HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2006-06-13COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
FOR THE
CITY OF KITCHENER
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD JUNE 13, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. P. Britton, B. Isaac and Z. Janecki.
OFFICIALS PRESENT: Mr. B. Sloan, Senior Planner, Mr. A. Pinnell, Planner, Mr. R. Parent, Traffic
and Parking Analyst, Ms. D. Gilchrist, Secretary-Treasurer, and Ms. R.
Brent, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer.
Mr P. Britton, Chair, called this meeting to order at 9:55 a.m.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
MINOR VARIANCE
1. Submission No.: A 2006-032
Applicant: Cloty & Detlef Blankschein
Property Location: 78 Waterloo Street
Legal Description: Lot 417, Registered Plan 376
Appearances:
In Support: C. & D. Blankschein
Contra: K. & H. Lippert
M. Petricevic
C. Pellerin
Written Submissions: J. MacKay
S. Petricevic
K. Lippert
D. Pellerin
The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission to convert a duplex to a
triplex on a lot having an area of 342 sq. m. (3,681.37 sq. ft.) rather than the required 495 sq. m.
(5,328.31 sq. ft.), and a width of 14.03m (46') rather than the required 15m (49.21'), and
permission to provide parking spaces in tandem, in front of the existing garage, and on the north
side of the property, for a total of 5off-street parking spaces, whereas the zoning by-law does not
permit tandem parking.
The Committee considered the report of the City's Planning Division, dated June 8, 2006 advising
the subject property is located on the east side of Waterloo Street between Shanley Street and
Louisa Street. The property's south side yard abuts a public laneway. The property contains a
building currently being used as duplex dwelling and includes an attached garage. The rear 3.05
metre portion of the property contains a legal right-of-way access in favour of the property to the
north, which is currently being used as a convenience retail store, and is zoned for such. The
majority of the surrounding area accommodates mainly single detached dwellings. The subject
property is designated as Low Rise Residential in the Municipal Plan and is zoned Residential
Five (R-5) in the Zoning By-law.
The owner is proposing to initiate interior changes to the existing building in order to
accommodate a third unit (basement), thereby rendering the building a triplex. No exterior
changes to the building are proposed at this time. The applicant is requesting the following
variances:
1. a reduction in the minimum lot width to 14.03 metres whereas the Zoning By-law requires
15.0 metres;
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 80 JUNE 13, 2006
1. Submission No.: A 2006-032 Cont'd
2. a reduction in the minimum lot area to 342 square metres whereas, the Zoning By-law
requires that the proposed triplex have a minimum lot area of 495.0 square metres; and,
3. that tandem parking for two separate parking spaces be allowed (2 in the north side yard,
2 in the rear yard)
Section 6.1.2a) of the Zoning By-law requires that multiple dwellings totalling 3 to five dwelling
units have 1.0 spaces for each dwelling unit; however, if the units have a floor area of 51.0 square
metres or less, only 0.165 spaces are required. The owner has provided further information to
the application, indicating that the proposed third unit has a floor area of 49.2 square metres,
while the main floor and upper floor levels are more than 51.0 square metres. The parking
requirement for the proposed triplex, therefore, is 2 spaces (S. 6.1.2.b.i).
It should be noted that the subject dwelling has existing setbacks that are legal under the Vacuum
Clause provisions of the Zoning By-law:
• front yard, being approximately 2 metres, whereas the R-5 provisions require 4.5 metres;
• north side yard, being 0.55 metres, whereas the R-5 provisions require 1.2 metres;
• south side yard, being 1.13 metres, whereas the R-5 provisions require 1.2 metres; and,
• rear yard, being approximately 5.17 whereas the R-5 provisions require 7.5 metres.
The subject application was deferred at the May 9, 2006 Committee of Adjustment Meeting in
order to allow staff to discuss the application further with the applicant and with members of the
community to further define and resolve associated issues and concerns.
On Wednesday May 17, 2006, Planning Staff participated in a public meeting which included
members of the public, concerned neighbours, the applicant. Staff described the subject
application and requested feedback with members of the community. The concerns of the public,
as identified through the public meeting and through letters received by Staff, are summarized
below:
• Lack of amenity space on the site
• Amenity space is on the front lawn and front porch only
• Increased traffic / on-street parking associated with the proposed use
• Proposed density is excessive
• Refusal of similar Committee of Adjustment application for 151 Louisa Street
• Noise /disruption emanating from existing units
• History of problem tenants
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following comments:
1. Lot Width (14.03 metres instead of 15.0 metres)
The property is designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Municipal Plan, which permits a
range of residential uses including triplexes. The variance meets the intent of the Municipal Plan.
The main intent of the Zoning By-law requirement for minimum lot width is to ensure that there is
enough frontage for an adequately sized building and to accommodate a driveway that would
lead to a rear yard parking area. In this case, the rear yard parking area is accessible from the
laneway immediately south of the property. The side yard parking area is accessible from
Waterloo Street. There are no proposed changes to the existing building. The variance meets
the intent of the Zoning By-law.
The overall impact of the proposed variance can be considered minor as the application does not
propose new development and will not change the building size or shape, and the access to
parking spaces is not dependent upon the lot width, in this case.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 81 JUNE 13, 2006
1. Submission No.: A 2006-032 Cont'd
The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land. There is limited opportunity
to increase the lot width of the subject property in order to comply with the Zoning By-law
requirement. Due to the fact that vehicular access to the site can be achieved given the present
lot width, there is no added benefit or need to have additional lot width. A lot width of 14.03
metres is appropriate.
2. Lot Area (342 square metres instead of 495.0 square metres)
The property is designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Municipal Plan, which permits a
range of residential uses including triplexes. The variance meets the intent of the Municipal Plan.
The Zoning By-law requires a larger minimum lot area for triplexes than it does for single
detached dwellings and duplex dwellings. The main reason for this is to ensure that there is
sufficient space for an appropriately sized building, amenity space for residents, and parking area.
As abovementioned, the rear yard, front yard, and both side yards are legal under the Vacuum
Clause of the Zoning By-law, even though they do not meet the requirements of the R-5 zoning
provisions. The practical usability of these yards; however, is limited. The usability of the rear
yard is further diminished due to a legal right-of-way existing along the rear 3.05 metres of the lot
as well as the use of the rear area for parking. These facts reduce the usability of the rear area
as an amenity space to nearly nil.
Through further information provided by the applicant, indicating that the third dwelling unit would
be less than 51 square metres, it was determined that only 2 parking spaces would be required
for this site. These two spaces could be accommodated behind the main part of the dwelling, one
in the attached garage, and one adjacent to the right-of-way and south of the garage; however,
the application should ensure an appropriate number of spaces are provided to meet the demand
of tenants and visitors.
The lot area variance, as proposed on the application may not be minor in nature and may not be
appropriate for the development and use of the land, as it does not allow sufficient amenity space
to exist and may be considered over-development of the property.
3. Tandem Parking for Two Separate Parking Spaces (parking spaces must not necessitate
the moving of any other vehicle)
The Municipal Plan requires that all parking areas shall be designed, constructed, and maintained
for the safe and efficient movement of motor vehicles and pedestrians, on the site, and at points
of ingress and egress related to the site. Staff are of the opinion that the variance does not
comply with the intent of the Municipal Plan as it does not allow safe nor efficient movement of
vehicles.
The variance does not meet the intent of the Zoning By-law as it requires that another vehicle be
moved in order to gain access to a parking stall, thereby impeding the efficient movement of
vehicles. Transportation Planning Staff have commented that they do not support tandem
parking on the site. The variance is not minor, nor is it appropriate for the development or use of
the lands. Furthermore, tandem parking is not required in order to accommodate the required
two parking spaces, as one space could be located within the attached garage and the other
adjacent to the right-of-way and south of the garage.
Staff cannot support this application in its current state.
If the proposal was amended and/or the Committee of Adjustment should choose to approve the
application, the following should be considered:
Staff believe that an amenity space of sufficient size may be accommodated north of the main
part of the dwelling and west of the attached garage. This would require that the subject
application be amended to remove the two parking spaces in this vicinity. In order to address
concerns of the public, an amenity space in this area could be visually blocked from public view
with the use of a solid board fence or other visual barrier.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 82 JUNE 13, 2006
1. Submission No.: A 2006-032 Cont'd
A condition such as the following could be imposed:
1. That a site plan be approved and registered on the title of the property showing and
implementing the removal of parking north of the main part of the building, installation of
amenity space and a fence or other visual barrier, and rear parking detail to the
satisfaction of the Supervisor of Site Plan Development.
The Committee noted the comments of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
April 30, 2006 advising they have no objections to this application.
The Committee considered the written submissions from neighbourhood residents in opposition
to this application.
Mr. Pinnell advised that since this Committee's May meeting, a neighbourhood meeting was held
to allow discussion of this application, and to define and if possible, resolve, issues. The main
concerns articulated by the neighbours are the amount and location of off-street parking and
outdoor amenity space. The neighbours are not satisfied that approval of this application is
appropriate.
The Chair noted that staff's zoning analysis reveals that only 2off-street parking spaces are
required, yet the applicants propose 5 spaces, and he questioned whether removal of some of
the excess parking spaces would allow for more outdoor amenity space. Also, which of the
parking spaces, if removed, would provide the best location for amenity space. Mr. Pinnell
responded that tandem parking is not desirable. He recommended 1off-street parking space be
located in the garage and one space beside laneway would be the best situation. Then, the 2
parking spaces on the north side of the building could be removed and turned into outdoor
amenity space. Mr. Pinnell advised that the City's Urban Design Manual recommends 11 sq. m.
of outdoor amenity space for each dwelling unit. By removing the 2 parking spaces on the north
side of the building, there would be more than 33 sq. m. available for outdoor amenity space.
The Chair stated this Committee wishes to be consistent in its decision-making, and questioned
the difference between this application, and the application for a triplex on Cameron Street, to be
considered later in this meeting. Mr. B. Sloan responded that every application is different. This
application has a greater lot area variance, has aright-of-way to benefit the abutting property, and
is in an area which may already have a higher density.
Mr. Blankschein addressed the Committee stating this application should be approved, as there
will be no changes made to the building, either inside or out. With respect to parking, Mr.
Blankschein advised he indicated a possible 5 parking spaces on the plan so the most
appropriate ones could be chosen. He was first advised by staff that he must provide 3off-street
parking spaces, but is now advised only 2 spaces are required. With respect to outdoor amenity
space, he worked with staff to determine an appropriate location, and the available space is
within the minimum required, and could be increased. Further, screening of the amenity area can
be achieved with plantings.
Mr. Blankschein also explained that the neighbours are reacting to past history with respect to
owners of and tenants at this property. He bought this property and has fixed it up, for which he
has been congratulated by the neighbours. Since his first tenant who was evicted, there have
been not problems. He advised he is at the property regularly and is attentive to what goes on at
this property.
The Chair questioned whether Mr. Blankschein would be prepared to reduce the amount of
parking and increase the amenity space. Mr. Blankschein advised he has already submitted a
revised plan to staff in this regard. He then explained that one of his tenants runs a home
business from his dwelling unit.
The Chair questioned staff as to the number of parking spaces required when this property was
used as a duplex, which staff advised is 2 spaces. The Chair commented that there will not be
any interior or exterior changes to convert this building from a duplex to a triplex, and the parking
requirement is the same for both uses.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 83 JUNE 13, 2006
1. Submission No.: A 2006-032 Cont'd
Upon questioning by the Committee, Mr. Blankschein advised that the existing garage is used for
storage by one of the tenants, and not as a parking space. Currently, 2 tenants have vehicles,
one parks in the driveway on the north side of the property, and one parks in front of the garage.
With respect to the right-of-way, it is to benefit the convenience store property to the north of the
subject property, and the property to the northwest of the subject property is not entitled to use
this right-of-way.
Mr. M. Petricevic advised he is speaking on his own behalf and as the group spokesperson. He
submitted photographs and a written submission from another neighbour for the Committee's
consideration. He advised the area residents are concerned about the number of these types of
applications coming to this Committee, as there has been a substantial increase in density in this
area.
Mr. Petricevic raised the following issues:
1. the owner knew this property was to be used as a duplex only;
2. the area of the lot is not sufficient for a triplex;
3. the current use of the basement unit is illegal;
4. the Committee of Adjustment has set a precedent with its refusal of a triplex at 151 Louisa
Street; and,
5. this area is under pressure for student housing.
Mr. Petricevic stated that the neighbours ask for refusal of this application as the lot area is too
small. He also asked that the owners be directed to cease operation of this illegal triplex. He
advised that over the last 17 years the quality of this area has improved. The neighbours are
concerned that there has been one triplex conversion after another, and they don't want this area
to turn into a student ghetto.
Ms. C. Pellerin stated that with the coming of the University of Waterloo School of Pharmacy,
there is speculation that this neighbourhood will be developed for student housing. She also
stated that 50% of the homes in this area have been converted into multi-unit buildings.
Mrs. Lippert of the Mount Hope/Breithaupt Park Neighbourhood Association, advised that one of
the tenants runs a business. He has a car and a trailer parked at this property, which takes up 2
parking spaces.
Mr. Lippert advised that a neighbourhood mobilization group started in this neighbourhood in
1998 because of the problems experienced there. The City and the neighbourhood have worked
very hard to resolve these problems, which will return if you squash all these people into these
houses.
The Chair explained that part of the problem stems from Provincial policy for intensification, and
also the fact that the zoning by-law allows for intensification. This Committee has some tests to
consider including desirability relative to parking and amenity space.
Mr. Blankschein advised the neighbourhood has improved. When he bought this property, it was
a rooming house, and he has reduced the number of units from 8 to 3. Currently, there is 1
person living in the basement, 2 on the main floor, and 2 in the upstairs unit. Previously, the
rooming house contained up to 22 people.
With respect to the business run by the upstairs tenant, Mr. Blankschein advised he owns a truck
and trailer which are parked on site, and the trailer is used to take his tools from job site to job
site.
Ms. Pellerin was questioned by the Committee with respect to existing student housing in this
area, and she advised that to the best of her knowledge there is no student housing at this time,
but speculators are buying up property for this purpose.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 84 JUNE 13, 2006
1. Submission No.: A 2006-032 Cont'd
Mr. Blankschein advised that the upstairs tenant will eventually move and his truck and trailer will
eventually go. With respect to the parking spaces on the north side of the property, he advised
he can not eliminate parking space #1, as it is the only space available for emergency vehicles,
and it is also used by the abutting convenience store. He could eliminate parking space #2.
Mr. Janecki advised he can support parking spaces # 3 and #4, but not space #5, which is in the
right-of-way. He also supports a revised parking space #1 on the north side of the building, as
long as it is moved farther back from the street, to commence at the front wall of the main part of
the building. He recommended that the remainder of the northerly side yard currently used for
parking be converted into amenity space for the tenants.
Moved by Mr. B. Isaac
Seconded by Mr. Z. Janecki
That the application of Cloty and Detlef Blankschein requesting legalization of an existing triplex
on a lot having an area of 342 sq. m. (3,681.37 sq. ft.) rather than the required 495 sq. m.
(5,328.31 sq. ft.), and a width of 14.03 m. (46') rather than the requires 15 m. (49.21'), and
permission to provide 2 parking spaces in tandem, one in the existing garage and one in front of
the garage, whereas tandem parking spaces are not permitted under the zoning by-law, on Lot
417, Registered Plan 376, 78 Waterloo Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the owner shall receive approval of a site plan for the subject property from the City's
Supervisor of Site Plan Development showing the following:
(a) parking spaces 1, 2 and 5 on the plan submitted with this application shall be
eliminated;
(b) one new parking space on the north side of the property, of the dimensions
required by the zoning by-law, which shall be located no closer to the street than
the front fagade of the main portion of the building, not including the front porch;
(c) outdoor amenity space in the remainder of the northerly side yard, with a fence or
other visual barrier; and,
(d) parking details.
2. That the site plan shall be submitted within 3 months of the date of this approval, and the
site shall be developed in accordance with the approved site plan within 6 months of the
date of this approval.
3. That the approved site plan and site plan agreement shall be registered on title.
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
The meeting recessed at 11:20 a.m., and reconvened at 11:50 a.m. with the following members present:
Messrs. P. Britton, B. Isaac and Z. Janecki.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 85 JUNE 13, 2006
MINOR VARIANCE
1. Submission No.: A 2006-033
Applicant: Monarch Construction Limited
Property Location: 908 Foxbrook Court
Legal Description: Lot 94, Registered Plan 58M-324
Appearances:
In Support: K. Hillis
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission for a northerly side yard of
1.1 m (3.6 ft.) for the existing house (under construction) rather than the required 1.2 m (3.93 ft.).
The Committee considered the report of the City's Planning Division, dated June 7, 2006 advising
they have no objections to the proposed variance provided 5/8" Type X Drywall is installed on the
interior side of the left wall of the dwelling to achieve the required 45 Minute Fire Resistance
Rating and an Ontario Land Surveyor provides the Building Inspector confirmation that windows
on left side are not closer than 1.2m to be in compliance with spatial separation requirements in
the Ontario Building Code.
The Committee noted the comments of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
June 6, 2006 advising they have no objections to this application.
Moved by Mr. Z. Janecki
Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac
That the application of Monarch Construction Ltd. requesting permission for a northerly side yard
of 1.1 m (3.6 ft.) for the existing house (under construction) rather than the required 1.2 m (3.93
ft.), on Lot 94, Registered Plan 58M-324, 908 Foxbrook Court, Kitchener, Ontario, BE
APPROVED, subject to condition:
1. That the owner shall comply with the Ontario Building Code.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan
is being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
2. Submission No.: A 2006-034
Applicant: Scott & Roxanne Fisher
Property Location: 16 Cameron Street North
Legal Description: Part of Lot 24, Registered Plan 365
Appearances:
In Support: R. Reinhart
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 86 JUNE 13, 2006
2. Submission No.: A 2006-034 tCont'd
The Committee was advised that the applicant requests legalization of a triplex on a lot having a
width of 11.24m (37') rather than the required 15 m (49.21 ft.) and an area of 478 sq. m.
(5,14531 sq. ft.) rather than the required 495 sq. m. (5,328.31 sq. ft.).
The Committee considered the report of the City's Planning Division, dated June 2, 2006,
advising the applicant the applicant is proposing to legalize an existing triplex in an R-5 zone.
While the zone permits triplexes, the subject lot is deficient in terms of lot area (478 square
metres, where 495 is required) and lot width (11.24m, where 15 metres is required).
In the Winter of 2006, Planning staff conducted achy-wide consultation on triplexes. It was
determined that the essential components of any triplex are as follows:
a) sufficient parking in the rear yard
b) sufficient access to rear yard parking
c) sufficient outdoor amenity/green space for tenants in the rear yard
d) no parking in the front yard
e) no physical alterations/additions to the front fagade of a converted dwelling
If a particular lot can accommodate all of these site elements, particularly a, b and c, then
reductions to the lot width and area could be considered appropriate.
No parking is proposed in the front yard and no alterations are proposed to the front of the
building.
The subject site has a sizeable rear yard which might accommodate the required parking and
amenity space. The lot also holds aright-of-way over the adjacent property for access to the
rear. These, however, would have to be verified through a site plan, which is required for any
triplex dwelling.
As a result, staff's opinion is that if a site plan can demonstrate sufficient and functional rear yard
access, parking and amenity space, the application would meet the four tests of a minor variance.
Therefore, staff recommend that application A2006-034 be approved, subject to the owner
submitting a site plan drawing, prepared at the owner's expense, to the satisfaction of the City's
Director of Planning, demonstrating and implementing the following for the subject property:
- A minimum of 3 functional parking spaces in the rear yard;
- Functional vehicular access to the rear yard parking area; and,
- Sufficient rear yard amenity space.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
June 6, 2006 advising they have no concerns with this application.
Mr. Reinhart addressed the Committee stating that the difference between this application and
the one considered by this Committee for 78 Waterloo Street, is the fact that no one has
appeared in opposition to this application, there is only a very small reduction in lot area, there is
sufficient parking and amenity space. Upon questioning Mr. Reinhart advised the garage has
been removed.
Moved by Mr. Z. Janecki
Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac
That the application of Scott & Roxanne Fisher requesting legalization of a triplex on a lot having
a width of 11.24m (37') rather than the required 15 m (49.21 ft.) and an area of 478 sq. m.
(5,14531 sq. ft.) rather than the required 495 sq. m. (5,328.31 sq. ft.), on Part of Lot 24,
Registered Plan 365, 16 Cameron Street North, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to
the following condition:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 87 JUNE 13, 2006
2. Submission No.: A 2006-034 tCont'd)
1. That the owner shall submit a site plan drawing, at their expense, to the satisfaction of the
City's Director of Planning, demonstrating and implementing the following for the subject
property:
(a) a minimum of 3 functional parking spaces in the rear yard;
(b) a functional vehicular access to the rear yard parking area; and,
(c) sufficient rear yard amenity space.
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
3. Submission No.: A 2006-036 - A 2006-041
Applicant: Reid Homes
Property Location: 265, 277, 291, 303, 315, 327 Colton Circle
Legal Description: Lots 106, 108, 110, 112, 114 & 116, Registered Plan 58M-331
Appearances:
In Support: J. Gollinger
Contra: S. Ferreira
S. Long
F. Battalova
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission to legalize side entry landings
for each of these houses to be closer to the side lot line than the required 0.75m (2.46 ft.), as
follows:
• 265 Colton Circle - Om
• 277 Colton Circle - 0.46 m (1.5 ft.)
• 291 Colton Circle - 0.2 m (0.65 ft.)
• 303 Colton Circle - 0.16 m (0.52 ft.)
• 315 Colton Circle - 0.23 m (0.66 ft.)
• 327 Colton Circle - Om
The Committee considered the report of the City's Planning Division, dated June 2, 2006,
advising the applicant is proposing to legalize the interior side yard setback for steps leading from
the side of a duplex dwelling that has been constructed on each of the subject lots. The setback
range from Om to 0.46m instead of the required 0.75m. The intent of allowing steps and ramps
within a typical building yard setback is to allow sufficient entry and exit from buildings with at
least some minimal setback provided so that persons are not encroaching on adjacent properties.
With respect to the subject lots it is noted that the steps are not directed towards the common
side lot line. Staff also note that the dwellings and steps have already been constructed. It would
have been beneficial for improved coordination between the builder and the City's building
division for a better understanding of all of the building code regulations for the construction of
new duplexes before these dwellings were completed. Considering construction is completed,
there are limited options available to improve the situation. Perhaps the applicant could consider
the merits of adding additional steps on the `backside' of the landing to allow free movement
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 88 JUNE 13, 2006
3. Submission No.: A 2006-036 - A 2006-041 tCont'd)
along the side yard between the front and the rear yard. The applicant should also confirm that
the owners of the adjacent lots have been made aware of the situation.
Staff have no significant objections to the subject applications.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
June 6, 2006 advising they have no concerns with this application.
Mr. B. Sloan explained the variances requested in these applications, noting the setback to be
provided by the owner ranges from 0.4 m to Om.
Mr. Golliger advised these properties were initially developed as single family dwellings. The
initial drawings showed steps in these side yards. He noted that an entrance on the opposite side
of each building would not have required a variance. If these applications are not approved, it
would create a difficult situation as the stairs to the basement, on the interior of the building, have
already been installed to meet up with the landings that are at variance.
Ms. S. Long advised the Committee that they bought their property in May 2005, and at the time
were told theirs would be a single family dwelling neighbourhood. Now the developer has
constructed 6 duplexes, and the neighbours were not told that these homes were going to be
duplexes. She advised the upper units have been rented, and leases are being signed for the
basement units. She advised the neighbours main concerns are the fact that these landings are
so close to the lots lines, and that they were not informed these properties would be used as
duplexes.
The Chair questioned whether the zoning permits duplexes, and Mr. Sloan advised that duplexes
are permitted as of right, throughout the City. The Chair then advised those present that the
Committee can not deal with the duplex use because duplexes are a permitted use, and the issue
before the Committee is the access to the basement units and not the use of these properties.
Mrs. Ferreira raised the question as to why there are side yard requirements, and noted that in
some of these applications the side yard requirement has been eliminated all together. Some of
the tenants are being forced to trespass on her property in order to access their rear yards, and
she will now be forced to erect a privacy fence in order to have any privacy on her property. She
stated they are being forced to do things which they would not otherwise do.
Mr. Golliger responded that he has not yet applied to use these buildings as duplexes, pending
this Committee's decisions on the landings. There are only people living in the upstairs units at
this time. With respect to grading, the lots slope down into the back yard, and he will have to
consider a viable access, such as stairs. The lots are split at these landings where the portion of
the lot forward of the landings slopes to the street, and from the landing back, slopes to the rear
lot line.
Mr. Sloan suggested that if these applications are to be approved, an appropriate condition would
be to require a privacy fence along the lot line adjacent to the landing for the length of the lot line.
Further, if permits have not been issued for duplexes, the owner will have to deal with the grading
and stairs.
The question was raised as to whether an entrance to the basement could be located within the
attached garage. Mr. Golliger advised such an entrance is an option, but would not be as
convenient to the future tenants. The Chair advised this Committee must consider whether the
requested variance is really necessary. He raised the question as to whether this Committee
should consider whether the situation would be convenient for the tenant or would be appropriate
development. If the owner is able to put an entrance to the basement unit inside the garage, a
variance would not be required.
The Committee members generally agreed that if the Ontario Building Code will allow
access/egress to/from the basement units the owner should do so, thus removing the need for
these applications. Two Committee members were willing to approve these applications, subject
to conditions, if the Building Code would not allow a basement entrance through the garage. Mr.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 89 JUNE 13, 2006
Janecki stated he could not support these applications as he was of the opinion that the owner
has gone in a around-about manner to get approvals for these variances, and he should have
designed these buildings properly from the beginning.
Mr. Z. Janecki was in opposition to this application.
Submission No. A 2006-036
On motion by Mr. B. Isaac
It was resolved:
That the application of Reid Homes requesting permission to locate a side entry landing 0 m from
the side lot line rather than the required 0.75 m (2.46 ft.) on Lot 106, Registered Plan 58M-331,
265 Colton Circle, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:
1. That if the Ontario Building Code will permit access to the basement unit through the
attached garage such an entry should be installed, and this approval is null and void.
2. That if access to the basement unit through the attached garage is not permitted by the
Ontario Building Code, the owner shall comply with the following conditions:
(a) That the owner shall provide proper rear yard access from the landing;
(b) That the owner shall submit and receive approval of a grading and drainage plan
from the City of Kitchener;
(c) That the owner shall erect a privacy fence along the full length of the side lot line
between the landing and the abutting neighbour, in accordance with the City's
Fence By-law; should such a fence have already been constructed by the abutting
neighbour, the applicant in this application shall compensate the said abutting
neighbour the full cost of their fence along the subject lot line.
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. A 2006-037
On motion by Mr. B. Isaac
It was resolved:
That the application of Reid Homes requesting permission to locate a side entry landing. 0.46 m
(1.5 ft.) from the side lot line rather than the required 0.75 m (2.46 ft.) on Lot 108, Registered Plan
58M-331, 277 Colton Circle, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following
conditions:
1. That if the Ontario Building Code will permit access to the basement unit through the
attached garage such an entry should be installed, and this approval is null and void.
2. That if access to the basement unit through the attached garage is not permitted by the
Ontario Building Code, the owner shall comply with the following conditions:
(a) That the owner shall provide proper rear yard access from the landing;
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 90 JUNE 13, 2006
3. Submission No.: A 2006-036 - A 2006-041 tCont'd
(b) That the owner shall submit and receive approval of a grading and drainage plan
from the City of Kitchener;
(c) That the owner shall erect a privacy fence along the full length of the side lot line
between the landing and the abutting neighbour, in accordance with the City's
Fence By-law; should such a fence have already been constructed by the abutting
neighbour, the applicant in this application shall compensate the said abutting
neighbour the full cost of their fence along the subject lot line.
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. A 2006-038
On motion by Mr. B. Isaac
It was resolved:
That the application of Reid Homes requesting permission to locate a side entry landing 0.2 m
(0.65 ft.) from the side lot line rather than the required 0.75 m (2.46 ft.), on Lot 110, Registered
Plan 58M-331, 110 Colton Circle, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following
conditions:
1. That if the Ontario Building Code will permit access to the basement unit through the
attached garage such an entry should be installed, and this approval is null and void.
2. That if access to the basement unit through the attached garage is not permitted by the
Ontario Building Code, the owner shall comply with the following conditions:
(a) That the owner shall provide proper rear yard access from the landing;
(b) That the owner shall submit and receive approval of a grading and drainage plan
from the City of Kitchener;
(c) That the owner shall erect a privacy fence along the full length of the side lot line
between the landing and the abutting neighbour, in accordance with the City's
Fence By-law; should such a fence have already been constructed by the abutting
neighbour, the applicant in this application shall compensate the said abutting
neighbour the full cost of their fence along the subject lot line.
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 ADJUSTMENT 91 JUNE 13, 2006
3. Submission No.: A 2006-036 - A 2006-041 tCont'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. A 2006-039
On motion by Mr. B. Isaac
It was resolved:
That the application of Reid Homes requesting permission to locate a side entry landing 0.16 m
(0.52 ft.) from the side lot line rather than the required 0.75 m (2.46 ft.) on Lot 112, Registered
Plan 58M-331, 112 Colton Circle, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following
conditions:
1. That if the Ontario Building Code will permit access to the basement unit through the
attached garage such an entry should be installed, and this approval is null and void.
2. That if access to the basement unit through the attached garage is not permitted by the
Ontario Building Code, the owner shall comply with the following conditions:
(a) That the owner shall provide proper rear yard access from the landing;
(b) That the owner shall submit and receive approval of a grading and drainage plan
from the City of Kitchener;
(c) That the owner shall erect a privacy fence along the full length of the side lot line
between the landing and the abutting neighbour, in accordance with the City's
Fence By-law; should such a fence have already been constructed by the abutting
neighbour, the applicant in this application shall compensate the said abutting
neighbour the full cost of their fence along the subject lot line.
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. A 2006-040
On motion by Mr. B. Isaac
It was resolved:
That the application of Reid Homes requesting permission to locate a side entry landing 0.23 m
(0.66 ft.) from the side lot line rather than the required 0.75 m (2.46 ft.) on Lot 114, Registered
Plan 58M-331, 315 Colton Circle, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following
conditions:
1. That if the Ontario Building Code will permit access to the basement unit through the
attached garage such an entry should be installed, and this approval is null and void.
2. That if access to the basement unit through the attached garage is not permitted by the
Ontario Building Code, the owner shall comply with the following conditions:
(a) That the owner shall provide proper rear yard access from the landing;
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 92 JUNE 13, 2006
3. Submission No.: A 2006-036 - A 2006-041 tCont'd
(b) That the owner shall submit and receive approval of a grading and drainage plan
from the City of Kitchener;
(d) That the owner shall erect a privacy fence along the full length of the side lot line
between the landing and the abutting neighbour, in accordance with the City's
Fence By-law; should such a fence have already been constructed by the abutting
neighbour, the applicant in this application shall compensate the said abutting
neighbour the full cost of their fence along the subject lot line.
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. A 2006-041
On motion by Mr. B. Isaac
It was resolved:
That the application of Reid Homes requesting permission to locate a side entry landing 0 m from
the side lot line rather than, the required 0.75 m (2.46 ft.) on Lot 116, Registered Plan 58M-331,
327 Colton Circle, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:
1. That if the Ontario Building Code will permit access to the basement unit through the
attached garage such an entry should be installed, and this approval is null and void.
2. That if access to the basement unit through the attached garage is not permitted by the
Ontario Building Code, the owner shall comply with the following conditions:
(a) That the owner shall provide proper rear yard access from the landing;
(b) That the owner shall submit and receive approval of a grading and drainage plan
from the City of Kitchener;
(c) That the owner shall erect a privacy fence along the full length of the side lot line
between the landing and the abutting neighbour, in accordance with the City's
Fence By-law; should such a fence have already been constructed by the abutting
neighbour, the applicant in this application shall compensate the said abutting
neighbour the full cost of their fence along the subject lot line.
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
Mr. Z. Janecki voted in opposition to the decisions for Submission No.'s A 2006-036 to A 2006-041,
inclusive.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 93 JUNE 13, 2006
4. Submission No.: A 2006-042
Applicant: Andrzej Kuzio
Property Location: 140 Highland Road West
Legal Description: Lot 8. Part of Lot 7 &9. Registered Plan 222
Appearances:
In Support: A. Kuzio
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission to provide 13 off-street
parking spaces for a health office rather than the required 14 spaces.
The Committee considered the report of the City's Planning Division, dated June 2, 2006 advising
they have no objections to this application.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
June 6, 2006 advising they have no concerns with this application.
Mr. Kuzio advised this property is zoned Institutional; consequently, it has a limited number of
uses. With respect to the ability to provide parking, Mr. Kuzio advised they were required to
dedicate a 4 m road widening which diminished the amount of land available for parking. Staff
advised that the calculation for the required parking is based on the square footage of both floors.
Moved by Mr. Z. Janecki
Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac
That the application of Andrzej Kuzio requesting permission to provide 13 off-street parking
spaces for a health office rather than the required 14 spaces, on Lot 8, Part of Lot 7 & 9,
Registered Plan 222, 140 Highland Road West, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to
the following condition:
1. That the variance as approved in this application shall apply to any permitted uses
requiring no more than a total of 14off-street parking spaces.
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
5. Submission No.: A 2006-043
Applicant: GE & B Inc.
Property Location: 1015 Weber Street East
Legal Description: Lot 97. Registered Plan 307
Appearances:
In Support: G. Baker
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 94 JUNE 13, 2006
5. Submission No.: A 2006-043 tCont'd
The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission to use a building in a C-6
Arterial Commercial Zone, having a lot width of 12.19 m (40') rather than the required 16 m
(52.49 ft.), in a building with a westerly side yard of 2.92 m (9.6 ft.) and an easterly side yard of
1.64 m (5.38 ft.) rather than the required 3 m (9.84 ft.).
The Committee considered the report of the City's Planning Division, dated June 2, 2006 advising
the property is located on the south side of Weber Street East, west of Franklin Street in the
Stanley Park Planning Community at 1015 Weber St. E. The property is designated as Arterial
Commercial Corridor in the Municipal Plan which is primarily intended for commercial land uses,
and is zoned Arterial Commercial Six (C-6) with Special Regulation Provision 3440.
The applicant previously received approval of a Zone Change (ZC05/18/W/RM) to permit up to 2
dwelling units on the subject property.
The applicant now wishes to modify the use of the building to have commercial uses on the
ground floor, based on the following permitted uses specified in the C-6 Zone: day care, health
office, office, personal services, studio, surveying, planning, engineering or design business,
tradesman or contractor's establishment, and maintain the existing residential unit on the top
floor.
In order to allow these new uses on the subject property, the applicant is requesting a minor
variance to permit a 12.19 metre lot width and a 1.64 metre east side yard setback and a 2.92
metre west side yard setback, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum 16.0 metre lot
width and a minimum 3.0 metre side yard setback.
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following comments.
The variance meets the intent of the Municipal Plan for the following reasons. The subject
property is designated in the Municipal Plan as Arterial Commercial Corridor, which permits a
broad range of commercial and industrial business uses. The variances would allow for a
commercial use to be established on the property and as such, the intent of the Municipal Plan
is maintained.
The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law for the following reasons. The purpose of
the lot width and side yard setback in the Zoning By-Law is to maintain continuity along the
streetscape and provide an adequate separation between buildings. In addition, the intent of the
by-law is to ensure adequate space is provided for a driveway and parking spaces for the
commercial use. The minor adjustment of the lot width and side yard setbacks would still allow
sufficient space to be provided for vehicular access and parking through the existing driveway
and laneway at the rear. The intent of the By-law should still be maintained.
The lot width and side yard reduction should not impact or intrude upon adjacent neighbour's
amenity space and provides for vehicular access to be maintained. There should be minimal
impact on the streetscape other than potential for future signage. Therefore, the variance is minor
and is appropriate for the proper development of the area.
The commercial uses proposed for the existing building would be appropriate on a smaller lot
width as they are mostly office-type uses and as such would not have a significant impact on the
development and use of the land. The applicant will have to provide sufficient parking on site
which looks like it can be accommodated in the rear parking area and driveway. Staff feels that
approval of the variances would allow for an appropriate use on the subject property.
Based on the foregoing, Planning Staff recommends that the application be approved.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
June 6, 2006 advising they have no concerns with this application.
Mr. Baker advised the intent is to locate an office on the main floor. Three parking spaces are
required but 6 spaces can be provided.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 95 JUNE 13, 2006
5. Submission No.: A 2006-043 tCont'd)
Mr. Parent advised that if more than 3 spaces are shown on the site plan, they must all be
provided.
Moved by Mr. Z. Janecki
Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac
That the application of GE & B requesting permission to use a building in a C-6 Arterial
Commercial Zone, having a lot width of 12.19 m (40') rather than the required 16 m (52.49 ft.), in
a building with a westerly side yard of 2.92 m (9.6 ft.) and an easterly side yard of 1.64 m (5.38 ft.)
rather than the required 3 m (9.84 ft.), on Lot 97, Registered Plan 307, 1015 Weber Street East,
Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition:
1. That the owner shall submit a site plan design and receive approval of same from the
City's Director of Planning.
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
6. Submission No.: A 2006-044
Applicant: James Caines
Property Location: 3273 King Street East
Legal Description: Part Lot 14, Registered Plan 986
Appearances:
In Support: J. Caines
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission for a detached garage
accessory to a single family dwelling which is an expansion of a legal non-conforming use.
The Committee considered the report of the City's Planning Division, dated June 7, 2006 advising
that the applicant is proposing to construct an accessory structure (large detached garage in the
rear yard) to a single detached dwelling which is a legal non-conforming use on the subject
property. The lands are zoned Residential Nine (R-9) which is intended for apartments and other
multiple dwellings. Staff question whether or not the Committee has the authority to consider the
addition of a `new' structure to a legal non-conforming use versus an expansion or enlargement.
Notwithstanding, it is staff's opinion that the addition of the large accessory structure that is similar
in size to the footprint of the house would help perpetuate the legal non-conforming use.
Therefore, planning staff recommend the application be refused.
The Committee considered the comments of the Building Division in which they advised that they
have no objections to the proposed variance. A building permit is required for the detached
garage.
Mr. Sloan advised that staff's main concerns are the perpetuation of the use and the size of the
garage. He requested that should this application be approved, the decision include the size,
dimensions, height and setbacks of the garage.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 96 JUNE 13, 2006
6. Submission No.: A 2006-044 tCont'd)
Mr. Cairns advised that the garage is intended to store his vehicles for his personal use. It was
noted by the Committee that the subject property is surrounded by 2 apartment buildings and a
townhouse complex.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
June 6, 2006 advising they have no concerns with this application.
Moved by Mr. Z. Janecki
Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac
That the application of James Caine requesting permission for a detached garage accessory to a
single family dwelling which is an expansion of a legal non-conforming use, on Part Lot 14,
Registered Plan 986, 3273 King Street East, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the
following condition:
1. That the variance as approved in this application shall apply to the detached garage as
shown on the plans submitted with this application, and specifically: have a total height of
3.927 m (12.885 ft.), a width of 7.651 m (25.10416 ft.), and a depth of 6.832 m (22.416 ft.),
with a rear yard of 0.61 m (2 ft.), and an easterly side yard of 0.61 m (2 ft.).
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
1. Submission No.: B 2006-020 & A 2006-035
Applicant: CAW Local 1451 Building Corporation
Property Location: 600 Wabanki Drive
Legal Description: Lot 33 and Part Lot 34, Registrar's Compiled Plan 1521
Appearances:
In Support: A. Heimpel
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant requests sever a parcel of land having a width on
Wabanaki Drive of 105m (344.48') by a depth of 168m (551.18'), and having an area of 0.8 ha (2
ac.) to be used as a union hall/office building. In addition, the applicant requests permission for
the retained land to have a frontage of 6m (19.68 ft.) at Wabanaki Drive rather than the required
15m (49.21 ft.). The retained land widens to 155.09m (447.98 ft.) behind the severed land.
The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department,
dated June 7, 2006 advising the applicant is proposing to convey a vacant parcel of land with
approximately 103 metres of frontage onto Wabanaki Road encompassing an area of 1.9
hectares. The retained parcel will be `P'-shaped and would have 6.2 metres of frontage onto
Wabanaki Drive encompassing an area of 3.4 hectares. This area is currently developed with a
union hall for the United Auto Workers situated at the rear half of the property with a long
driveway access leading from Wabanaki Drive as shown above. The Teacher's Union is
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 97 JUNE 13, 2006
1. Submission No.: B 2006-020 & A 2006-035 tCont'd)
proposing to construct a union hall on the severed portion. This proposal is also the subject of
minor variance application A2006-035 to permit a lot width of 6 metres for the retained lands
rather than the required 15 metres.
The subject lands are designated as Heavy Industrial in the City's Municipal Plan and zoned
Heavy Industrial M-4 in Zoning By-law 85-1. The main use of land in the Heavy Industrial
designation is devoted to manufacturing, storage and distribution of goods and services.
Although the Industrial policies of the Official Plan are silent with respect to the use of industrial
land for a union hall, the M-4 zoning does permit the use of union halls. As such, the minimum lot
frontage is 15m whereas only 6.0 m is being requested for the retrained portion; hence the need
for the minor variance application.
With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51(24) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, staff are satisfied that the creation of the severed lot is desirable and
appropriate as a moderate form of Industrial intensification. Figure 2 illustrates the surrounding
lot fabric. It shows lot sizes ranging from 0.60 ha to 0. 9 ha on Kevco Place/ Grand Crest Place
and along the south side of Wabanaki Drive to 1.6 to 3.4 ha on Wilson Avenue, just east of the
subject property. Therefore, the proposal to create a 1.9 ha lot and retain a 3.4 ha lot is in
character with the surrounding lot fabric. Moreover, demand for industrial lot sizes in the 3 to 5 ha
size range is strong, according to the City's Economic Development staff, suggesting that
industrial lot sizes of varying ranges provides choice.
The configuration of the retained lands is suitable for the purpose for which it is to be subdivided
as it will have public road frontage and can be serviced separately. The retained parcel creates a
separate lot for the existing building, which will retain minimum frontage onto Wabanaki Drive for
vehicular access only. Engineering staff advise that a separate servicing is available for the CAW
building however, there is question as to exactly where the water connection comes in from
Wabanaki. As a condition of approval, the applicant may have to provide an easement over the
severed portion. Typical engineering items such as service connection costs and boulevard
works will be addressed through any future site plan application for the severed lands.
The uses of both the severed and retained parcels are in conformity with the City's Municipal
Plan, the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots are appropriate and suitable for the
existing uses and any proposed use of the lands, the lands front on an established public street,
and both parcels of land are serviced with independent and adequate service connections to
municipal services. Also, the lots will be compatible in size with the lots in the surrounding area
and there is demand for industrial lots of the size being proposed here. Given the current
underutilization of the site, this consent application represents a reasonable and justifiable form of
industrial intensification.
In considering the four tests for minor variance, staff offers the following comments with respect to
the requested variance.
The intent of the Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law is to ensure sufficient frontage is being
maintained for on and off-site vehicular movement, servicing and visibility from the street. In this
case, we have an underutilized site with a building that is setback 221 m from Wabanaki Drive.
The aerial photo of the site (Figure 1) best illustrates this situation. The property currently
functions with a long driveway along the westerly lot line which opens up to the southerly rear
area for the CAW union hall building and parking. Immediately east of and running parallel to the
driveway is a grade differential from driveway to top of slope of about 2m at approximately a 3 to
1 slope giving way to another large flat area. It is on this flat area closest to Wabanaki Drive that
the lands are to be conveyed and ultimately developed. Therefore, because of the grades, there
is logic in providing a 6m wide severance line along the easterly flank of the driveway as providing
additional frontage here would be of little benefit to the retained parcel.
Planning staff are of the opinion that, while not optimum, the variance is considered minor for
the following reasons: 1. That 6m should be wide enough to provide adequate means of two-
way traffic flow; 2. That there is sufficient area at the rear portion of the retained lot to
accommodate truck turning movements; 3. That given the existing grades any additional
frontage will be of little developable benefit to the retained portion; and 4. The proposed lot
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 98 JUNE 13, 2006
1. Submission No.: B 2006-020 & A 2006-035 tCont'd)
fabric reinforces how the site currently functions.
A. That application B2006-020 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 provide a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an
Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as one full
size paper copy of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the City
of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping
Technologist.
3. That Minor Variance Application A2006-035 receive final approval.
4. That the owner confirm the location of the water service connection for the retained lands
to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering, If said water service connection
extends over the severed lands, the owner shall provide an appropriate easement over the
lands in favour of the City as shown on a draft reference plan prepared by the owner, to
the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering.
B. That application A2006-035 be approved.
The Committee considered the comments of the Region of Waterloo Planning Housing and
Community Services, dated May 3, 2006, and June 6, 2006, advising they have no concerns
with, or objections to theses applications.
The Committee considered correspondence from the Grand River Conservation Authority,
dated May 3, 2006, noting that they have no objections to Submission No. B 2006-020. They
also advise that the retained land is regulated and could require a permit from them for any
further development.
Mr. Heimpel requested an amendment to Submission No. B 2006-020 to change the depth of
the severed land to 80 m, which, with the width noted in the application, would equate to a lot
area of approximately 0.8 ha. He requested permission to amend the application accordingly.
A discussion took place with respect to the narrow width of the retained land on Wabanaki
Drive. That width, as explained by Mr. Heimpel, is intended to contain only the existing
driveway. It was suggested by Mr. Janecki that the width of the retained land on Wabanaki
Drive aught to be 10 m in order to contain the existing driveway, and Mr. Heimpel agreed to
amend both applications such that the retained land will have a width of 10 m.
Submission No. B 2006-020
Moved by Mr. Z. Janecki
Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac
That the application of CAW Local 1451 Building Corporation requesting permission to convey
a parcel of land having a width on Wabanaki Drive of 101 m (331.364'), by a depth of 80 m
(262.467'), and having an area of approximately 0.8 ha (2 ac.), on Part Lot 8, Registered Plan
1036, 600 Wabanaki Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following
conditions:
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 confirm the location of the water service connection for the
retained lands to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering, and if the said
water service connection extends over the severed lands, the owner shall provide an
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 99 JUNE 13, 2006
1. Submission No.: B 2006-020 & A 2006-035 tCont'd)
3. appropriate easement over the lands in favour of the City as shown on a draft reference
plan to be prepared at the owner's expense, to the satisfaction of the Director of
Engineering.
4. That the owner shall receive final approval of Submission No. A 2006-035.
5. That the owner shall provide the Secretary-Treasurer with a digital file of the deposited
reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn
(Microstation) format, as well as two full size paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file
needs to be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards
to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist.
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 June 13, 2008.
Carried
Submission No. A 2006-035
Moved by Mr. Z. Janecki
Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac
That the application of CAW Local 1451 Building Corporation requesting permission for the
retained land to have a width on Wabanaki Drive of 10 m (32.8') rather than the required 15 m
(49.21'), on Part Lot 1, Registered Plan 996, Part Lot 8, Registered Plan 1036, and Part Lot
25, Registered Plan 1033, 600 Wabanaki Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED.
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.: B 2006-024
Applicant: Matthew & Donna Monteyne
Property Location: 248 Woolwich Street
Legal Description: Part 1, being Lot 124, German Comgany Tract
Mr. P. Britton declared a pecuniary interest in this application as his planning firm acts for the
owner of the property that will benefit from this application and did not participate in any
discussion of voting with
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 100 JUNE 13, 2006
2. Submission No.: B 2006-024 tCont'd)
respect to this application, Mr. Z. Janecki chaired the meeting during consideration of this
application.
Appearances:
In Support: V. Schmidt
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission to convey a parcel of land
having an area of 3740 sq. m. (40,258.34 sq. ft.) as a lot addition to the abutting plan of
subdivision, to be used for storm water management. The retained land will continue to be used
for a single family dwelling and accessory building.
The Committee noted the comments of the Development & Technical Services Department dated
June 5, 2006 advising they The subject property is located on Woolwich Street in the Bridgeport
North neighbourhood, west of the Grand River and north of Bridge Street. The subject property is
located along the border of Kitchener and Waterloo. The subject lands are zoned Agricultural (A-
1)and are designated Low Rise Residential by the Municipal Plan. The property contains a single
detached dwelling built in 1956 and a shed. The subject property is 8276 m2 in size.
The applicant is requesting approval to sever a portion of the eastern side of the property. The
proposed use of the parcel to be severed is a lot addition for a stormwater management facility. It
will be used in conjunction with the adjacent subdivision to the east. The owner is currently
applying for a Zone Change (ZC 06/20/W/BS) to rezone the proposed severed land from A-1 to
Hazard Land Zone (P-3). Council will decide whether to approve the Zone Change Application on
June 12, 2006. The severed lot would be 3740 m2 in size. The retained lands would be 4536 m2
in size and would continue to be fronted by Woolwich Street. The lot width would be reduced to
34 metres making it legal non-conforming. The side yards and rear yard will remain the same
distances.
With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, the uses of both the severed and retained parcels are in conformity with
the City's Municipal Plan, A-1 zoning and P-3 zoning. The resultant lots will be compatible in size
with the lots in the surrounding area.
Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommend that the application be approved subject to
certain conditions.
1. That the lands to be severed be added to the abutting lands and title be taken into identical
ownership as the abutting lands. The deed for endorsement shall include that any
subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed shall comply with Sections 50(3)
and/or (5) of the Planning Acf, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended.
2. That Zone Change Application ZC/06/20/W/BS receives final approval.
3. That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any
outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
4. That the owner provide a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an
Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as one full
size paper copy of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the City
of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping
Technologist.
The Committee noted the comments of the Region of Waterloo dated June 7, 2006 advising they
have no objections to this application.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 101 JUNE 13, 2006
2. Submission No.: B 2006-024 tCont'd)
Moved by Mr. B. Isaac
Seconded by Mr. Z. Janecki
That the application of Matthew and Donna Monteyne requesting permission to convey a parcel
of land having an area of 3,740 sq. m. (40,258.34 sq. ft.) as a lot addition to the adjacent
subdivision to the east, for stormwater management, on Part Lot 124, German Company Tract,
248 Woolwich Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the lands to be severed in this application shall be added to the abutting lands and
title shall be taken into identical ownership as the abutting lands, any subsequent
conveyance of the parcel to be severed complying with Sections 50(3) and/or (5) of the
Planning Acf, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended.
2. That the owner shall receive final approval of Zone Change Application ZC/06/20/W/BS.
3. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the
payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
4. That the owner shall provide the Secretary-Treasurer with a digital file of the deposited
reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn
(Microstation) format, as well as two full size paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file
must be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the
satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist.
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 June 13, 2008.
Carried
3. Submission No.: B 2006-025
Applicant: Carson Reid Homes
Property Location: 127 Rush Meadow Street
Legal Description: Part Block 1, Registered Plan 58M-292, being Part 18, Reference
Plan 58R-14156
Appearances:
In Support: R. Lord
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 102 JUNE 13, 2006
Submission No.: B 2006-025 tCont'd)
The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission to give a maintenance
easement to the property at 131 Rush Meadow Street over a potion of 127 Rush Meadow Street
having a width of 0.6 m (1.96 ft.) a length of 8.9 m (29.19 ft.) and an area of 5.3 sq. m. (57 sq. ft.).
The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department,
dated June 7, 2006 advising they have no objections, provided the following conditions are
included in any approval:
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 provide a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an
Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as one full
size paper copy of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the City
of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping
Technologist.
The Committee noted the comments of the Region of Waterloo dated June 7, 2006 advising they
have no objections to this application.
Moved by Mr. B. Isaac
Seconded by Mr. Z. Janecki
That the application of Carson Reid Homes requesting permission to give a maintenance
easement to the property at 131 Rush Meadow Street over a potion of 127 Rush Meadow Street
having a width of 0.6 m (1.96 ft.) a length of 8.9 m (29.19 ft.) and an area of 5.3 sq. m. (57 sq. ft.),
on Part Block 1, Registered Plan 58M-292, being Part 18, Reference Plan 58R-14156, 127 Rush
Meadow Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
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 provide the Secretary-Treasurer with a digital file of the deposited
reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn
(Microstation) format, as well as 2 full size paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file shall
be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the
satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist.
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 June 13, 2008.
Carried
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTI
4. Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
Appearances:
~IENT 103 JUNE 13, 2006
B 2006-026
Millennium Holdings Inc.
421 Manitou Drive
Lot 4 and Part Lot 3, Registered Plan 1489
In Support: J. Kelly
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission to convey a parcel of land
having a width of 70.108 m (230 ft.) by a depth of 23.1648 m (76 ft.) and an area of 1,624.03 sq.
m. (17,481.48 sq. ft.), and to also convey an easement over an area having a width of 70.108 m
(230 ft.) by a depth of 44.2 m (145 ft.) and having an area of 3,098.77 sq. m. (33,356.01 sq. ft.), to
the abutting property at 461 Manitou Drive.
The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department,
dated June 7, 2006 advising the subject land is located on the west side of Manitou Dr between
Sasaga Dr and Homer Watson Blvd. Both properties are zoned M-4 (Heavy Industrial) with
special provision, 34U, under By-law 85-1. The Municipal Plan designation is Heavy Industrial.
Both the retained and the severed properties are being used for industrial purposes.
The purpose of this application is to sever a rectangular portion of land measuring 23.16 metres
deep by 70.109 metres wide and located to be added to the rear portion of the abutting lot, 461
Manitou Dr. This will provide adequate land for an addition to be constructed onto a proposed
warehouse use at 461 Manitou Dr. In addition, an easement measuring 44.2 metres deep and
70.108 metres wide is proposed to the rear of the severed land for access purposes. This will
permit trucks better access to the loading bays that will be built at the rear of the existing structure
at 461 Manitou Dr. The proposed severance and easement will result in lots that meet all
regulations of the Zoning By-law and are compatible and suitable for the surrounding area.
Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that the application be approved subject to
certain conditions.
That application B2006-026 be approved, subject to the following conditions:
That the lands to be severed be added to the abutting lands and title be taken into identical
ownership as the abutting lands. The deed for endorsement shall include that any subsequent
conveyance of the parcel to be severed shall comply with Sections 50(3) and/or (5) of the
Planning Acf, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended.
1. That a joint maintenance agreement, to be approved by the City Solicitor, be registered
against title of both the severed and retained lands, to ensure that rights-of-way for access
to both properties are maintained in perpetuity.
2. That satisfactory arrangement be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any
outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
3. That the owner provide a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an
Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as one full
size paper copy of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the City
of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping
Technologist.
The Committee noted the comments of the Region of Waterloo dated June 7, 2006 advising that
prior to final consent approval, the owner convey at their expense, a 7 foot road widening to the
Regional Municipality of Waterloo. A registered deed for the road widening and a mylar copy of
the registered reference plan must be submitted to the Region prior to final approval at no cost to
the Region.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 104 JUNE 13, 2006
Submission No.: B 2006-026 tCont'd)
Moved by Mr. B. Isaac
Seconded by Mr. Z. Janecki
That the application of Millenium Holdings Inc. requesting permission to convey a parcel of land
having a width of 70.108 m (230 ft.) by a depth of 23.1648 m (76 ft.), and having an area of
1,624.03 sq. m. (17.481.48 sq. ft.), as a lot addition, and an easement over the retained land,
having a width of 70.108 m (230 ft.) by a depth of 44.2 m (145 ft.), and having an area of 3,098.77
sq. m. (33,356.01 sq. ft.), to the property municipally know as 461 Manitou Drive, on Part Lot 3,
Registrar's Compiled Plan 1489, 421 Manitou Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject
to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall convey to the Region of Waterloo, without cost and free of
encumbrance, a 7 ft. road widening across the frontage of 421 and 461 Manitou Drive,
where one has not already been conveyed. A registered deed for the road widening and a
mylar copy of the registered reference plan must be submitted to the Region of Waterloo,
at no cost to the Region.
2. That the lands to be severed in this application shall be added to the abutting lands and
title shall be taken into identical ownership as the abutting lands; with any subsequent
conveyance of the parcel to be severed complying with Sections 50(3) and/or (5) of the
Planning Acf, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended.
3. 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.
4. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangement with the City of Kitchener for the
payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
5. That the owner shall provide the Secretary-Treasurer with a digital file of the deposited
reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn
(Microstation) format, as well as two full size paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file
shall be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the
satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist.
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 June 13, 2008.
Carried
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 105 JUNE 13, 2006
ADJOURNMENT
On motion, the meeting adjourned at 2:15 a.m.
Dated at the City of Kitchener this 13th day of June 2006.
Dianne H. Gilchrist
Secretary-Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment