Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2002-01-29 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD JANUARY 29. 2002 MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. P. Kruse, P. Britton, and D. Cybalski. OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. Given, Principal Planner, Mr. G. Richardson, Senior Planner and Ms. J. Billett, Secretary-Treasurer. Mr. P Kruse, Vice-Chair, called this meeting to order at 9:40 a.m. Moved by Mr. P. Britton Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment of January 8, 2002, as mailed to the members, be accepted. Carried UNFINISHED BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE 1. Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: A 2001-059 Bridal Penthouse Limited/Tiffany's 9 Stirling Avenue North and 762-778 King Street East Part Lots 1 and 2 Registered Plan 77 Appearances: In Support: Mr. W. Boehler Artindale & Partners 101 Frederick St., Suite 510 P.O. Box 996 Kitchener, ON N2G 4E6 Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None This application was originally considered by the Committee at its meeting held on September 11 , 2001 at which time the application was deferred to allow an opportunity for arrangements to be made with the neighbouring church property for off-street parking. This application was subsequently deferred on four other occasions. The Committee was previously advised that the applicant is requesting legalization of two existing retail commercial structures on site with the building situate at the westerly corner (Bridal Penthouse) having a 0 m front yard setback, rather than the required 3 m (9.84 ft.) and the building situate at the easterly corner (Freeman's Formals) having a rear yard setback of 2.19 m (7.19 ft.), rather than 7.5 m (24.6 ft.). In addition, a reduction in the number of required parking spaces from 25 to 13 spaces and for one of the parking spaces to have a 0 m setback from the front lot line, rather than the required 3 m (9.84 ft.), is also requested. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 25 JANUARY 29, 2002 1. Submission No.: A 2001-059 !Cont'd) The Committee noted revised comments of Business and Planning Services dated January 28, 2002, together with a revised sketch showing the proposed parking on site that will be achieved from the demolition of the existing structure at 9 Stirling Avenue, in which they advised that they are in support of the application as amended to request a reduction in the minimum number of required parking spaces from 24 to 21 and to permit parking spaces to be located 0 metres from the Stirling Avenue street line; and, subject to certain conditions as outlined in their comments. The Committee noted revised comments from the Traffic and Parking Analyst, dated January 29, 2002, in which he advised that based on the revised application, Traffic and Parking is in support of the application subject to any future development differing from the existing being reviewed by staff ofTraffic and Parking. The Chair reviewed the comments and inquired if Mr. Boehler had anything further to add. Mr. W. Boehler referred to the deadline of July 15, 2002 to satisfy conditions and suggested that this may not be sufficient given the process to undertake demolition of the structure at 9 Stirling Avenue. In response to the Chair, Ms. J. Given advised that the deadline is imposed to ensure that the legal non-conforming use ceases within a reasonable period of time and pointed out that an extension to the deadline could be requested in writing should the owner not be able to comply by July 15th The Committee agreed, however, to change the deadline to August 30, 2002. Mr. D. Cybalski inquired if Mr. Boehler was prepared to amend the application as noted in the staff comments and Mr. Boehler agreed. In response to Mr. P. Britton, Ms. J. Given advised that the zoning of 9 Stirling Avenue is identical to the remainder of the property, being CR-4 and staff are generally satisfied with the preliminary site plan and proposed parking; however, she indicated that there may be minor adjustments with respect to the parking spaces beside the existing building. In response to Mr. P. Kruse, Mr. Boehler advised that the property owner had been unsuccessful in reaching an agreement with the adjacent church property for parking off-site. He noted that the church was concerned with having an agreement registered on title that may prevent future expansion of the church property. Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski Seconded by Mr. P. Britton That the application of Bridal Penthouse Limited/Tiffany's requesting permission to legalize two existing retail commercial structures on the subject property, with the building at the westerly corner (Tiffany's) having a 0 m front yard setback, rather than the required 3 m (9.84 ft.) and the building situate at the easterly corner (Freeman's Formals) having a rear yard setback of 2.19 m (7.19 ft.), rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.); and to permit a reduction in the number of required parking spaces from 24 parking spaces to 21 spaces, and to permit 2 parking spaces to be setback 0 metres from the Stirling Avenue lot line, rather than the required 3 m (9.84 ft.); on Part Lots 1 and 2, Registered Plan 77, 762-778 King Street East / 9 Stirling Avenue North, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the variance for a reduction in the number of required off-street parking spaces shall not be applicable to convenience retail uses. 2. That the amount of floor area that can be used for retail use shall be limited to a maximum of 475.8 m2 (5,121.63 sq. ft.). 3. That the owner shall obtain Council approval for the demolition of the single detached dwelling municipally known as 9 Stirling Avenue. 4. That a final site plan shall be submitted, showing the location of 21 parking spaces, to be approved to the satisfaction of the City's Principal Planner. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 26 JANUARY 29, 2002 1. Submission No.: A 2001-059 !Cont'd) 5. That the new parking area shall be asphalted and the 21 parking spaces shall be demarcated on the asphalt to the satisfaction of the City's Principal Planner. 6. That Conditions 3, 4 and 5 as set out in this decision, shall be satisfied prior to August 30, 2002. No extensions to this completion date shall be granted unless approved in writing by the City's Principal Planner prior to the completion date set out in this decision. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1 . The variances requested in this application are minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried CONSENT 1. Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Leaal Description: B 2001-065 Timothy Pynn 90 Florence Avenue Lot 108. Part Lots 109 & 116. Reqistered Plan 308 Appearances: In Support: Mr. 1. Pynn Mr. D. Voisin 90 Florence Ave. Kitchener, ON N2A 2K8 Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: Neighbourhood Petition Mrs. L. Bettany 145 Walker Street Kitchener, ON N2A 1 S4 This application was originally considered at the Committee's meeting on December 11 , 2001 at which time it was deferred to allow an opportunity for a revised plan to be prepared showing the proposed dwelling on the severed parcel and to provide opportunity for the applicant to explore possible acquisition of land from an adjacent property owner. This application was subsequently deferred again at the Committee's January 8th meeting to allow a more detailed plan to be prepared. 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 depth of 20.73 m (68 ft.) and an area of 315.93 m2 (3,400.75 sq. ft.). The Committee was in receipt this date of a revised site plan prepared by Mr. D. Voisin. The Chair reviewed the revised site plan, and inquired if staff were now satisfied. Ms. J. Given advised that the parking area as shown on the plan does not meet the 6 m setback required for a COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 27 JANUARY 29, 2002 1. Submission No.: B 2001-065 !Cont'd) legal parking space. She pointed out that if an attached garage was incorporated into the building design this would address the issue of parking. She further advised that attempts to contact the applicant to determine if a garage was intended were unsuccessful. In response to the Chair, Mr. Pynn advised that he did not intend to have a garage. In response to Mr. P. Britton, Mr. Pynn advised that an approach has been made to the adjacent property owner relative to acquisition of part of the rear lands of 86 Lawrence Avenue. He noted that negotiations are ongoing; however, he wished to proceed with this application as the proposed lot does meet all zoning requirements. Mr. Pynn further advised that he had spoken with Ms. Bettany and in his opinion, her objection related to her unsuccessful proposal to purchase part of the subject property prior to this application being submitted for the purpose of widening her driveway. He also stated that he had spoken with the signators to the petition who had been under the assumption that the proposed dwelling would house undesirable tenants. He advised that he had given assurances this would not be the case and pointed out that there are a number of other rental units in the area. In response to Mr. D. Cybalski, the Secretary-Treasurer advised that correspondence had been forwarded to Ms. Bettany advising the application was to be considered this date and no response had been forthcoming. In response to the Chair, Ms. Given advised that staff are still opposed to the application as the plan submitted does not comply with parking regulations. Mr. D. Voisin stated that he had been of the understanding the 6 metre setback was from the sidewalk and Ms. Given clarified how the setback is measured. The Committee then discussed options to address the issue of parking, including: . incorporating an attached garage into the design of the proposed dwelling; . submission of a minor variance application requesting relief of the 6 metre parking setback; . recessing the proposed dwelling further back on the lot which would also require submission of a minor variance application to request relief of the 7.5 metre rear yard setback. The Chair inquired if the applicant wished to further defer the application to explore these options. Mr. Voisin advised that he had not included a garage as he felt the lot was not big enough. Mr. Pynn expressed the opinion that the building design could be changed; however, noted this application has been before the Committee on several occasions. Ms. Given suggested that rather than deferring the matter further, the Committee consider that if the applicant were prepared to include a garage, if this would result in a favourable decision. In response to Mr. D. Cybalski, Ms. Given advised that the proposed duplex requires two parking spaces which can be one ahead of the other, with one space behind the 6 metre setback and one ahead. In response to further questions, Mr. Voisin stated that while the design could be changed, he preferred more home space and it would not be possible to achieve the proposed three bedroom units if a garage was incorporated. Mr. P. Britton expressed the opinion that it was important to consider if the proposal is in keeping with the nature of the surrounding area and in this case, he felt the proposal was inconsistent with the general character of the neighbourhood. He stated that he could not support the application as requested; however, should additional lands be acquired from the adjacent property he may take a differing view. Mr. P. Kruse stated that in his opinion, little would be served by adding the additional piece of land. He noted that alteration of the configuration of the proposed dwelling would be minimal given the location of existing dwellings. He further noted the additional land is part of the backyard of 86 Florence Avenue and would remain as backyard even if added to the subject property; only the ownership would change. He further expressed the opinion that there is a need for additional rental units and as there are existing rental units in the area did not view this proposal as COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 28 JANUARY 29, 2002 1. Submission No.: B 2001-065 !Cont'd) inconsistent. Mr. Kruse advised that he would support the application subject to the site plan being revised to incorporate a garage to address the issue of parking. Mr. D. Cybalski agreed with the comments of Mr. Kruse and advised that he would also support the application subject to the proposed revision to the site plan. Ms. J. Given suggested that the Committee also consider standard conditions of approval and the following were agreed to: . payment of a cash-in-Iieu contribution for parkland dedication equal to 5% of the value of the lands to be severed; . financial arrangements for all required service connections and installation of boulevard landscaping on the severed lands; . payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski Seconded by Mr. P. Britton That the application of Timothy Pynn requesting permission to convey a parcel of land for residential development having frontage on Walker Street of 15.24 m (50 ft.), by a depth of 20.73 m (68 ft.) and an area of 316 m2 (3,402 sq. ft.), on Lot 108 and Part Lots 109 & 116, Registered Plan 308, 90 Florence Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the location of the dwelling and required parking be designed to comply with all zoning regulations. 2. That the owner shall pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-Iieu contribution for park dedication equal to 5% of the value of the lands to be severed. 3. That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Assistant General Manager of Engineering Services for the installation of all sanitary, storm and water connections to the severed land. 4. That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Assistant General Manager of Engineering Services for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping including street trees, and a paved driveway ramp, on the severed lands. 5. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding municipal 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 January 29, 2004. Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 29 JANUARY 29, 2002 2. Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: B 2001-068 1021269 Ontario Limited 71 Morrison Road & 165 Chandos Drive Part of Lot 53, German Company Tract, and Part Lot 12, Beasley's Old Survey Appearances: In Support: Mr. Craig Robson Barrister & Solicitor 675 Riverbend Dr. Kitchener, ON N2K 3S3 Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None Prior to consideration of the application the Committee was advised that Green, Scheels, Pidgeon Planning Consultants Ltd. had been authorized in writing by the owner to act in this matter. Mr. Craig Robson who was in attendance to support the application advised the Committee that he had been retained as Solicitor for the property owner and as such should have standing at this hearing. The Committee concurred with Mr. Robson. This application was originally considered by the Committee at its 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 storm water management outlet and subsequent need, if required, to extend the requested easement. This application was subsequently deferred again at the Committee's January 8th meeting to allow additional time to review the easement document. 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 revised comments of Business and Planning Services dated January 25, 2002 in which they advised that they are in support of the application subject to an amendment to include an additional easement for storm water management over Part of Lot 53, German Company Tract and Part of Lot 12, Beasley's Old Survey, and subject to certain conditions as outlined in their comments. The Chair reviewed the revised comments and inquired if Mr. Robson had anything further to add. Mr. C. Robson advised that he had reviewed the comments and was in agreement with the recommendations contained therein. Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski Seconded by Mr. P. Britton That the application of 1021269 Ontario Limited requesting granting of an easement for storm water management over Part of Lot 53, German Company Tract, designated as Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-13111; and to grant an easement for storm water management over Part of Lot 53, German Company Tract and Part of Lot 12, Beasley's Old Survey being Part 1 on WDR 154, save and except Plan 1447, save and except Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-13111; both in favour of abutting lands legally described as Part of Block 85, Plan 1692, being Parts 7 to 11 inclusive on Reference Plan 58R-8315 and Parts 1 and 2 on Reference Plan 58R-13004, known municipally as 165 Chandos Drive; on Part Lot 53, German Company Tract, 71 Morrison Road, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 30 JANUARY 29, 2002 2. Submission No.: B 2001-068 !Cont'd) 1. That the owner of Part of Lot 53, German Company Tract and Part of Lot 12, Beasley's Old Survey, and the owner of Part of Block 85, Registered Plan 1692, Part 7 to 11 inclusive, Plan 58R-8315 and Parts 1 & 2 Plan 58R-13004, and Waterloo Condominium Plan 211 shall enter into an agreement to be approved by the City Solicitor, which will ensure that an easement for storm water management and a joint maintenance agreement for both properties are maintained in perpetuity, and provide confirmation that said agreement has been registered against the title of both properties. 2. That 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 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 29, 2004. Carried The Committee then recessed the meeting, temporarily, at 10:20 a.m. in order to consider applications for minor variance to the City of Kitchener's Sign By-law. This meeting reconvened at 10:38 a.m. NEW BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE 1. Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Leaal Description: A 2002-009 Michael & Sofia Panchaud' 11 Idle Ridge Court Lot 11 . Reqistered Plan 1647 Appearances: In Support: Mr. C. Dawson Chicopee Craftsman (1999) Inc. 10 Shirley Ave. Kitchener, ON N2B 2E1 Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a one storey addition to the rear of the existing single residential dwelling having a rear yard setback of 6.53 m (21.42 ft.), rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft). COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 31 JANUARY 29, 2002 1. Submission No.: A 2002-009 !Cont'd) The Committee noted the comments of Business and Planning Services dated January 21 , 2002 in which they advised that they are in support of the application. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised a building permit is required for 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 comments and inquired if Mr. Dawson had anything further to add. Mr. C. Dawson advised that the existing structure was constructed without a basement and the proposed addition is the only means of providing additional living space for the property owner. He further stated that in designing the addition, care was taken to ensure minimal impact to neighbouring properties. Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski Seconded by Mr. P. Britton That the application of Michael and Sofia Panchaud requesting permission to construct a one storey addition to the rear of the existing single residential dwelling having a rear yard setback of 6.53 m (21.42 ft.), rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.), on Lot 11, Registered Plan 1647, 11 Idle Ridge Court, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the variance as approved in this application shall be generally in accordance with the drawing submitted with Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 2002-009. 2. That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to construction of the new addition. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 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.: Applicant: Property Location: Leaal Description: A 2002-010 Nurko Sokolovic 727-729 King Street East Lot 5. Reqistered Plan 634 Appearances: In Support: Mr. B. Kelly Kelly & Co. 903-50 Queen St. N. Kitchener, ON N2H 6P4 Mr. N. Sokolovic 520 Hallmark Dr. Waterloo, ON N2K 3P5 Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 32 JANUARY 29, 2002 2. Submission No.: A 2002-010 !Cont'd) The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission for a reduction in the number of parking spaces required for expansion of an existing restaurant use from 36 parking spaces to 10. The Committee noted the comments of Business and Planning Services dated January 21 , 2002 in which they advised that they do not support the application. Highlights of their concerns are as follows: . the impact of the variance is not considered minor or appropriate as the 16 spaces required to use the upper floor as restaurant must be accommodated on the local street network; the street network in this area has limited on-street parking and a relatively high volume of traffic; the additional on-street parking could be detrimental to neighbourhood amenity by having the effect of dominating the limited on-street spaces and could result in illegal parking on neighbouring properties; . the variance does not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan; the objective of the Municipal Plan is to ensure adequate parking standards and these are in place for restaurant use within the Zoning By-law and have been applied for some time; the 10 spaces provided on site is well below the 36 spaces required. The Chair reviewed the comments and inquired if Mr. Kelly had anything further to add. Mr. B. Kelly, Solicitor for the applicant, requested that this application be deferred to allow additional documentation to be provided. In addition, he advised that he wished to amend the application to request a reduction in the number of required parking spaces from 16 spaces to 7 based on interpretation of an Ontario Municipal Board Order. He pointed out that the additional spaces will require an off-site parking agreement. The Chair inquired if Mr. Sokolovic intended to change the existing structure to accommodate the proposed expansion of the restaurant use. Mr. Sokolovic advised that the existing upper floor is now intended to be used for restaurant and no change to the structure is necessary. The Chair inquired if Mr. Kelly wished to amend the application now and proceed with consideration this date. Mr. Kelly agreed to amend the application; however, he indicated that he intended to bring forward additional information for the Committee's consideration. Mr. G. Richardson then provided an overview of the history of the property, involving renovations to the restaurant that required a minor variance application that was not submitted for consideration; a subsequent minor variance application submitted for consideration to reduce the number of required parking spaces which was refused by the Committee and appealed by the applicant to the Ontario Municipal Board; the Board's ruling which resulted in a favourable decision subject to an additional 10 parking spaces being provided within a specified period of time; dismissal of the Board's approval following expiration of an extension to the deadline as only 7 spaces were obtained, resulting in the owner not having approval to use the upper floor as restaurant. Mr. Richardson advised that relief of 16 spaces is now required relative to the upper floor and the owner proposes to provide 7 spaces, for which an off-site parking agreement will be necessary. Mr. Richardson commented that this will result in 9 parking spaces being accommodated on the local street network in an area that already experiences parking problems. Mr. Kelly advised that it was his client's intention to obtain an off-site parking agreement which is intended to be included in the additional documentation to be brought back to the Committee when the matter is further considered. He pointed out that Mr. Sokolovic has paid for use of 7 off- site parking spaces; however, does not have formal agreement with the owner. Mr. P. Britton requested additional information be provided when this matter is reconsidered relative to how the business functions in practise and the impact the billiard attraction may have on parking needs. He further suggested that if the seating arrangements for restaurant use are to be increased Mr. Sokolovic should consider if he would be prepared to agree to restrictions regarding the billiard tables. Mr. Sokolovic advised that while he owned the property, the COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 33 JANUARY 29, 2002 2. Submission No.: A 2002-010 !Cont'd) business is operated by his tenants and that parking is only a problem on Sundays as a church leases spaces on the adjoining property. Mr. Britton requested that the issues raised be discussed with the business operator. By general consent, it was agreed that this application would be deferred to the Committee's meeting to be held on Tuesday, April 16, 2002. 3. Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Leaal Description: A 2002-011 Gregory Lobe/Paul Reimer 36 Guelph Street Lot 1 and Part Lot 2. Reqistered Plan 259 Appearances: In Support: Mr. G. Lobe Mr. P. Reimer 169 Waterloo St. Kitchener, ON N2H 3V5 Contra: None Other: Ms. K. Wilhelm 87 DeKay St. Kitchener, ON N2H 3T5 Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to convert an existing duplex/convenience retail use to a triplex having a lot area of 344.6 m2 (3,709.36 sq. ft.), rather than the required 495 m2 (5,328.31 sq. ft.); a lot width of 10.7 m (35.10 ft.), rather than the required 15 m (49.21 ft.); a front yard setback of 1.8 m (5.9 ft.), rather than 4.5 m (14.76 ft.); a side yard setback adjacent to Dekay Street of 1 m (3.28 ft.), rather than the required 4.5 m (14.76 ft.); and, an easterly side yard setback of 0.5 m (1.64 ft.), rather than the required 1.2 m (3.94 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of Business and Planning Services dated January 18, 2002 in which they advised that they are in support of the application, relative only to the existing building, as amended to reflect a lot area of 339 m2 and subject to certain conditions as outlined in their comments. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building permit is required to convert to a triplex. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic and Parking Analyst, the Region of Waterloo and the Grand River Conservation Aurthority in which they advised that they have no concerns or comments with respect to this application. The Chair reviewed the comments and inquired if the applicants had anything further to add. Mr. Lobe and Mr. Reimer advised that they had nothing further to add. Ms. K. Wilhelm advised that she was the owner of 87 DeKay Street and was generally in support of the application. She stated that she was in support of the recommendation to phase out the commercial use; however, the comments of staff were not clear on this issue and she wished to have assurance this use would not continue now or in the future. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 34 JANUARY 29, 2002 3. Submission No.: A 2002-011 !Cont'd) Ms. J. Given advised that the staff recommendation attempts to ensure the commercial use ceases; however, pointed out that approval of the application in itself does not accomplish the desired result. She stated that the applicants would have to go forward with the process of renovating and physically add the third residential unit; and, if proceeded with, the commercial use would then have to cease. In response to a question from Ms. Wilhelm, Ms. Given advised that if the commercial use ceases the legal non-conforming status is no longer retained. Mr. Britton clarified that when the commercial use ceases it loses legal non-conforming status and in order to reinstate commercial use on the subject site the owner would be required to make application for a zone change. Mr. P. Britton raised concern regarding retainment and maintenance of the rear yard fence. Ms. Given advised that it was unclear if the fence belonged to the subject property. Mr. Lobe advised that he could not confirm the fence was on the subject property; however, indicated he had no intention of removing the fence and should it become a problem in future, would speak with the neighbours prior to taking any action. Mr. Britton suggested that the Committee impose a condition to require the fence to be maintained provided it was located on the subject property. Moved by Mr. P. Britton Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski That the application of Gregory Lobe and Paul Reimer requesting permission to convert an existing duplex/convenience retail use to a triplex having a lot area of 339 m2 (3,649.08 sq. ft.), rather than the required 495 m2 (5,328.31 sq. ft.); a lot width of 10.7 m (35.10 ft.), rather than the required 15 m (49.21 ft.); a front yard setback of 1.8 m (5.9 ft.), rather than the required 4.5 m (14.76 ft.); a side yard setback adjacent to DeKay Street of 1 m (3.28 ft.), rather than the required 4.5 m (14.76 ft.); and an easterly side yard setback of 0.5 m (1.64 ft.), rather than the required 1.2 m (3.94 ft.); on Lot 1 and Part Lot 2, Registered Plan 259, 36 Guelph Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to conversion to the triplex. 2. That the owner shall maintain the existing fence provided the fence is located on the subject property. 3. That all convenience commercial features and components (such as the two existing fascia signs) shall be removed prior to April 29, 2002. No extension to this completion date shall be granted unless approved in writing by the Principal Planner prior to the completion date set out in this decision. 4. That the rear yard shall be maintained in accordance with the plan attached to Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 2002-011, whereby the parking area may not extend more than 8.53 m (28 ft.) from the rear building wall, and whereby the existing landscaped amenity area may not be reduced from its irregular shape of 5.48 m x 10.66 m (18 ft. x 35 ft.). It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 35 JANUARY 29, 2002 CONSENT 1. Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: B 2002-004 Udvari Investments & Construction Inc. 25 Mcintyre Place & 162 Mcintyre Drive Part Lot 14, Registered Plan 1471, designated as Parts 29 and 30 on Reference Plan 58R-5668 Appearances: In Support: Mr. U. Roetsch 284 Frederick St. Kitchener, ON N2H 2N4 Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to divide the subject lands by severing 25 Mcintyre Place from 162 Mcintyre Drive. The severed lands contain an existing commercial building having frontage on Mcintyre Place of 100 m (328.08 ft.), by an average depth of 60 m (196.85 ft) and an area of 6,000 m2 (64,585.57 sq. ft.). The Committee noted the comments of Business and Planning Services dated January 22, 2002 in which they advised that they are in support of the application subject to certain conditions as outlined in their comments. 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 they have no objection to this application; however, the lands have been identified as potentially contaminated based on historic use of the lands. They further advised that the Region has no direct corporate interest and if a Record of Site Condition or other similar requirement is to be imposed it should be imposed as a condition of the Committee. The Chair reviewed the comments and inquired if Mr. Roetsch had anything further to add. Mr. U. Roetsch, Solicitor for the applicant, questioned the need to impose a condition requiring a Record of Site Condition. He pointed out that the lands involved had merged on title under one ownership and the nature of the consent was simply technical to once again separate the lands into individual lots. He further stated that he believed an environmental assessment had already been completed as part of the recent construction on site. Ms. J. Given advised that Regional staff only have concern with the severed parcel. She noted that the suggested agreement only requires a Record of Site Condition to be completed for any future construction or grading to ensure there are no health issues. In response to a question from Mr. Roetsch, Ms. Given advised that the City is not able to require a Record of Site Condition through the building permit process. Mr. P. Britton raised concern with the shifting of responsibility from the Region to the City and commented that the condition is really for benefit of future purchasers. In this regard, he suggested that alternatively the owner be required to ensure that the Region's comments are included in any offer to purchase to alert future purchasers. The Chair indicated that he was in agreement with the comments of Mr. Britton. He was also of the opinion that any redevelopment would likely require financing and financial institutions require environmental assessments as part of the financing approval process. He stated that he was COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 36 JANUARY 29, 2002 1. Submission No.: B 2002-004 !Cont'd) comfortable not imposing the staff condition given that the Region's comments are not conclusive on the issue of health or safety risks and felt responsibility should rest with the vendor to undertake due diligence in including the Region's comments in any offer to purchase. Ms. Given pointed out that the Region has provided a protocol letter for the purpose of informing the Committee and cautioned that the issue should be seriously considered as it is a matter of local interest. The Chair commented that he felt adequate protection was in place through financial institutional approval processes and suggested it was unlikely substantial redevelopment would be undertaken given the existing industrial building on site. Ms. Given suggested that the entire matter be further explored by the Committee for the purpose of developing a consistent approach and to consider the issue of liability. Mr. Britton stated that given financial institutions have built in safeguards he felt liability would more appropriately be left between the vendor and purchaser. The Chair suggested that in cases where health and safety issues are definitive the condition should be included; however, in this case he noted that the Region is uncertain. He agreed that this matter should be further reviewed by the Committee and discussions undertaken as to how to differentiate on a case by case basis. Mr. Roetsch further advised that a mortgage exists on the property and reiterated his belief that an environmental assessment would have been completed at the time of mortgaging. Moved by Mr. P. Britton Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski That the application of Udvari Investments & Construction Inc. requesting permission to convey a parcel of land containing an existing commercial building having frontage on Mcintyre Place of 100 m (328.08 ft.), by an average depth of 60 m (196.85 ft.) and an area of 6,000 m2 (64,585.57 sq. ft.), on Part Lot 14, Registered Plan 1471, designated as Parts 29 and 30 on Reference Plan 58R-5668, 25 Mcintyre Place and 162 Mcintyre Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE 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 January 29, 2004. Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 37 JANUARY 29, 2002 2. Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: B 2002-005 Waterloo Regional District School Board 56 Pioneer Tower Road Part Lot 9, Beasley's Broken Front Concession, designated as Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-11471 Appearances: In Support: Mr. U. Roetsch 284 Frederick St. Kitchener, ON N2H 2N4 Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting the granting of an easement having an area of 64 m2 (688.91 sq. ft.) in favour of Bell Canada for installation of an electronic cabinet. The Committee noted the comments of Business and Planning Services dated January 22, 2002 in which they advised that they are in support of the application subject to certain conditions as noted in their comments. 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 concerns or comments with respect to this application. The Chair reviewed the comments and inquired if Mr. Roetsch had anything further to add. Mr. U. Roetsch advised that an easement had existed on the property in favour of Bell Canada; however, the easement had lapsed as a Renewal Notice of Easement had not been registered within a 40 year period and the purpose of the application is to ensure validation of the easement. Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski Seconded by Mr. P. Britton That the application of the Waterloo Regional District School Board requesting granting of an easement, having an area of 64 m2 (688.91 sq. ft.), over Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-11471, in favour of Bell Canada for installation of an electronic cabinet, on Part of Lot 9, Beasley's Broken Front Concession, 56 Pioneer Tower Road, Kitchener, Ontario, BE 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 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 38 JANUARY 29, 2002 2. Submission No.: B 2002-005 !Cont'd) Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being January 29, 2004. Carried ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 11 :30 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 29th day of January, 2002. J. Billett Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment