Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2006-08-15COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD AUGUST 15, 2006 MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. D. Cybalski, P. Britton and Ms. D. Angel. OFFICIALS PRESENT: Mr. B. Sloan, Senior Planner, Ms. D. Gilchrist, Secretary-Treasurer, and Ms. R. Brent, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer. Mr. P. Britton, Chair, called this meeting to order at 9:46 a.m. MINUTES Moved by Mr. P. Britton Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment, of August 15, 2006, as mailed to the members, be adopted. Carried UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Submission No.: A 2006-049 Applicant: 2103780 Ontario Ltd. Property Location: 71 Heit Lane Legal Description: Part Lot 121, Registered Plan 374 Appearances: In Support: Mr. P. Motz Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting to change the use of a legal non- conforming property from storage to office. The property is legal non-conforming because it does not have frontage on a public street. The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated July 5, 2006 advising that Planning staff typically have issues with properties that do not have frontage on a legal street. In this case, this Downtown property fronts a public lane that does not have the width to be considered a public street. Staff understand the existing building has been used for storage purposes and is now proposed to be used for an office and storage. Considering that warehousing is not a permitted use in the D-5 zoning of the property and that office use is permitted, under Section 45 (2) (a) (ii) of the Planning Act, the Committee could perhaps consider the use of the land and building for this property to be more compatible with the uses permitted by the by-law. If the consideration does not meet those tests, the other option would then be to consider a zone change to permit an office on the property without frontage on a public street but a public lane. Given the Downtown location, the scale of what is proposed and the benefit of improving and utilizing an otherwise unusable property, this application could be considered under different merits. The accessibility of the property for an office with one or two parking spaces required on a public lane should be confirmed by Transportation Planning. Should the Committee approve any application, the scale of the use of the property should be limited to that proposed and with all setbacks and regulations stipulated in the decision. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 124 AUGUST 15, 2006 1. Submission No.: A 2006-049 Cont'd 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. Motz advised the Committee that he bought this property for use as a personal office and storage of files. He also advised there are 2 residences on this lane, one at 21 and another at 81 Heit Lane. Mr. Sloan advised this is not a straight forward application. The property does not front onto a public street as defined in the zoning by-law. The question to be addressed is whether the proposed use is more compatible with the by-law. Truly, the proposal is just to re-use the inside of the building. The proposed use of an office is a permitted use in this zone, but a warehouse is not. Mr. Britton suggested this application could be looked upon as a request for a Minor Variance to a regulation for frontage on a public street rather than a change of non-conforming use. He noted that this building has been there for quite a while, and questioned the extent of maintenance by the municipality. Mr. Motz responded that the municipality collects garbage on Heit Lane, the mail is delivered door-to-door, but as he has just purchased the property, he is not sure about snow plowing. With respect to off-street parking, Mr. Sloan responded that 1 or 2 parking spaces are required, and the proposed use is not an intensification. Mr. Britton noted there is no expansion to the building being proposed; consequently, there will be no increased demand on public services. He suggested the owner sign an acknowledgement that this property fronts onto a public lane, which may receive a lower level of maintenance than a public street. Moved by Ms. D. Angel Seconded by Mr. P. Britton That the application of 2103780 Ontario Ltd. requesting permission to change a legal non- conforming use from storage to office and storage, in the existing building having an area of 65.5 sq. m., and a height of 1 ~/2 storeys, on a lane having a width of 4.57m, on Part Lot 21, Plan 374, 71 Heit Lane, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall provide the City of Kitchener with a signed acknowledgement, satisfactory to the Director of Planning, acknowledging that 71 Heit Lane fronts a public lane which may receive a lower level of maintenance than a public street. It is the opinion of this Committee that the proposed use of this land and buildings for an office and storage is more compatible with the uses permitted by the by-law than the purpose for which they were used on the day the by-law was passed. Carried This meeting recessed at 9:55 a.m., and reconvened at 10:31 a.m. with the following members present: Ms. D. Angel, and Messrs. D. Cybalski and P. Britton. NEW BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE 1. Submission No.: A 2006-053 Applicant: Cameron Weir Property Location: 133 Young Street Legal Description: Lot 5, Registered Plan 401 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 125 AUGUST 15, 2006 1. Submission No.: A 2006-053 Cont'd Appearances: In Support: Mr. D. Shorn Mr. C. Weir Ms. D. Statz Contra: Mrs. & Mrs. D. Coleman Ms. B. Buchanan Ms. C. Alksnis Mr. S. Desmarais Ms. K. Lawrence Mr. & Mrs. G. Kuehl Neighbourhood Petitions Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission to operate a home business (consulting service) with 3 employees rather than the permitted 1 employee. The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated August 9, 2006 advising that the applicant is proposing to legalize an existing home business with 3 employees instead of the maximum of 1 employee. The property is designated Low Rise Residential Preservation under the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Secondary Plan, which encourages retention of the single detached dwelling built form, but allows for internal conversions to a maximum of 3 residential units, and permits home based businesses. The property is currently zoned R-5, 1270, which permits duplex dwellings and home based businesses. The applicant has noted that the dwelling currently accommodates a residential dwelling unit and a home business. The Municipal Plan permits home businesses provided: it is secondary to a residential use; it does not generate nuisance, such as noise, traffic problems or parking problems; and, it does not visually detract from the residential character of the neighbourhood. With respect to the zoning by-law, a home business is permitted in any dwelling provided that the business owner resides in the home; the business does not exceed 25% of the floor area of the dwelling, or 50 sq. m.; only 1non-resident employee works on site; and, the business does not attract more than 3 customers or clients at any one time. The applicant has requested permission to have a home business with 3 employees, rather than just one. To determine whether nor not this constitutes a minor change, we must assess the impact of this size of a business on the neighbourhood. Planning staff did monitor this site over the course of a week to observe the amount of on-site parking and noise. With respect to on-street parking, staff advise that within less than aone-block radius of this site, there are 25+ on-street parking spaces. The greatest number of spaces used at any one time was 8, and the business did not appear to create any on-street parking problems. With respect to on-site parking, the current parking area is configured to allow approximately 6 parking spaces. On only 2 occasions, within the same day, was the parking lot full. The existing parking lot is not out of scale with what might be required to service a duplex or triplex dwelling. At no time were cars parked on the sodded front, side or rear yards. None of the 21 site visits produced any evidence of noise or traffic generation. No delivery trucks were seen, and no pedestrian or vehicular traffic to and from the site was seen. There is no commercial signage on site, and the home and site are as well landscaped and maintained as any in the immediate area. In fact, one may consider it to be the most attractively maintained lot in the neighbourhood. Landscaping has been used to mitigate the visual impact of the parking lot from the street, and the required fencing along the rear property line is attractive and meets City standards. The only evidence of activity is the occupied parking lot during the day; however, a duplex or triplex dwelling could easily generate the same volume of cars on site. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 126 AUGUST 15, 2006 1. Submission No.: A 2006-053. Cont'd The subject site is located within 2 blocks of Downtown Kitchener. Numerous small businesses are currently located between the subject site and Downtown, particularly along Roy Street, Weber Street and Young Street. This area is designated for the conversion of residential dwellings to office space, providing the built form (single detached dwellings) remains intact. The intent is to provide a transition between the intense office uses along Weber Street and the residential interior of Civic Centre (which includes the subject site). As such, full conversion of the subject dwelling would not be considered appropriate; however, conversion of 25% of the dwelling for home office, as is proposed, would be appropriate provided the built form remains intact and residential activity remains the primary use of the building. It is appropriate to also mention the other benefits this business provides the neighbourhood. It does provide a people presence in the neighbourhood throughout the working day, when neighbourhoods are typically empty. It does provide a superior aesthetic appearance which only adds to the character and curb appeal of the neighbourhood. Economically, it provides an effective form of business incubation, which could eventually result in the business relocating to a Downtown office location. The existing home business appears to operate generally in concert with the land use policies and zoning requirements for home businesses. It has been operated so inconspicuously that one would not know by looking at the site, that a business is located there. It does not appear to cause any direct impacts to the surrounding neighbourhood, and may in fact add to the safety, security and visual appeal of the area. Therefore, staff believe the application satisfies the 4 tests of a minor variance, as the 3 employee home based business meets the general intent of the zoning by-law and municipal plan, may be considered minor in nature, and is desirable of the appropriate use of land. Staff recommend the application be approved, provided the variance applies to a home business office use only that complies with all other home business regulations. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated July 24, 2006 advising they have no concerns with respect to this application. Mr. Shorn submitted a petition signed by some of the neighbours in support of this application. He noted that the report from City staff states this application meets the requirement of the zoning by- law and the Official Plan. With respect to parking, Mr. Shorn advised the existing parking is similar to the amount of parking which would be required by a triplex, which is a permitted use on this property. Mr. Weir advised that the nature of his business is developing computer software. There is no need for clients to come to this office as they will either deliver the software to their clients, or put it on a server farm. They also provide support for their clients who are located across Canada. Mr. Weir then provided the Committee with a copy of his landscaping plan, noting that the driveway and parking are not as shown on the original plan. The old concrete driveway has been removed and a new one has been installed, along with landscaping and a fence. He also advised that there were 2 tenants in the building when they purchased the property. Since the tenants left, he has completed significant renovations, and now is completing period restorations to the house. Mr. Shorn advised that this business operated from the old Eaton's building before it was converted into lofts. When they knew they would have to move the business, there were encouraged by the Mayor to relocate within the City of Kitchener. He advised that Mr. Weir is the sole owner of the business, and he and his wife own the property. Further, 5 people work in the business and there are 5 members of this family, who will live in the house once the renovations are completed. This property was purchased on September 30, 2005, and the business started at this address on November 1, 2005. Upon questioning, Mr. Shorn confirmed that the property is used as a business at this point in time. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 127 AUGUST 15, 2006 1. Submission No.: A 2006-053 Mr. Weir explained there was a residential tenant in the property when they purchased it, and they could not undertake the necessary conversions for their home until the tenant left. He did communicate to the City's By-law Enforcement Division that they are working towards completing the necessary renovations, and it has always been their intension to live and work at this premises. Mr. Britton questioned the amount of parking on site, and was advised by Mr. Weir there is sufficient space in the parking lot for 5-6 cars, and space in the garage, which would allow for a total of 7-8 cars. Mr. Weir noted that he and his wife own 2 cars, and his employees drive to work every day. When questioned by the Committee, Mr. Sloan advised that a duplex and triplex are permitted uses on this property, which uses would required 2-3 parking spaces. Mr. Shorn stated that the zoning does permit businesses that could generate much more parking than this business. Ms. D. Kuehl submitted a neighbourhood petition in opposition to this application, and addressed the Committee advising she lives directly across the street from the subject property. She advised this is a residential neighbourhood with preservation zoning, and she does not understand why the City would encourage this business at this address. She advised the neighbours submitted complaints to the City as soon as they became aware of this business at this location. Ms. Kuehl noted the following concerns: green space has been paved to allow parking for 6 vehicles which destroys the streetscape of this historic neighbourhood. If this business grows more parking may be required, and she questioned how this can be controlled. She questioned how a quality neighbourhood can be sustained if it is undermined in this way. With respect to the stability of the neighbourhood, Ms. Kuehl stated that if this business is permitted to continue, it could encourage other neighbourhood residents/families to sell their properties to prospective business people, resulting in less people actually living in the neighbourhood. Further, more businesses lead to more business signage, which reduces the sense of neighbourliness, and makes the area look more like a business district. Also, the home could become an upper storey rental apartment with a business on the ground floor, which did happen at this location. Such a situation can make the residential portion of the building limiting for families with small children. This could lead to the family moving out and the possibility of the owner trying to maintain a "home business" without actually living there. There are also safety concerns: increased traffic from the business, increases safety concerns for small children; more trucks and deliveries; fewer people around at night which is when many crimes occur. The City is looking for more residents in the downtown so why allow a zoning change that will decrease the number of residents living in the downtown. This business should be in a main corridor and not in a residential area. Ms. Kuehl reminded the Committee that in the winter of 2005, there was an idea considered by the City for Central Neighbourhoods to have some kind of "Home Business Opportunity Program" that would allow for more employees. This proposed program even suggested that additional parking spaces for non-resident workers would not be required, which would create more on- street parking. There was public outrage at this idea, and the downtown residents understood this idea had been abandoned. Now it looks as though it is being promoted by the Planning Department. Ms. C. Lawrence addressed the Committee in opposition to this application, advising she lives next door to the subject property. She advised that many of the neighbours have complained to the City about this business. She also advised that she bought her house 2 years ago, and has also done a lot of renovations to her property, which is the way of life when you buy an older home. She advised of her concerns about parking and the extent of the parking lot, and the fact COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 128 AUGUST 15, 2006 1. Submission No.: A 2006-053 tCont'd) that she now has a fence 2' from her house. She stated her surprise at the extent of the office use which goes beyond what is normally allowed, noting there is plenty of office space available on King Street. Mr. Sloan responded to questions from the Committee, advising the zoning by-law does allow home businesses. Offices are permitted in single family dwellings and duplexes subject to regulations. This property could have a home business with one employee. A home business can occupy 25% of the home, to a maximum of 50 sq. m. Mr. Weir explained that his home business office occupies the living room and front porch. He was advised by the City that the front door, vestibule and washroom are not included in the floor area calculations, and he is confident that he complies with the zoning by-law. Further, there is no kitchenette for use by his staff. With respect to the family's use of the ground floor, Mr. Weir advised they currently use the kitchen and dinning room on the ground floor; however, they will eventually move the kitchen upstairs. The upstairs is not intended to become aself-contained unit. Mr. Weir explained their intension is to move the family into this home by December or January, once the renovations/restoration is complete, and he currently lives at this property most of the time. Mr. Britton questioned whether this is legitimately a home business. Mr. Weir advised that it has been a home business for the last couple of weeks, as his tenant's lease expired on June 15, 2006 and he moved in. Mr. Britton noted that between September 2005 and June 2006, the business was not a home business. Mr. Weir responded that they did not ask the tenant to vacate the property when they purchased it, but put them on notice that they would not renew the lease. Mr. Britton stated this is still not a home business and won't be until December or January. Mr. Britton then questioned the definition of a commercial parking facility, and Mr. Sloan read the following definition from the zoning by-law: "Commercial Parking Facility means an area, other than a street or lane, used for the parking of motor vehicles and available for public and/or private use whether or not for compensation and for the purposes of this by-law, a commercial parking facility shall constitute the only use of a lot and parking spaces may be designed to include the use of stacked or valet arrangements." Mr. Sloan noted that Ms. Kuehl touched on a lot of staff concerns. If this is truly a home business, then what is the magnitude of the extra employees. There are very specific locations designated for office/commercial conversion. The Civic Centre has specific policies about maintaining the housing stock. If this business was on Roy Street or Weber Street, then the conversion would be appropriate; however, by locating on this property, does this start to infiltrate the residential neighbourhood. If the family lives there, then the home business is not a separate use. The home business provisions have been in the zoning by-law since 1994, and the City has no intention of changing these regulations. The stabilization of the neighbourhood is the issue, and the question to be addressed is whether the additional employees are acceptable. He agreed that a floor plan would be helpful in order to determine how much space is used for the business and how much for the residence. Mr. Shorn questioned why the City would encourage this business to locate in this area if it is not to be permitted. The staff report recommends that commercial signage not be permitted on this property, and the owner is agreeable to this restriction. The property is well maintained and the parking and landscaping have been well done. With respect to the amount of parking, a duplex or triplex could generate as much parking. Mr. Weir has explained why it is taking so long for the family to move into this home. The building exterior has been well maintained. The home business is a permitted use, and staff has advised that this application meets the 4 tests set-out in the Planning Act. Ms. Kuehl noted that when the upstairs tenant left, a "for rent" sign was placed on the building. Mr. Weir explained that the tenant wanted to leave before the lease was up, so he offered to try and sub-let the apartment. However, it was not possible to attract a new tenant for the short amount of time left on the lease. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 129 AUGUST 15, 2006 1. Submission No.: A 2006-053 tCont'd) The Chair noted that this business can only qualify as a home business if the business owner lives there. Mr. Britton commented that he is not convinced both of the owners are living at this address. Mr. Weir advised that for 3 weeks this property has been his primary residence. Mr. Shorn suggested that the Committee defer consideration of this application until the family has moved into the house. Mr. Britton responded that the application is before the Committee today. Up until 3 weeks ago the business was operating without the owner living in the residence. He noted that if he was a neighbour, he would be concerned that this business was running illegally up until 3 weeks ago. Mr. Britton stated that the expense for the conversion is not relevant, and neither is the illegal use. What is relevant are the 4 tests in the Planning Act, and the main issue is the intent of the zoning by-law and the Official Plan. The Chair stated that if the home business complies with all other requirements of the zoning by- law, such as floor space, then the Committee is looking at the appropriateness of 2 more employees. It was his opinion that the application meets the intent of the Planning Act, but there are issues to deal with such as: landscape plan, lighting plan, no signage, primary use of the property as a residence, and that the appearance of the property should be that of a home. Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski Seconded by Ms. D. Angel That the application of Cameron Weir requesting permission to operate a home business, being an office for a software technology development business, with 3 employees rather than the permitted 1 employee, on Part Lot 5, Plan 401, 133 Young Street, Kitchener Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That there shall be no more than 3 employees at this home business. 2. That there shall be no exterior signage advertising this home business. 3. That the owner shall submit, to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning, a landscaping plan, exterior lighting plan, and floor plan for the subject property, no later than the 4th of September 2006. 4. That the home business shall comply with all other requirements of the zoning by-law. 5. That the owner's family shall reside at this residence, as their principle residence, not later than February 28, 2007. 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 Mr. Britton stated that many good points have been raised on both sides of this application. He advised that he was involved in writing the original by-law and the Official Plan provisions for this area of the City. The Official Plan designation for this property is Low Rise Residential Preservation, the intent of which is to protect residential enclaves. Consequently, the zoning was reduced in terms of what could occur, to provide stability to the neighbourhood. To approve this application does expose the neighbourhood to an increase of this type of business. Also, the intent was not to pave the neighbourhood and an increase in businesses brings increased paving. He stated that because of the original intent of the zoning by-law and the Official Plan, he can not support this application. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTI 2. Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: Appearances: ~IENT 130 AUGUST 15, 2006 A 2006-054 Parviz &Monavar Shahzadeh 10 Dunsmere Court Lot 253, Registered Plan 1369 In Support: Ms. F. Shahzadeh Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission to construct an attached double garage and driveway with an easterly 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 August 8, 2006, advising they have no objections provided that approval is for aone-storey garage addition only; approval is only for a garage addition that is set back further from the front lot line than the front fagade of the dwelling, and a condition is included to require that prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant confirms and provides that appropriate lot grading and drainage will be maintained. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated July 24, 2006 advising they have no concerns with this application. Ms. Shahzedeh advised they require 11" more in width than the by-law allows. They have requested a 2' side yard to allow for any errors during construction. She advised they can comply with the requirements set-out in the staff report. Upon questioning by the Committee, Mr. Sloan advised that he sees no significant problem with the driveway. Moved by Mr. P. Britton Seconded by Ms. D. Angel That the application of Parviz and Monavar Shahzadeh requesting permission to construct a single car garage and driveway with an easterly side yard of 0.6m (1.96') rather than the required 1.2m (3.93'), on Lot 253, Registered Plan 1369, 10 Dunsmere court, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the garage shall be setback farther from the front lot line than the front wall of the dwelling. 2. That prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed garage, the owner shall confirm and provide that appropriate lot grading and drainage will be maintained, to the satisfaction of the City's Chief Building Official. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 131 AUGUST 15, 2006 3. Submission No.: A 2006-055 Applicant: 1648380 Ontario Inc. Property Location: 410 Prospect Avenue Legal Description: Part Lot 1, Plan 267 Appearances: In Support: Mr. C. Vanezi Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to erect a 1.8m (5.9') high chain link fence around the property rather than the required 1.8m (5.9') high visual barrier. The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated August 8, 2006, advising they have no concerns with this application. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated July 24, 2006 advising they have no concerns with this application. Mr. Vanezi advised that the neighbours are supportive of a chain link fence which provides for a view of the adjacent conservation area, and for better security. Mr. Sloan advised that the only changes being made are internal to the building. Also, a site plan application is being processed for the changes on this property, at this time. Moved by Ms. D. Angel Seconded by Mr. P. Britton That the application of 1648380 Ontario Inc. requesting permission to provide a 1.8m (5.9') high chain link fence around the parking area rather than the required 1.8m (5.9') high visual barrier, on Part Lot 1, Plan 267, 410 Prospect Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall submit and receive approval of a landscaping plan 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. 4. Submission No.: A 2006-056 Applicant: Lawrence & Sharon Brown Property Location: 102 Hillsborough Crescent Legal Description: Lot 43, Registered Plan 1240 Appearances: In Support: Mrs. S. Brown Contra: None Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 132 AUGUST 15, 2006 4. Submission No. A 2006-056 tCont'd) Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting legalization of 2 accessory structures in the front yard; whereas the zoning by-law does not permit accessory structures in the front yard. The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated August 8, 2006, advising they have no objections to this application provided the accessory buildings are screened. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated July 24, 2006 advising they have no concerns with this application. Ms. Brown advised there are 2 sheds at the front of the property, one has been there for 20 years and the other is new. This application came about as a result of a complaint received from a real estate agent involved in the sale of the neighbouring property. It was noted that one of the sheds is screened by a fabric canopy/garage, and Mr. Sloan requested that this shed continue to be screened, and if the current canopy/garage is removed, new screening be provided. Moved by Mr. P. Britton Seconded by Ms. D. Angel That the application of Lawrence and Sharon Brown requesting legalization of 2 accessory structures in the front yard, whereas the zoning by-law does not permit accessory sheds in the front yard, on Lot 43, Registered Plan 1240, 102 Hillsborough Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: 1. That the accessory structure on the right side of the front yard shall continue to be screened. 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 2006-057 Applicant: Carson Reid Homes Property Location: 215 Britton Place Legal Description: Part Lots 9 & 10, Registered Plan 58M-327, being Parts 26 & 27, Reference Plan 58R-14945 Mr. P. Britton declared a pecuniary interest in this application as his planning firm acts for the subdivider and the builder, and did not participate in any discussion or voting with respect to this application. Appearances: In Support: Mr. R. Lord Contra: None COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 133 AUGUST 15, 2006 5. Submission No.: A 2006-057 Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission for asemi-detached dwelling to have a rear yard of 7.23m (23.72`) rather than the required 7.5m (24.6'). The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated August 8, 2006, advising that they have no objections to this application. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated July 24, 2006 advising they have no concerns with this application. Mr. Lord advised that the original configuration of this house was reduced by 1' to fit on this lot, but the builder did not locate the house correctly. Moved by Ms. D. Angel Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski That the application of Carson Reid Homes requesting permission for asemi-detached dwelling to have a rear yard of 7.23 m (23.72') rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6'), on Part Lots 9 & 10, Registered Plan 58M-327, being Part 26 & 27, Reference Plan 58R-14945, 215 Britton Place, 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 6. Submission No.: A 2006-058 Applicant: Valleyview Heights Ltd. Property Location: 244 Sims Estate Drive Legal Description: Block 21, Registered Plan 58M-388 Appearances: In Support: Ms. K. Barisdale Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to develop a townhouse complex with the following variances: the decks on Units 6 & 7 will have a side yard of Om rather than the required 2.5m (8.2'). The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated August 8, 2006, advising they have no objections provided the deck for Unit 6 is elevated with a minimum of a 0.6 m setback to the northeasterly lot line. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated July 24, 2006 advising they have no concerns with this application. The Committee considered the report of the Grand River Conservation Authority, dated August 9, 2006 advising that they have no objections to the construction of a deck at the rear of the above COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 134 AUGUST 15, 2006 6. Submission No.: A 2006-058 noted units with reduced side and rear yard setbacks. Additional comments will be provided through the Site Plan and Grand River Conservation Authority Permit review. Ms. K. Barrisdale advised this application is now being revised to request a 0.6m set back for a second storey deck for Unit 6 only. The deck will measure approximately 8 or 9 m by 3 m. Moved by Ms. D. Angel Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski That the application of Valleyview Heights Ltd. requesting permission for an elevated deck to have a northeasterly side yard of a minimum of 0.6 m (1.96') rather than the required 2.5m (8.2'), on Part Block 21, Registered Plan 58M-388, Unit 6, 244 Sims Estate 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 7. Submission No.: A 2006-059 Applicant: Valleyview Heights Ltd. Property Location: 276 Sims Estate Drive Legal Description: Block 22, Registered Plan 58M-388 Based on the Development and Technical Services Department report, and as no one appeared in support of this applications, the Committee dismissed this application, on the basis that it is not required. 8. Submission No.: A 2006-060 Applicant: 1054422 Ontario Limited Property Location: 101 Frederick Street Legal Description: Plan 406, Part Lot 2, 4 to 9, Plan 372, Part Lot 1, 2, Plan 364, Part Lot 38 Streets & Lanes and Part Lot 169 The Committee was in receipt of correspondence this date from Edward Thomas, Architect, on behalf of Cora Group Inc., advising this application is withdrawn. CONSENT 1. Submission No.: B 2006-031 Applicant: Corporation of the City of Kitchener Property Location: Parkland behind Joseph Schoerg Crescent Legal Description: Part of Block 44, Registered Plan 58M-400 Mr. P. Britton declared a conflict of interest in this application as his firm acts for an adjacent property owner, and did not participate in any discussion or voting with respect to this application. Appearances: In Support: Mr. B. Sloan Contra: None Written Submissions: None COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 135 AUGUST 15, 2006 1. Submission No.: B 2006-031 The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having an area of 0.165 ha (0.066 ac.) as a lot addition to 300 Joseph Schoerg Crescent. The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated August 8, 2006, in which they advising they have no objections to this application subject to certain conditions. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing and Community Services, dated July 31, 2006 advising they have no concerns with this application. The Committee considered the report of the Grand River Conservation Authority, dated August 8, 2006 advising that have no objections to the severance for a lot addition. The proposed severed parcel is regulated and located completely within the floodplain of the Grand River. A permit from the Grand River Conservation Authority will be required for any further development. Mr. Sloan advised of Applications for Consent considered by this Committee earlier this year, being an exchange of lands between the City and the owner of 300 Joseph Schoerg Crescent. The severed land in this application is no longer considered to be within the flood plain, so this final part of the land exchange can now take place. Moved by Ms. D. Angel Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski That the application of the Corporation of the City of Kitchener requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having an area of 0.165 ha (0.066 ac) as a lot addition to 300 Joseph Schoerg Crescent (formerly 437 Pioneer Tower Road), on Part Block 44, Registered Plan 58M-400, property behind 300 Joseph Schoerg Crescent, 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 land at 300 Joseph Schoerg Crescent (formerly 437 Pioneer Tower Road) and title shall be taken in identical ownership; with any subsequent conveyance or transaction complying with subsections 50 (3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended. 2. That the designation of 437 Pioneer Tower Road (now 300 Joseph Schoerg Crescent) under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act shall be extended to and registered on title of the lands to be severed. 3. That the severed land shall be included in the modified subdivision agreement between the City of Kitchener and the owner of the property receiving the severed land, as required in Condition #3 of Submission No. B 2006-004. The modified subdivision agreement clauses regarding matters such as alterations to the existing building, no grading, tree removal or landscaping shall apply to the land to be severed in this application. 4. That the Secretary-Treasurer shall be provided 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 136 AUGUST 15, 2006 1. Submission No.: B 2006-031 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 August 15, 2008. Carried 2. Submission No.: B 2006-032 Applicant: Dalimat Investments Limited Property Location: 700 Strasburg Road Legal Description: Block A. Registered Plan 1416 Appearances: In Support: None Contra: Mr. L Mohammed Mr. B. McColl Written Submissions: None As no one appeared in support of this application, the Committee agreed to defer its consideration of the application to its meeting scheduled for Tuesday September 12, 2006. 3. Submission No.: B 2006-033, B 2006-034 & B 2006-035 Applicant: Owl Properties Incorporated Property Location: 69 Amherst Drive Legal Description: Lot 28, 29, 41, 42, Part of Lots 43 & 47 Sydenham Street Closed, Registered Plan 578 Appearances: In Support: Mr. O. Jahn Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission for sever 3 new lots for development of single family dwellings as follows: B 2006-033 -width on Amherst Drive of 15.24m (50'), depth of 30.48m (100'), and area of 464.5 sq.m. (5000 sq. ft.); B 2006-34 & B 2006-035 -widths of 16.76m (54.98') on Amherst Drive, depths of 30.48m (100'), and areas of 510.84 sq. m. (5498.81 sq. ft.). The retained land will have a width of 20.533 m (67.36 `) on Amherst Drive, and an area of 5,777.015 sq.m. (62,185.3 sq. ft.), and will contain the existing single family dwelling. The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated August 9, 2006, in which they advised that they have no objection to these applications subject to certain conditions. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning Housing and Community Services, dated July 31, 2006 advising they have no concerns with this application. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 137 AUGUST 15, 2006 3. Submission No.: B 2006-033 B 2006-034 & B 2006-035 The Committee considered the report of Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc., Senior Design Technician, dated August 4, 2006 requesting that approval of these applications be subject to satisfactory arrangements being made for the provision of electrical servicing to the lands to be severed; and the applicant must be responsible for any relocations and/or improvements. Mr. Jahn advised he has reviewed the staff reports, and requested that the Engineering conditions be postponed until a building permit is issued for each new lot, as he intends to sell these as vacant building lots. Mr. Sloan responded that the Engineering conditions could be part of an agreement that would allow them to be completed prior to the issuance of a building permit. Mr. Britton advised that if these conditions are to be postponed until the building permit stage, he wants the owner to make prospective purchasers aware of this fact in all offers of purchase and sale. Submission No. B 2006-033 Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski Seconded by Ms. D. Angel That the application of Owl Properties Incorporated requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a width of 15.24m (50') on Amherst Drive, by a depth of 30.48m (100'), and an area of 464.5 sq. m. (5,000 sq. ft.), on Lots 28, 29, 41, 42, Part of Lots 43 & 47 Sydenham Street Closed, Registered Plan 578, 69 Amherst Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall pay to the City of Kitchener acash-in-lieu of park land dedication equal to 5% of the value of the land to be severed. 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 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. 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 enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener, to be prepared by the City Solicitor and registered on title of all the lands to be severed and retained through Submission No.'s B 2006-033 to B 2006-035 inclusive, to provide for the following: (a) That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering for the installation of all new service connections to the severed lands, prior to the issuance of a building permit; and, (b) That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping including street trees and a paved driveway ramp on the severed and retained lands, prior to the issuance of a building permit; and, (c) That the owner shall include a statement in all offers of purchase and sale that conditions (a) and (b) above must be satisfied prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. for the provision of electrical servicing to the lands to be severed, including any relocations and improvements required by Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 138 AUGUST 15, 2006 3. Submission No.: B 2006-033 B 2006-034 & B 2006-035 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 August 15, 2008. Carried Submission No. B 2006-034 Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski Seconded by Ms. D. Angel That the application of Owl Properties Incorporated requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a width on Amherst Drive of 16.76m (54.98'), by a depth of 30.48m (100'), and an area of 510.84 sq. m. (5,498.81 sq. ft.), on Lots 28, 29, 41, 42, Part of Lots 43 & 47 Sydenham Street Closed, Registered Plan 578, 69 Amherst Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall pay to the City of Kitchener acash-in-lieu of park land dedication equal to 5% of the value of the land to be severed. 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 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. 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 enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener, to be prepared by the City Solicitor and registered on title of all the lands to be severed and retained through Submission No.'s B 2006-033 to B 2006-035 inclusive, to provide for the following: (a) That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering for the installation of all new service connections to the severed lands, prior to the issuance of a building permit; and, (b) That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping including street trees and a paved driveway ramp on the severed and retained lands, prior to the issuance of a building permit; and, (c) That the owner shall include a statement in all offers of purchase and sale that conditions (a) and (b) above must be satisfied prior to the issuance of a building permit. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 139 AUGUST 15, 2006 3. Submission No.: B 2006-033 B 2006-034 & B 2006-035 5. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. for the provision of electrical servicing to the lands to be severed, including any relocations and improvements required by Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. 2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. 3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above- noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being August 15, 2008. Submission No. B 2006-035 Carried Moved by Mr. Z. Janecki Seconded by Ms. D. Angel That the application of Owl Properties Incorporated requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a width on Amherst Drive of 16.76m (54.98'), by a depth of 30.48m (100'), and an area of 510.84 sq. m. (5,498.81 sq. ft.), on Lots 28, 29, 41, 42, Part of Lots 43 & 47 Sydenham Street Closed, Registered Plan 578, 69 Amherst Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall pay to the City of Kitchener acash-in-lieu of park land dedication equal to 5% of the value of the land to be severed. 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 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. 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 enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener, to be prepared by the City Solicitor and registered on title of all the lands to be severed and retained through Submission No.'s B 2006-033 to B 2006-035 inclusive, to provide for the following: (a) That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering for the installation of all new service connections to the severed lands, prior to the issuance of a building permit; and, (b) That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping including street trees and a paved driveway ramp on the severed and retained lands, prior to the issuance of a building permit; and, COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 140 AUGUST 15, 2006 3. Submission No.: B 2006-033 B 2006-034 & B 2006-035 (c) that the owner shall include a statement in all offers of purchase and sale that conditions (a) and (b) above must be satisfied prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. for the provision of electrical servicing to the lands to be severed, including any relocations and improvements required by Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. 2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. 3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above- noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being August 15, 2008. Carried 4. Submission No.: B 2006-036 Applicant: Gary Andrew Sheehan Property Location: 22 & 26 Irvin Street Legal Description: Lot 11 & 12, Registered Plan 32 The Committee was in receipt of correspondence from the applicant advising he is withdrawing this application. 5. Submission No.: B 2006-038 Applicant: 1077992 Ontario Inc. Property Location: 30 Rothsay Avenue Legal Description: Lots 9 & 10, Registered Plan 769 Appearances: In Support: Mr. R. Alischer Contra: None Written Submissions: None Based on the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated August 10, 2006, it was generally agreed by all parties to defer consideration of this application to the Committee's meeting scheduled for Tuesday September 12, 2006. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 141 AUGUST 15, 2006 ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 11:50 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 15th day of August 2006. Dianne H. Gilchrist Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment