-of-way for access
to both properties are maintained in perpetuity.
3. That satisfactory arrangements be made with the Assistant General Manager of
Engineering Services to ensure separate sanitary, water and storm (if applicable)
connections are available.
4. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener, to be prepared by
the City Solicitor and registered on title on both the severed and retained lands, which
shall require that prior to the commencement of any grading on the site, and prior to the
issuance of any building permits, the owner shall undertake a site assessment in
accordance with the Guidelines for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario. A copy of the
Record of Site Condition, acknowledged by the Ministry of Environment and Energy shall
be provided to the City’s Principal Planner.
E. That Consent Application B2002-003 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any
outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
2. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener, to be prepared by
the City Solicitor and registered on title on both the severed and retained lands, which
shall require that prior to the commencement of any grading on the site, and prior to the
issuance of any building permits, the owner shall undertake a site assessment in
accordance with the Guidelines for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario. A copy of the
Record of Site Condition, acknowledged by the Ministry of Environment and Energy shall
be provided to the City’s Principal Planner.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building, the Traffic and Parking Analyst
and the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no concerns or
comments with respect to this application.
The Committee noted the comments of the Region of Waterloo in which they advised that the
subject lands have been identified as potentially contaminated and adjacent to lands which are
potentially contaminated. Regional staff are uncertain of the potential health or safety risks the
suspected contamination would pose to the proposed use of the property. As the subject lands
are not located within a well field, the Regional Municipality of Waterloo does not have a direct
corporate interest that would result in the Region requesting a Record of Site Condition to be
imposed. If the Committee decides to impose a Record of Site Condition or other similar
requirements, it should be imposed as a condition of the Committee, with the Committee, not the
Region, responsible for its release. Regional staff have no objection to these applications.
The Committee noted the comments of Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. in which they request that
approval of these applications be subject to the following conditions:
1. That the applicant make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. for
adjustments to the electrical servicing to the lands to be severed.
2. That the applicant make arrangements for the granting of any easements required by
Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc.
The Committee noted the comments of the Canadian National Railway Properties Inc. in which
they advised that they have no objection to these applications; however, 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 to the satisfaction of the railway.
The Committee noted the written submission of Mr. Henry Muller, President, Maple Freezers Inc.,
in which he advised that Consent Application B 2001-035 is being withdrawn and replaced with
these applications. This withdrawal is contingent on the new applications being approved by the
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT19JANUARY 8, 2002
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2002-001 to B 2002-003 inclusive & A 2002-007, A 2002-008 (Cont’d)
Committee of Adjustment. We do not wish to withdraw the previous Minor Variance Applications
that were associated with Consent Application B 2001-035.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments and revised site plan, noting that staff are recommending
approval of the applications subject to the revised plan and certain conditions.
Mr. S. Kay requested staff to comment on the variance relative to the proposed frontage for
Parcel #2. Ms. J. Given advised that if new parcels were being created it would not be
encouraged; however, in this case an older established lotting pattern exists. She noted that staff
have been looking at older industrial properties with a view to assisting in making them more
viable. She pointed out that the dwellings on this site have existed for some time, parking
requirements have been met and there will be no visual impact as there will be no physical
change in how the property looks today.
Mr. S. Kay commented that he had difficulty with the proposed frontage of Parcel #2 and
questioned if any consideration had been given to drawing the severance line to south of the
metal clad building on Parcel #3 to give more land to Parcel #2. Mr. Auer advised that a chain
link fence exists along the proposed severance line and the owner wishes to retain the fence.
Ms. Given also pointed out that loading/unloading of vehicles takes place in this area and it is also
in the area of the proposed right-of-way. Mr. P. Kruse commented that even if the line was
moved over to provide additional land for Parcel #2, the severance still would not be under ideal
circumstances.
Mr. Kay commented that it is proposed to add land from Parcel #4 to Parcel #2 to address the
issue of the rear yard deficiency of Parcel #2. In this regard, he pointed out that if Parcel #2 and
Parcel #4 were left as one parcel, the combined parcels would have sufficient frontage on Union
Street. Mr. Kruse commented that while Mr. Kay was correct, this is an older area and the market
suggests the proposed severances will assist it in becoming more viable. Mr. Kruse stated that
ideally, if new lots were being created, he would agree with Mr. Kay; however, in this case he had
no difficulty with the proposed configurations.
Ms. J. Given advised that in discussion with the applicant it was noted that negotiations are
underway to subsequently add Parcel #4 as a lot addition to the abutting property on Union
Street. Mr. Auer confirmed that this was a possibility; however, an agreement has not yet been
reached.
Mr. S. Kay questioned if the proposed dimensions of Parcel #4 would be sufficient to build on.
Mr. Auer stated that it would be a viable building lot on its own; however, reiterated it is possible it
will be added to the adjoining property. He further stated that there is potential for all of the
proposed severances to be sold in the near future as negotiations are also ongoing for Parcels #1
and #3.
In response to Mr. Kay, Ms. Given advised that the Regional comments make note that the
subject lands are potentially contaminated and a condition of approval has been included in the
staff recommendation to require a Record of Site Condition. It was further pointed out that
conditions relative to electrical servicing and any required easements are being requested by
Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc.
The Chair then reviewed the comments of the CN Railway noting that they advise if drainage
patterns are altered, concurrence of the railway will be required. Mr. G. Auer advised that while
there used to be a railway line on the property, it no longer exists and the railway no longer owns
any property associated with the subject lands.
As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion.
Consent B 2001-035
Withdrawn in accordance with correspondence dated December 12, 2001, received from Mr. H.
Muller, President, Maple Freezers Inc.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT20JANUARY 8, 2002
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2002-001 to B 2002-003 inclusive & A 2002-007, A 2002-008 (Cont’d)
Consent B 2002-001
Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski
Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse
That the application of 1010137 Ontario Limited/Maple Freezer Inc. requesting permission to
convey a parcel of land containing an existing industrial use (warehouse), having frontage on
Maple Avenue of 31.68 m (103.94 ft.), by a depth of 37.5 m (123.03 ft.) and an area of
approximately 0.12 ha (0.29 ac), and the granting of any easements as may be required by
Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. for the provision of electrical services to the severed and/or retained
lands, on Part Lot 117, Registered Plan 666, Part Lots 2, 8 & 9, Municipal Compiled Plan of Lot
BE GRANTED
59, German Company Tract, 352-386 Maple Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject
to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall receive final approval of Minor Variance Applications, Submission Nos. A
2002-007 and A 2002-008.
2. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the
payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
3. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the Assistant General Manager of
Engineering Services to ensure separate sanitary, water and storm (if applicable) connections
are available.
4. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener, to be prepared by the
City Solicitor, and registered on title on both the severed and retained lands, which shall
require that prior to the commencement of any grading on the site, and prior to the issuance of
any building permits, the owner shall undertake a site assessment for each of the severed
lands and the retained lands in accordance with the Guidelines For Use at Contaminated
Sites in Ontario. A copy of the Record of Site Condition, acknowledged by the Ministry of
Environment and Energy, shall be provided to the City’s Principal Planner.
5. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. for
adjustments to the electrical servicing to the lands to be severed.
6. That the owner shall make arrangements for the granting of any easements required by
Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc.
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 January 8, 2004. .
Carried
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT21JANUARY 8, 2002
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2002-001 to B 2002-003 inclusive & A 2002-007, A 2002-008 (Cont’d)
Minor Variance A 2002-007
Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski
Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse
That the application of 1010137 Ontario Limited/Maple Freezer Inc. requesting permission to
legalize an existing industrial building (warehouse) having a rear yard setback of 6.37 m (20.89
ft.), rather than 7.5 m (24.6 ft.), as shown on proposed Parcel #1 of the severance sketch
prepared by Campbell Wyman Auer & Ims Ltd. dated revised December 21, 2001, on Part Lot
117, Registered Plan 666, Part Lots 2, 8 & 9, Municipal Compiled Plan of Lot 59, German
BE APPROVED
Company Tract, 352-386 Maple Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, .
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1.The variance requested in this application is minor in nature.
2.This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3.The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener’s Zoning By-Law and Municipal
Plan is being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Consent B 2002-002
Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski
Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse
That the application of 1010137 Ontario Limited/Maple Freezer Inc. requesting permission to
convey a parcel of land containing an existing industrial use (meat packing, processing, storage
facility), having frontage on Maple Avenue of 145.48 m (477.3 ft.), by a depth of 217.06 m (712.13
ft.) along Arnold Street and an area of approximately 2.54 ha (6.27 ac); the granting of a right-of-
way for access over a portion of Parcel #2 in favour of Parcel #3 as shown on the severance
sketch prepared by Campbell Wyman Auer & Ims Limited dated revised December 21, 2001; and
the granting of any easements as may be required by Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. for the
provision of electrical services to the severed and/or retained lands, on Part Lot 117, Registered
Plan 666, Part Lots 2, 8 & 9, Municipal Compiled Plan of Lot 59, German Company Tract, 352-
BE GRANTED
386 Maple Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall receive final approval of Minor Variance Applications, Submission Nos. A
2002-007 and A 2002-008.
2. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the
payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
3. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the Assistant General Manager of
Engineering Services to ensure separate sanitary, water and storm (if applicable) connections
are available.
4. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener, to be prepared by the
City Solicitor, and registered on title on both the severed and retained lands, which shall
require that prior to the commencement of any grading on the site, and prior to the issuance of
any building permits, the owner shall undertake a site assessment for each of the severed
lands and the retained lands in accordance with the Guidelines For Use at Contaminated
Sites in Ontario. A copy of the Record of Site Condition, acknowledged by the Ministry of
Environment and Energy, shall be provided to the City’s Principal Planner.
5. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. for
adjustments to the electrical servicing to the lands to be severed.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT22JANUARY 8, 2002
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2002-001 to B 2002-003 inclusive & A 2002-007, A 2002-008 (Cont’d)
6. That the owner shall make arrangements for the granting of any easements required by
Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc.
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 January 8, 2004. .
Carried
Minor Variance A 2002-008
Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski
Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse
That the application of 1010137 Ontario Limited/Maple Freezer Inc. requesting permission to
create a parcel of land containing an existing industrial building (warehousing, storage and
woodworking), having frontage on Maple Avenue of 8.02 m (26.31 ft.), rather than the required 15
m (49.21 ft.), as shown on Parcel #2 (retained lands) of the severance sketch prepared by
Campbell Wyman Auer & Ims Limited dated revised December 21, 2001, on Part Lot 117,
Registered Plan 666, Part Lots 2, 8 & 9, Municipal Compiled Plan of Lot 59, German Company
BE APPROVED
Tract, 352-386 Maple Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, .
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1.The variance requested in this application is minor in nature.
2.This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3.The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener’s Zoning By-Law and Municipal
Plan is being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Consent B 2002-003
Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski
Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse
That the application of 1010137 Ontario Limited/Maple Freezer Inc. requesting permission to
convey a vacant parcel of land having frontage on Union Street of 21.12 m (69.29 ft.), by a depth
of 116.9 m (383.53 ft.) and an area of approximately 0.29 ha (0.71 ac) and the granting of any
easements as may be required by Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. for the provision of electrical
services to the severed and/or retained lands, on Part Lot 117, Registered Plan 666, Part Lots 2,
8 & 9, Municipal Compiled Plan of Lot 59, German Company Tract, 352-386 Maple Avenue,
BE GRANTED
Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT23JANUARY 8, 2002
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2002-001 to B 2002-003 inclusive & A 2002-007, A 2002-008 (Cont’d)
1.That the owner shall receive final approval of Minor Variance Applications, Submission Nos. A
2002-007 and A 2002-008.
1. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the
payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
2. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the Assistant General Manager of
Engineering Services to ensure separate sanitary, water and storm (if applicable) connections
are available.
3. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener, to be prepared by the
City Solicitor, and registered on title on both the severed and retained lands, which shall
require that prior to the commencement of any grading on the site, and prior to the issuance of
any building permits, the owner shall undertake a site assessment for each of the severed
lands and the retained lands in accordance with the Guidelines For Use at Contaminated
Sites in Ontario. A copy of the Record of Site Condition, acknowledged by the Ministry of
Environment and Energy, shall be provided to the City’s Principal Planner.
4. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. for
adjustments to the electrical servicing to the lands to be severed.
5. That the owner shall make arrangements for the granting of any easements required by
Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc.
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 January 8, 2004. .
Carried
ADJOURNMENT
On motion, the meeting adjourned at 11:25 a.m.
th
Dated at the City of Kitchener this 8 day of January, 2002.
J. Billett
Secretary-Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment