Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2006-07-11COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITYOF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD JULY 11, 2006 MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. D. Cybalski, Z. Janecki and Ms. D. Angel. OFFICIALS PRESENT: Mr. B. Sloan, Senior Planner, Ms. D. Gilchrist, Secretary-Treasurer, and Ms. T. Kraemer, Administrative Assistant. Mr. D. Cybalski, Chair, called this meeting to order at 10:07 a.m. MINUTES Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski Seconded by Mr. Z. Janecki That the minutes of the regular meetings of the Committee of Adjustment, of May 9, 2006 and June 13, 2006, as mailed to the members, be adopted. Carried NEW BUSINESS CONSENT 1. Submission No.: B 2006-028 Applicant: Impulse Development Group Properly Location: 202 Union Boulevard Legal Description: Lots 54 & 55, Registered Plan 352 Appearances: In Support: Mr. S. O'Neill Mr. U. Bhella Contra: Ms. S. Saunders Bellingham Ms. B. Davidson Mr. B. Davidson Mr. E. Giesler Ms. J. Giesler Mr. C. Grierson Mr. I. Hurlbot Mr. T. Mavor Mr. G. Moore Ms. D. Moore Ms. A. Stahlke Ms. M. Thomson Ms. E. Wharton Ms. R. Barlow Mr. J. Barlow Ms. C. Goddard Ms. B. Parke Mr. E. Scorgie Ms. M. Chidichimo Ms. T. Saunders Mr. J. Harper Ms. D. McInnis Mr. M. Harris Mr. B. Knight COMMITf EE OF ADJ USTM ENT 107 JULY 11, 2006 1. Submission No.: B 2006-028 ~Cont'd~ Written Submissions: Dr. J. Abraham Mr. & Mrs. E. Allensen Dr. & Mrs. R. Anstett Ms. D. Baker Mr. R. Bahar Ms. M. Bardeggia-Irwin Mr. & Mrs. J. Barlow Ms. S. Barlow Ms. N. Bechtel Mr. & Mrs. K. Beckner Ms. D. Beleford Ms. S. Saunders-Bellingham Mr. & Mrs. P. Bergen Ms. C. Blake-Dickson Ms. C. Boehmer Ms. A. Bringloe Ms. F. Campbell Mr. W. Campbell Mr. & Mrs. 0. Carless Mr. & Mrs. P. Carty Mr. & Mrs. R. Casselli Ms. M. Chidichimo Ms. R. Clark Ms. L. Claxton Mr. & Mrs. C. Corrigan Ms. M. Crowley Mr. & Mrs. J. Darling Ms. B. Davidson Mr. B. Davidson Ms. D. Deers Mr. S. Deers Ms. C. Diesbourg Mr. & Mrs. B. Dietrich Mr. V. DiCiccio Mr. J. Donaldson Ms. J. Dunbrook Mr. G. Durst Ms. S. Ebsary Ms. M. Ferraro Mr. L. Hishon Mr. & Mrs. J. Forler Ms. C. Forlippa Mr. C. Fraser Mr. J. Fraser Ms. P. Fraser Mr. A. Gall Mr. M. Gamble Ms. J. Garrett Dr. D. Garrett Mr. B. Gibson Mr. & Mrs. E. Giesler Ms. C. Gleiser Mr. J. Goemans Mr. R. Goetz Mr. & Mrs. C. Grierson Mr. & Mrs. C. Grififiths Ms. R. Gummow Ms. S. Hayter Ms. H. Heideman Mr. & Mrs. P. Hemmerich COMMITf EE OF ADJ USTM ENT 108 JULY 11, 2006 1. Submission No.: B 2006-028 ~Cont'd~ Mr. D. Higginson Ms. J. Hill Ms. A. Hinchberger Mr. & Mrs. J. Honking Mr. & Mrs. I. Hurlbot Mr. & Mrs. W. Jenkins Mr. E. Klimstra Mr. D. Koehler Ms. D. O'Neill Mr. & Mrs. L. Kraehn Ms. K. Kucza Ms. A. ~aderoute Ms. B. Parke Ms. J. Laws Mr. K. Lepard Mr. G. ~evene Mr. M. ~evene Ms. A. little Mr. D. Lubell Mr. R. March Mr. T. Mavor Ms. L. McCain Ms. M. McDougall Ms. L. Millard Mr. F. Millard Mr. J.D. Mitchell Ms. M. Mellinger Mr. & Mrs. G. Moore Mr. F. Nichols Mr. A. Perry Mr. A. Polloni Mr. A. Poyntz Mr. S. Reinhardt Ms. D. Robertson Mr. & Mrs. G. Robson Ms. S. Ross Mr. W. Schmidt Mr. P. Serves Ms. E. Olds Mr. E. Scrogie Mr. T. Slomke Mr. T. Sloss Mr. & Mrs. R. Smith Mr. T. Smith Ms. A. Stahlke Mr. & Mrs. J. Stemerdink Mr. & Mrs. J. Stickney Mr. & Mrs. G. Sullivan Mr. W. Sword Ms. I. Syrokomla Ms. E. Thomas Mr. & Mrs. C. Thomson Ms. B. Timmins Mr. J. Pascoe Ms. J. Trip Mr. & Mrs. T. Tyhurst Ms. C. Voisin Dr. J. Sehl Ms. J. Weber Mr. & Mrs. D. Wharton COMMITf EE OF ADJ USTM ENT 109 JULY 11, 2006 1. Submission No.: B 2006-028 ~Cont'd) Mr. L. Willingham Ms. E. Mezo Ms. M. Worden Mr. & Mrs. R. Zimmer The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated July 5, 2006, recommending that the Committee's consideration of this application be deferred to allow the applicant an opportunity to prepare a concept plan for the lands that show a potential building footprint for the severed lands and potential designs for the new dwelling in terms of height, scale and appearance. Based on the staff recommendation, the Committee generally agreed to defer its consideration of this application to a future meeting. The applicant was also advised that he has an administrative matter to attend to respecting this application, and that this Committee will not consider this application until both planning matters and administrative matters are resolved. All persons in attendance on this application were advised that they will be notified in writing of the date, time and location of the Committee of Adjustment meeting where this application will be considered. MINOR VARIANCE 1. Submission No.: A 2006-045 Applicant: Kathleen Meyer Properly Location: 135 Trafalgar Avenue Legal Description: Lot 182, Registered Plan 914 Appearances: In Support: Ms. K. Meyer Contra: None Written Submissions: Mr. & Mrs. R. Stagat Mr. & Mrs. P. Schmidt Ms. I. Wolf Ms. J. Mowbray The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission for a deck and stairs to have a height of 0.9m (2.95') rather than the permitted 0.6m (1.96'), to have a westerly side yard of 0.6m (1.96') rather than the required 1.2m (3.93'). The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated July 4, 2006 advising the height and location of the proposed deck is primarily an issue with the immediately afifected property owner to the west. Staff typically do not support elevated decks in proximity to the side or rear lot lines. The primary purpose of the maximum 0.6m height elevation of a deck above grade and the setbacks is to allow the property owners to potentially erect a fence along the common lot line if needed for privacy purposes. A fence could not effectively screen anything greater than the 0.6m high deck. Notwithstanding, today there are numerous homes constructed as rear walk-outs, etc that have elevated decks from the second level of the house and in those instances, the privacy issue can be questioned. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated June 22, 2006 advising they have no concerns with respect to this application. Ms. Meyer advised that the purpose of this application is to replace the existing stairs with stairs that will be high enough to reach the deck. With respect to the privacy issue raised in the Development and Technical Services Department report, Ms. Meyer advised that the neighbour most directly affected by this application has a garage adjacent to the proposed location for her COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 110 JULY 11, 2006 1. Submission No.: A 2006-045 ~Cont'd) stairs. She advised the Committee that she has support from her neighbours for this application, and in this regard, she provided the Committee with four written submissions. Moved by Mr. Z. Janecki Seconded by Ms. D. Angel That the application of Kathleen Meyer requesting permission for a deck and stairs to have a height of 0.9m (2.95') rather than the permitted 0.6m X1.96'), to have a westerly side yard of 0.6m (1.96') rather than the required 1.2m X3.93'), on dot 182, Registered Plan 914, 135 Trafalgar Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: 1. That the variances as approved in this application shall apply to the deck and stairs generally as shown on the plans submitted with this application. 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 2. Submission No.: Applicant: Properly location: Le al Description: Appearances: In Support: Contra: A 2006-046 Michael & Astrid Kropp 261 Union Boulevard Part Lot 10 & 11, Registered Plan 350 Ms. A. Kropp Mr. M. Sonnenberg None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission to construct a rear addition with a rear yard of 5.33m (17.48') rather than the required 7.5m X24.6') and a covered porch on the westerly side of the house with a side yard of 0.86m (2.82') rather than the required 1.2m (3.93'). The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated July 4, 2006, advising they have no objections, provided the approval is for the proposed additions only. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated June 22, 2006 advising they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Ms. D. Angel Seconded by Mr. Z. Janecki That the application of Michael & Astrid Kropp requesting permission to construct a rear addition with a rear yard of 5.33m (17.48') rather than the required 7.5m X24.6') and a covered porch on the westerly side of the house with a side yard of 0.86m (2.82') rather than the required 1.2m (3.93'), on Part Lots 10 & 11, Registered Plan 350, 261 Union Boulevard, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED; subject to the following condition: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 111 JULY 11, 2006 2. Submission No.: A 2006-046 ~Cont'd) 1. That the variances as approved in this application shall apply to the rear addition and covered porch generally as shown on the plans submitted with this application. 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 3. Submission No.: A 2006-047 Applicant: 2014707 Ontario Inc. Properly Location: 502 Commonwealth Crescent Legal Description: Lot 63, Registered Plan 58M-344 - and - Submission No.: A 2006-048 Applicant: 2014707 Ontario Inc. Properly Location: 588 Commonwealth Crescent Legal Description: Lot 80, Registered Plan 58M-344 Appearances: In Support: Mr. T. Allensen Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that in Submission No. A 2006-047, the applicant requests permission for the driveway to have a set back of 8.24m (27.03') from the intersection of Commonwealth Crescent and Commonwealth Street rather than the required 9m (29.52'). The Committee was also advised that in Submission No. A 2006-048 the applicant requests permission for the driveway to have a set back of 7.3 m (23.95`) from the intersection of Commonwealth Crescent and Isabella Street rather than the required 9m (29.52`). The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated July 4, 2006, advising that the applications do not meet the intent of the Zoning By-law and therefore should be refused. They further advised that several years ago the City worked with the Development Industry to amend the Zoning By-law requirement with respect to the driveway setback for residential corner lots. The requirement was changed to a 9.Om setback from the intersection. Since that time, there have been several instances where builders propose to construct a dwelling on a corner lot that perhaps has a larger garage or dwelling than can adequately fit on the lot and maintain the driveway setback requirement. In some cases, the builder has proposed driveways at "awkward" angles or designs in order to try and meet the 9.Om requirement at the street line. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 112 JULY 11, 2006 3. Submission No.: A 2006-047 & A 2006-048 ~Cont'd) As a result, in 2005 the City amended the Zoning By-law again in order to require that the entire length of the driveway be straight and maintain the 9.Om setback from the intersection to the garage. The driveway design on the subject two lots continues to propose angled driveways and clearly does not meet the intent of the Zoning By-law. Stafif recommends that for corner lots, such as the subject properties, which are `dififerent' lots) that the builder considers a `different' house design, and in this case it may not be a double-car garage. Transportation Planning staff advised they have reviewed Submission No. A 2006-047 and have no concerns with the driveway being 9 metres wide, as long as where the driveway connects to the street is 9 metres away from the intersection. They also advised that they have reviewed Submission No. A 2006-048 and cannot support it as submitted. In order to comply with the 9 m setback, the driveway would need to be reduced to a single drive. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated June 22, 2006 advising they have no concerns with this application. Mr. Allenson explained that this plan of subdivision was approved a number of years ago. Since that time there has been a change in the by-law respecting driveways which has caused difificulties with these two corner lots. Two phases of this subdivision have been completed, and all corner lots have been designed this way. With respect to the design of these properties, Mr. Allenson advised he would like to have consistency within the subdivision. Lot 80 is a large lot, and to develop it with a small house and single car garage would be inconsistent. Further, if he has to reduce the width of the garage by 2 feet, it would make for an odd garage size. Mr. Allenson stated that these are the last two corner lots in this subdivision. Mr Sloan advised that the required driveway setback, from the intersection of the streets to the driveway, used to be 12 feet. Following discussions with the Home Builders Association, the setback requirement was changed to 9 feet. The by-law was again changed, one year ago, to require driveways to be straight. He advised that stafif would not object to approval of the variance for 502 Commonwealth Crescent; but the requested variance for 588 Commonwealth Crescent is too great, and the lot needs another house design. Mr. Allenson responded that to redesign the house for 588 Commonwealth Crescent at this time is not financially feasible. He then explained the design elements he has chosen for homes he has constructed in this area, such as attractive design features for the side elevations on corner lots, and the fact that the front porches are the dominant feature on the front fagade and not the garage. On the advice that there is an elementary school and a park in this immediate area, the Chair noted there could be a considerable amount of pedestrian trafific in this area. Mr. Allenson advised that lots are purchased on the basis of frontage, and if he has to choose a dififerent house design, it could cost him $50,000. Submission No. A 2006-047 Moved by Ms. D. Angel Seconded by Mr. Z. Janecki That the application of 2014707 Ontario Inc. requesting permission for the driveway to have a set back of 8.24m X27.03') from the intersection of Commonwealth Crescent and Commonwealth Street rather than the required 9m (29.52'), on dot 63, Registered Plan 58M-344, 502 Commonwealth Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 113 JULY 11, 2006 3. Submission No.: A 2006-047 & A 2006-048 ~Cont'd) 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 2006-048 Moved by Ms. D. Angel Seconded by Mr. Z. Janecki That the application of 2014707 Ontario Inc. requesting permission for the driveway to have a set back of 7.3m (23.95') from the intersection of Commonwealth Crescent and Isabella Street rather than the required 9m (29.52'), on Lot 80, Registered Plan 58M-344, 588 Commonwealth Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario, BE REFUSED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is not minor in nature. 2. This application is not 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 not being maintained on the subject property. Carried 5. Submission No.: A 2006-049 Applicant: 2103780 Ontario Ltd./Paul Motz Properly Location: 71 Heit Lane Legal Description: Part of Lot 121, Registered Plan 374 As no one appeared in support of this application, the Committee generally agreed to defer its consideration of this matter to its meeting scheduled for Tuesday, August 15, 2006. CONSENT 1. Submission No.: B 2006-027 Applicant: Rudolf Pawelowski Properly Location: 979 Guelph Street Legal Description: Part Lot 14, Subdivision of Lot 58. German Company Tract Appearances: In Support: Mr. R. Pawelowski Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to sever a lot from the rear of this property having a width on Spring Valley Road of 19.96 m X65.48 ft.), a depth of 29.83 m (97.86 ft.) and an area of 600 sq. m. (6,458.55 sq. ft.). The proposed use of the severed land is unknown at this time. The use of the retained land will continue as a contractor's establishment and caretaker's unit. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 114 JULY 11, 2006 1. Submission No.: B 2006-027 (Cont'd The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated July 5, 2006, in which they advised that the subject property is located on the southeasterly side of Guelph Street in the North Ward Neighbourhood. The lands are designated and zoned as General Industrial. Although this area of Guelph Street is zoned for industrial uses there is a mixture of uses that exist, including residential dwellings. The applicant is proposing to sever the rear of the property to create a new lot fronting Spring Valley Road. Prior to submitting the application, staff had concerns with what appeared to be a residential use on the industrial property and the functionality of the retained and severed lands for an intended industrial use. The applicant has provided documentation to confirm that the new structure that is being built on the subject lands is a contractor's establishment and the existing house is the permitted "caretaker" unit. Also, the applicant provided a drawing showing the buildings and potential driveway and parking arrangements for the retained lands. Stafif have now had the opportunity to review the information provided in more detail, along with consulting with the Supervisor of Site Plan Development and the City's Building Division. From staff's review, there are still outstanding issues with the following: the purposelintended use of the buildings, if a road widening will be taken from the property, the number and location of parking spaces as what is proposed on the plan is not practical and therefore alternate arrangements are required, confirmation of the access driveway and rear parking lot functionality and landscaping. Further, from the past submissions on this property it appeared as though the new building was to be for accessory and storage purposes. However, with the documentation now provided and upon inspection of the property to view what is under construction, it is clear now that this new development should have been considered through a site plan application. Therefore, staff recommend that this application be deferred until such time as a site plan application is submitted and sufficiently advanced to a point where it is certain that the retained lands can function and be developed appropriately. They recommended that application 82006-027, be deferred, until such time as a site plan application is submitted and sufficiently advanced to a point where it is certain that the retained lands can function and be developed appropriately. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning Housing and Community Services, dated July 6, 2006, in which they advise that the purpose of this application is to sever a 600 m2 X6,458.55 ftz) parcel of land with 19.96 m (65.48 ft) of frontage on Spring Valley Road in order to create a separate lot. The proposed use of the severed lands is unknown at this time. The retained lands would become 600 m2 (6,458.55 ftz) in area with 20 m (65.62 fit) of frontage on Guelph Street and will continue as a contractor's establishment and caretakers unit. The subject lands have been identified as being adjacent to a potentially contaminated site. Regional Staff do not know if the contamination suspected on the adjacent lands would pose a health or safety risk to the proposed use of the property. As the subject lands are not located within a Regional wellfield, the Regional Municipality of Waterloo does not have a direct corporate interest which would result in the Region requesting a Record of Site Condition imposed on its behalf. If the Committee decides to impose a Record of Site Condition or other similar requirements, it should be imposed as a condition of the Committee, with the Committee, not the Region, responsible for its release. In summary, Regional staff has no objections to this application. Mr. Pawelowski advised he read the Development and Technical Services Department report, and has concerns about the suggestion of a road widening and the requested deferral. Mr. Sloan explained the site plan process. He noted that the existing house is not permitted in the zoning by-law as the property is zoned General Industrial. He has been made aware that a building permit has been issued for this property for a building which is accessory to the house; however, the applicant has also advised the City that the property is used as a contractor's establishment, and the house is a caretakers unit. There is also a problem with the design of the parking area as shown on the submitted plan. Mr. Sloan also advised that until there is an approved site plan, the construction on this property must cease. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 115 JULY 11, 2006 1. Submission No.: B 2006-027 (Cont'd Moved by Ms. D. Angel Seconded by Mr. Z. Janecki That the application of Rudolf Pawelowski requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a width on Spring Valley Road of 19.96 m (65.48 ft.) by a depth of 29.83 m (97.86 ft.) and having an area of 600 m2 (6,458.55 sq. ft.), on Part Lot 14, Subdivision of dot 58, German Company Tract, 979 Guelph Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE DEFERRED, until such time as a site plan application has been submitted, and is sufficiently advanced to a point where it is certain that the retained land can function and be developed appropriately. Carried CONSENT & MINOR VARIANCE 1. Submission No.: Applicant: Properly location: Le al Description: Appearances: In Support: Contra: B 2006-029, B 2006-030 & A 2006-050 to A 2006-052 Chalon Estates Inc. Caryndale Drive Part of dot 8, Biehn's Tract Mr. D. Aston Mr. P. Grespan None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission as follows: Submission No. B 2006-029 (Block 3) -Permission to sever a parcel of land having a width on Caryndale Drive of approximately 164m (538.05 ft.), having an irregular shape, and an area of 6.21 ha (15.33 acres), to be developed for residential use some time in the future. Submission No. B 2006-030 (Block 1) -Permission to sever a parcel of land having a width on Caryndale Drive of approximately 105.91 m (347.47 fit.), having an irregular shape, and having an area of 4.22 ha (10.42 acres), to be conveyed as a lot addition to the abutting plan of subdivision. The retained land Block 2~ has a width along Caryndale Drive of 285.26m (935.89 ft.), a width along Stauffer Drive of 280.99 m (921.88 fit.), and an area of 9.21 ha (22.74 acres), which contains a wood lot. Each of the 3 parcels has a variance to the requirements of the zoning by-law respecting lot area, as follows: Submission No. A 2006-050 Block 3~ - the land to be severed in B 2006-029) permission for a lot having an area of 6.21 ha X15.33 acres) rather than the permitted 1.2 ha (2.964 acres). Submission No. A 2006-051 Block 1 ~ - the land to be severed in B 2006-030) permission for a lot having an area of 4.22 ha X10.42 acres) rather than the permitted 1.2 ha (2.964 acres). Submission No. A 2006-052 Block 2) - (the retained land) permission for a lot having an area of 9.21 ha (22.74 acres) rather than the permitted 1.2 ha X2.964 acres). The Committee noted the comments of the Development and Technical Services Department dated July 5, 2006, advising the subject property is vacant and is located at the north east corner of Caryndale Drive and Stauffer Drive. The applicant is proposing to sever two parcels of land for a total of three blocks. Block 1 is proposed to be severed and conveyed as a lot addition to the adjacent land to the east Plan of Subdivision 30T-04204). Block 3 is proposed to be severed COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 116 JULY 11, 2006 1. Submission No.: B 2006-029. B 2006-030 & A 2006-050 to A 2006-052 lCont'dl and created as a separate parcel. Block 2 is the retained lands. A plan of subdivision application is anticipated for Block 1 and Block 3. The subject lands are zoned Agricultural (A-1) and designated Low Rise Residential and Open Space in the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan. The A-1 zoning requires a maximum lot area of 1.2 hectares and the proposed lots all exceed the maximum as Block 1 is 4.22 ha, Block 2 is 9.21 ha, and Block 3 is 6.21 ha. A portion of these lands is designated for residential development and it is generally understood that the A-1 zoning that currently applies to these lands will eventually be replaced when subdivisionlzone change applications are submitted for future residential development. These severances are being submitted in advance of a formal plan of subdivision submission and the variance applications are required in order to ensure that the parcels of land that are proposed to be created conform to the zoning with respect to maximum lot area. The purpose of these applications, according to the applicant, is to convey Block 1 as a lot addition to adjacent Plan of Subdivision 30T-04204 with the intent that Robert Ferrie Drive will be extended to Caryndale Drive. A plan of subdivision is expected to be submitted after consideration of the consent applications. Consents 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 offer the following comments. City staff are of the opinion that the severances are appropriate development as both lots to be severed are intended for future subdivision development. Block 1 will be conveyed as a lot addition to the adjacent lands which have an active subdivision application being processed on them ~30T-04204). The applicant has indicated that the severed lands (Block 1) are intended for an extension of Robert Ferrie Drive from the subdivision to the east - as indicated in the Doon South Community Plan - with a row of residential lots proposed on either side of Robert Ferrie Drive. Block 3 is proposed to be an extension of Chapel Hill Drive and Bannockburn Road from the existing subdivision to the north. Plans have not been submitted for these lands to date. City staff want to ensure that the creation of Block 1 before a plan of subdivision has been submitted won't prejudice good planning in the event that the proposed subdivision proposal can not be developed within the approved block area. Specifically, an Environmental Impact Review needs to be completed to determine appropriate development setbacks from the woodland in Block 2. An environmental review was submitted with the severance applications but additional environmental work will be required, in the form of an EIR, as part of the subdivision review. The applicant has prepared a concept plan for the proposed subdivision on Block 1 and has indicated to the City that the proposed block reflects the land area for the extension of Robert Ferrie Drive with a 26 metre right of way whereas within the adjacent plan Robert Ferrie is 20 metres in width. As well the lots proposed on either side of Robert Ferrie have extra depth. These design elements provide flexibility for the location of the road extension and lot lines within Block 1. Specifically, should additional setbacks from the woodland in Block 2 be required as a result of the EIR submitted with a future plan of subdivision, there is several metres within the plan to provide for that flexibility if required. Given the importance and intent of conserving the Caryndale woodland that is located on the retained lands (Block 2) a conservation easement is being recommended with the primary purpose of conserving this environmental feature. The assurance of conserving these lands would be consistent with the objectives of the Provincial Policy Statement, the Municipal Plan designation of Open Space, the Doon South Creek Subwatershed Management Plan and the Doors South Community Plan, including the Doors South Greenspace Management Plan and specifically the Caryndale Woodlot Management Program. Considering that these lands are not proposed to be rezoned at this time, the conservation easement could include provisions that no dwelling unit be built on the lands. Variances With respect to the variance applications to increase the maximum lot area for each of the lots, they are deemed to generally conform to the intent of the Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan as COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 117 JULY 11, 2006 1. Submission No.: B 2006-029. B 2006-030 & A 2006-050 to A 2006-052 lCont'd these lots are zoned agricultural, with the understanding that the A-1 zoning is in place until development is proposed with a specific zoning category reflecting the proposed development. In other words, the intent is not to farm these lands or construct one single detached dwelling and this is reflected in the Low Density Residential Municipal Plan designation which anticipates residential zoning. The variances are required to bring the parcels into conformity, as separate lots under the existing A-1 zoning until the appropriate zoning is considered through a future plan of subdivision. The existing block already exceeds the 1.2 hectare maximum lot area. With the proposed conditions of consent and the possible temporary nature of the size of the blocks, the variances could be considered appropriate and the impact minor as appropriate zoning will be considered on these blocks when development applications are considered. It is necessary to consider the situation should development applications not be submitted in the future on these lots. Currently, one dwelling unit could be developed on this property under the current zoning. With the proposed conditions of the severances Block 2 would be restricted from building permits in the woodland and since Block 1 will be a lot addition, therefore the result is that only Block 3 could receive a building permit. The development potential as a result of the severance applications to create a total of three blocks would not increase the development potential in the unlikely situation where subdivision applications are not submitted for Blocks 1 and 3. Planning staff recommend that the applications be approved, subject to several conditions: The Committee noted the comments of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated June 22, 2006 advising they have no objections to these applications. The Committee considered the report of the Grand River Conservation Authority, dated June 30, 2006 advising they have no concerns with respect to this application; however future application Blocks 1 and 3 may require lot line adjustments to the wetland, watercourse, and their bufifers. The Committee noted the comments of Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro, Senior Design Technician, dated June 26, 2006 advising they have no objections provided the land be subject to restrictive easements throughout the development process. Mr. D. Aston advised the Committee that the purpose of these applications is to create one new lot and one parcel as a lot addition. He advised that plans of subdivision will be required for these two parcels of land before they can be developed. Further, the retained land will remain as a woodlot. Mr. Aston stated that at the time Block 1 is conveyed as a lot addition, the owner is prepared to sign an agreement that they will not apply for a building permit for the woodlot. The owners are taking steps to protect the woodlot, and in that vein have undertaken an analysis by Eco Plans to establish an appropriate set back from the woodlot for Block 1 on the severance sketch. Mr. Aston advised that they have reviewed the staff report and agree with it except for conditions A1, 62 and 64. Mr. Grespan advised that Block 3 will continue to be owned by Chalon Estates Inc. who intend a subdivision for this land to create lots for members of their community, and they will also build a community centre and a seniors' residence. Mr. Grespan continued by explaining that Block 1 on the severance sketch will be conveyed to the developer of Plan of Subdivision 30T-04204, as a consolidation with that subdivision. These applications have been made in order to allow each of them to proceed at their own pace. Mr. Grespan argued that Block 2 on the severance sketch is a woodlot and the Caryndale Community uses this land for the community; consequently, he believes that a Conservation Easement Agreement with the City for this land is unjustified. Further, the lands to be severed do not include any of the woodlot. The land to be severed (Block 1 on the severance sketch) will be subject to an Environmental Impact Review, and will respect the northerly limit of the woodlot. The applicant agrees not to apply for a building permit through some other method; as the woodlot is intended to remain private property, and will remain as a woodlot for many years to come. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 118 JULY 11, 2006 1. Submission No.: B 2006-029. B 2006-030 & A 2006-050 to A 2006-052 lCont'dl With respect to the requested parkland dedication, Mr. Grespan advised that the parkland dedication for Blocks 1 & 3 should be deferred until applications for draft plans of subdivision are made, and he assured the Committee that MHBC Planning has already been commissioned to prepare these plans. Mr. Sloan advised that there has been a lot of work done on these applications by staff and the applicant, and these applications may provide the only opportunity to deal with these matters, as there may never be future applications. He advised that stafif could agree to have the parkland dedication deferred to the subdivision stage for Parts 1 & 3, provided there is an agreement. With respect to the parkland dedication for Part 2, Mr. Sloan explained this land is part of the application, and there will probably never be another application on this property. With respect to the requested Conservation Easement Agreement, Mr. Sloan advised that the woodlot should be properly managed, and the City needs assurances as to the management of this resource, which would be contained in such an agreement. These applications provide the City with the only opportunity to obtain such an easement agreement. Mr. Grespan responded that this land is private property, and this is not the right process for the City to obtain a Conservation Easement Agreement. The church wants to maintain their rights, and has always been good stewards of this land. Mr. Aston noted that should there even be future applications on this woodlot, the City would have rights at that time. Further, there will be an agreement on title that will restrict issuance of a building permit for this property. He stated that these are assurances that are reasonable and fair. Mr. Sloan stated that the City is not concerned about development on this woodlot, but it is concerned about tree cutting, and the City also wants it maintained in a healthy state. Mr. Grespan stated that a Conservation Easement agreement has to be reasonable. Does the severance have an impact on this land? He stated that the day after the severance has to be dififerent than the day before the severance. Mr. Sloan noted that the zoning also has to be considered, and the woodlot should be zoned "Open Space". The zoning is not changing, so the City needs an agreement for conservation. It was noted that the current zoning would allow tree harvesting. Mr. Sloan then agreed to a change in the recommended conditions, such that the parkland dedication for Blocks 1 & 3 be deferred, by way of agreement, to the time of further subdivision of these lands. He asked that the Committee still require payment of parkland dedication for Block 2 at this time. Further, if there is to be no Conservation Easement Agreement for the woodlot, he asked that: there be no Building Permits for this lot, that the woodlot be signed, around its perimeter, as being a private woodlot, and that the City be notified every time the owner applies to the Region under its tree cutting by-law. Mr. Grespan commented that, with respect to parkland dedication for the woodlot, there must be a reasonable connection. The creation of the woodlot is not going to create any need for a park. This committee must make sure this condition is reasonable in the circumstances. Submission No. B 2006-029 Moved by Mr. Z. Janecki Seconded by Ms. D. Angel That the application of Chalon Estates Inc. requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a width on Caryndale Drive of approximately 164m (538.05 ft.), having an irregular shape, and an area of approximately 6.21 ha (15.33 acres)(Shown as Block 3 on the severance sketch), on Part of Lot 8, Biehn's Tract, Caryndale Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 119 JULY 11, 2006 1. Submission No.: B 2006-029, B 2006-030 & A 2006-050 to A 2006-052 ~Cont'd) 1. That the owner shall make satisfactory financial arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding municipal properly taxes and/or local improvement changes. 2. That the owner shall receive final approval of Application for Minor Variance A 2006-050. 3. That the owner shall submit to the Secretary-Treasurer a digital files) 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. 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. 4. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener, to be prepared by the City Solicitor, and registered on title of the severed land, whereby the owner agrees to provide the parkland dedication for the land to be severed, at the time of any future application to develop, or subdivide this land. 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 July 11, 2008. Carried Submission No. B 2006-030 Moved by Mr. Z. Janecki Seconded by Ms. D. Angel That the application of Chalon Estates Inc. requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a width on Caryndale Drive of approximately 105.91 m X347.47 ft.), having an irregular shape, and having an area of approximately 4.22 ha (10.42 acres), (shown as Block 1 on the severance sketch) to be conveyed as a lot addition to the abutting plan of subdivision, on Parl of Lot 8, Biehn's Tract, Caryndale Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall make satisfactory financial arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement changes. 2. That the owner shall submit to the Secretary-Treasurer, a digital file(s) 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. 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. COMMITf EE OF ADJ USTM ENT 120 JULY 11, 2006 1. Submission No.: B 2006-029, B 2006-030 & A 2006-050 to A 2006-052 ~Cont'd) 3. That the owner shall receive final approval of Applications for Minor Variance A 2006-051 and A 2006-052. 4. That the owner shall receive approval from the City's Director of Planning of a draft reference plan showing the proposed lot line between the retained land Block 2 on the severance sketch) and the severed land (Block 1 on the severance sketch). 5. That the land to be severed in this application (Block 1 on the severance sketch) shall be added to the abutting land immediately to the east, and title shall be taken in identical ownership; with any subsequent conveyances or transactions complying with subsection 50 (3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act. 6. That the owner shall pay to the City of Kitchener acash-in-lieu of parkland dedication equal to 5% of the value of the land to be retained Part 2 on the severance sketch). 7. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener, to be prepared by the City Solicitor and registered on title of the severed and retained lands, that includes the following: a) That the owner shall submit a detailed Environmental Impact Report with the submission of a subdivision application for the severed land (Block 1 on the severance sketch), that will be used to determine the final analysis and setback requirements for future development and lot creation on the severed land in relation to the woodland on the retained land (Block 2 on the severance sketch). b) That the owner shall provide to the City of Kitchener the parkland dedication for the severed land (Block 1 on the severance sketch) at the time of any future application to develop or subdivide this land. c) That the owner shall not apply for or receive a building permit for the retained land (Part 2 on the severance sketch); and, That the owner shall post signage on the perimeter of the retained land identifying it as a private woodlot to be conserved; and further, That each time that the owner applies to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to cut any trees on the retained land, pursuant to the Region's Tree By-law, the owner shall notify the City's Director of Planning by way of a copy of such application, at the same time as the application is submitted to the Region. 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 July 11, 2008. Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 121 JULY 11, 2006 1. Submission No.: B 2006-029, B 2006-030 & A 2006-050 to A 2006-052 ~Cont'd) Submission No. A 2006-050 Moved by Mr. Z. Janecki Seconded by Ms. D. Angel That the application of Chalon Estates Inc. requesting permission for a lot having an area of 6.21 ha (15.33 acres) rather than the permitted 1.2 ha (2.964 acres) (shown as Block 3 on the severance sketch), on Part of Lot 8, Biehn's Tract, Caryndale 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 Submission No. A 2006-051 Moved by Mr. Z. Janecki Seconded by Ms. D. Angel That the application of Chalon Estates Inc. requesting permission for a lot having an area of 4.22 ha (10.42 acres) rather than the permitted 1.2 ha (2.964 acres) (shown as Block 1 on the severance sketch), on Part of Lot 8, Biehn's Tract, Caryndale 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 Submission No. A 2006-052 Moved by Mr. Z. Janecki Seconded by Ms. D. Angel That the application of Chalon Estates Inc. requesting permission for a lot having an area of 9.21 ha (22.74 acres) rather than the permitted 1.2 ha (2.964 acres) (shown as Block 2 on the severance sketch), on Part of Lot 8, Biehn's Tract, Caryndale Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 122 JULY 11, 2006 1. Submission No.: B 2006-029, B 2006-030 & A 2006-050 to A 2006-052 ~Cont'd~ 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 ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 11:50 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 11 th day of July 2006. Dianne H. Gilchrist Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment