Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2006-09-12COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. P. Britton, D. Cybalski and Ms. D. Angel. OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. T. Malone-Wright, Senior Planner, Mr. R. Parent, Traffic & Parking Analyst, Ms. D. Gilchrist, Secretary-Treasurer, and Ms. R. Brent, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer. Mr. P. Britton, Chair, called this meeting to order at 9.37 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 CONSENT 1. Submission No.: B 2006-028 Applicant: Laci Lamot, Rain McMillan Property Location: 202 Union Boulevard Legal Description: Lots 54 & 55. Registered Plan 352 Appearances: In Support: Mr. S. O'Neill Mr. V. Bhella Contra: Ms. S. Saunders Bellingham Ms. B. Davidson Mr. B. Davidson Mr. E. Ginsler Ms. J. Ginsler Mr. C. Grierson Mr. I. Hurlbot Mr. T. Mavor Mr. G. Moore Ms. D. Moore Ms. N. Bechtel Ms. P. Fraser Ms. J. Garrett Ms. R. Barlow Mr. J. Barlow Mr. J. Goemans Ms. H. Heideman Ms. L. Jeffrey Ms. M. Chidichimo Ms. J. Hill Mr. J. Harper Ms. D. McInnis Ms. E. Klimstra COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 143 SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 1. Submission No.: B 2006-028 tCon't) Mr. G. Levene Mr. M. Levene Ms. S. Roy Ms. M. McDougall Ms. J. Trip Ms. J. Tarbutt Ms. H. Howatson Ms. A. Jenkins Ms. C. Stewart Mr. L Ross Ms. C. Weylie Ms. J. Petras Ms. S. Buller Ms. B. Bailey Ms. L Kadela Ms. A. Woerner Kropp Mr. R. Anagnostopoulos Mr. G. Snider Written Submissions: Dr. J. Abraham Mr. & Mrs. E. Allensen Dr. & Mrs. R. Anstett Mr. L. Asmussen Ms. D. Baker Mr. R. Bahar Ms. M. Bardeggia-Irwin Mr. & Mrs. J. Barlow Ms. S. Barlow Ms. L. Beattie Ms. N. Bechtel Mr. & Mrs. K. Beckner Ms. D. Beleford Mr. S. Bell 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. O. 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. Deen Mr. S. Deen Ms. C. Diesbourg Mr. & Mrs. B. Dietrich Mr. V. DiCiccio Mr. J. Donaldson Ms. J. Dunbrook Mr. G. Durst Ms. S. Ebsary COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 144 SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 1. Submission No.: B 2006-028 tCon't) 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 Ms. A. Gatti Mr. B. Gibson Mr. & Mrs. E. Ginsler Ms. C. Gleiser Ms. C. Goddard Mr. J. Goemans Mr. R. Goetz Mr. & Mrs. C. Grierson Mr. & Mrs. C. Griffiths Ms. R. Gummow Mr. J. Harper Mr. M. Harris Ms. S. Hayter Ms. H. Heideman Mr. & Mrs. P. Hemmerich Mr. D. Higginson Ms. J. Hill Ms. A. Hinchberger Mr. & Mrs. J. Hunking Mr. & Mrs. I. Hurlbot Mr. & Mrs. W. Jenkins Mr. & Mrs. B. Kieswetter Mr. E. Klimstra Ms. R. Koebel Mr. D. Koehler Ms. D. O'Neill Mr. B. Knight Mr. & Mrs. L. Kraehn Ms. K. Kucza Ms. A. Laderoute Ms. B. Larke Ms. J. Laws Mr. K. Lepard Mr. G. Levene Mr. M. Levene Ms. A. Little Ms. S. Roy Long Mr. K. Long Mr. D. Lubell Mr. E. Lucy Ms. N. Maitland Mr. R. March Mr. T. Mavor Ms. L. McCain Ms. M. McDougall Ms. D. McInnis Ms. L. Millard Mr. F. Millard Mr. J.D. Mitchell COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 145 SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 1. Submission No.: B 2006-028 tCon't) Ms. M. Mellinger Mr. & Mrs. G. Moore Mr. F. Nichols Ms. M. Nowak Mr. A. Perry Mr. A. Polloni Mr. A. Poyntz Mr. S. Reinhardt Ms. D. Robertson Mr. & Mrs. G. Robson Ms. S. Ross Ms. T. Sauders 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. L 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 Mr. L. Willingham Ms. E. Mezo Ms. M. Worden Mr. & Mrs. R. Zimmer Ms. C. Weylie The Committee was advised that applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having a width on Avondale Avenue of 19.925m (65.37'), by a depth of 39.636m (130.03'), and an area of 464.1 sq. m. (4,995.69 sq. ft.), to be developed with a single family dwelling. The retained land will contain the existing single family dwelling, and will have a width on Avondale Avenue of 18.967 m (62.227'), a depth along Union Boulevard of 26.388 m (86.57') and an area of 700.7 sq. m. (7,542.51 sq. ft.). The Committee considered the comments of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated July 5, 2006, advising that the subject site is located in the Westmount neighbourhood on the north side of Union Boulevard between Avondale Avenue and Dunbar Road. The subject lands are zoned Residential (R-3) and are designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Municipal Plan. Both the retained and the severed properties are being used for residential purposes. The property contains a single detached bungalow dwelling built in the 1950's. The subject property is 1164.8m2 in size. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 146 SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 1. Submission No.: B 2006-028 tCon't) The applicant is requesting approval to sever a portion of the north side of the property. The proposed use of the parcel to be severed will continue to be utilized for residential purposes. The severed lot would be 464.1 m2 in size and would front onto Avondale Avenue. The retained lands would be 700.7 m2 in size and would continue to be fronted by Union Boulevard. The applicant is proposing to remove the attached garage from the existing bungalow dwelling and therefore the rear yard setback requirement would be met for the retained lands. With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13, the uses of both the severed and retained parcels are in conformity with the City's Municipal Plan and R-3 Zoning. The lands front on an established public street, and both parcels of land are currently serviced with independent and adequate service connections to municipal services. The dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots are somewhat appropriate and suitable for the existing uses and any proposed use of the lands. The proposed new lot line is somewhat awkward compared to traditional lotting patterns as it "flares" out toward the street frontage. It appears that the purpose of this may be to achieve the minimum lot width requirement of 13.7 m. The rear of the proposed lot does not meet that width; however, the front of the lot exceeds the requirement. The proposed severed lot's conformity and compatibility with the existing surrounding subdivision is of question. The surrounding neighbourhood primarily consists of relatively large lots ranging from approximately 550 m2 to 1260 m2. The severed lot is slightly smaller than the existing lots at 464 m2. The lot widths for interior lots in the immediate area are generally between 14m - 18 m. The severed lot flares out to a lot width of 16.3m (and 19.9m at the street line). The lot width, as per the Zoning By-law measurement, yields a severed lot that has a compatible frontage with the surrounding area. The severance would establish a smaller lot than the rest of the surrounding area; however, given the flaring of the lot line it would meet the zoning lot area requirement and could potentially be considered compatible with the surrounding lots. The consideration of a corner lot severance is an existing neighbourhood that proposes to establish a lot that is smaller than the surrounding area is always a difficult decision. Often the implications or major considerations at the end of the process relates to the "character" of the area. In this regard, several questions arise as to whether an appropriately sized house can be located on the somewhat irregular lot shape that is proposed and would the new house be compatible with the surrounding houses and fit in with the character of the neighbourhood. Staff are currently uncertain of the answers and recommend that given the potential uncertainty of the application, that the applicant prepare a concept plan for the lands that shows a potential building footprint for the severed lands, some potential designs for the height, scale and appearance of the new dwelling. It should be further understood that with the severance, the garage for the retained lands would have to be moved and no future garage or carport could be constructed to accommodate the required parking space as the area would then have to function as the rear yard, given that the existing rear yard is proposed to be severed. Based on the foregoing, Planning Staff recommends that the application B 2006-028, be deferred, to allow the applicant to prepare a concept plan for the lands that shows a potential building footprint for the severed lands, potential designs for the new dwelling in terms of the height, scale and appearance. The Building Division has no objections to the proposed consent. Transportation Planning has reviewed this application and would note that any future driveway accesses must comply with City of Kitchener standards, and that the relocation of any street furniture will be the responsibility of the applicant. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning Housing and Community Services, dated July 6, 2006 advising they have no concerns with this application. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 147 SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 1. Submission No.: B 2006-028 tCon't) The Committee considered correspondence from Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro dated June 26, 2006 advising that approval of this application be subject to the applicant making satisfactory arrangements for the provision of electrical servicing to the lands to be severed and the granting of any easements required. Of those neighbours in attendance, 4 came forward as representing the group. Two persons were in attendance in support of the application. The Chair advised that the hearing of this application will proceed as follows: staff will advise of the nature of this application, considerations, and the staff recommendation; the applicants will present their position as to why they think this application should be approved. The opponents of this application will then present their positions; the applicant will be given an opportunity for rebuttal; the Committee members may ask questions or seek clarification; then the Committee will deliberated and arrive at a decision. Ms. Malone-Wright advised this is a large property in an established neighbourhood. The application meets the requirements of the zoning by-law for lot size ,and with the removal of the existing garage, the location of the house on the retained lot will comply with the requirements of the zoning by-law. However, the proposed dwelling will not fit into the neighbourhood, nor will the size of the lot. Staff does not believe that all the tests in the Planning Act for the subdivision of land can be met, particularly with respect to the compatibility and suitability of the lot. Mr. O'Neill advised that Impulse Development Group owns 50% of this property which is being held in trust for them and they are now the registered owners of this property. It was his opinion that their proposal meets all the requirements of the zoning by-law and will add value to this property. This neighbourhood is unique as it has a mixture of small and large lots and this blend makes it appealing to people. The new home will have a gross floor area of 2,500 to 3,000 sq. ft. He stated that it is possible to have a development agreement on landscaping and building materials. He disagreed with some of the neighbourhood submissions that their proposal will devalue this property, as the house they propose to build will be of a similar size to those in the neighbourhood. Further, their proposal meets current provincial policy. He was of the opinion that the City should support this application, as it adds to the uniqueness of the neighbourhood. Upon questioning by the Committee, Mr. O'Neil advised that the lot will have a width of 31' at the rear lot line. Respecting the existing garage, he advised that although he would rather keep it, it must be demolished, as the current side yard will become a rear yard through this application, and with the garage in place, the rear yard will not meet the requirements of the zoning by-law. Mr. T. Maver addressed the Committee advising that he has lived in this neighbourhood since 1972, and he was drawn to this neighbourhood because of its history, landscaping and outdoor space. This neighbourhood was part of Kitchener's first official city plan. Mr. Maver stated his objections including: the demolition of the existing garage; the shape of the lot is out of character; a lot size of 464 sq. m. is relatively small compared to existing lots; the severance of this lot will detract from the neighbourhood ambiance; there is already problems on this street with winter road conditions and snow clearing and this additional lot will increase flow through traffic. Further, this is an unkept property which negatively impacts community spirit. In summary Mr. Maver stated this area has historic heritage properties and this proposal is out of character with the area. Upon questioning, Ms. Malone-Wright advised there is no heritage conservation district plan, and no neighbourhood plan for this area, and the property is not designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. Mr. Parent advised that one more house on this street is not going to cause problems with snow removal. Ms. A. Jenkins advised she is a Master of Architecture and a neighbourhood resident. She stated that infill is a good concept; however, infill is not required in this area. Further, this proposal is negative to the neighbourhood. She stated that the lot size proposed is not compatible to the neighbourhood; the proportions of the proposed dwelling and the percentage of lot coverage are significant and out of keeping with the neighbourhood. The proposed dwelling should be sited to give a rear yard and building of a similar size. Further, the proposed building set back from the COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 148 SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 1. Submission No.: B 2006-028 tCont'd) street is incompatible with the neighbourhood. The garage protrudes into the neighbourhood and it has very few openings. When questioned by the Committee, Ms. Malone-Wright advised that not all infill is good infill. Infill is appropriate for neighbourhoods in transition but not appropriate here. Mr. O'Neill remarked that the house size and location was suggested by his surveyor as to what best fits this lot. Mr. E. Ginsler addressed the Committee advising he lives directly across Avondale Avenue from the subject property and has lived there for 20 years. He stated that infill should respect and conserve the neighbourhood. To approve this application would be creating a precedent, and set the stage for others, as there are a number of large corner lots and interior lots. Mr. Ginsler submitted photographs of this area, the subject property and his property, and noted that properties in this immediate area have extensive landscaping. He stated that the applicants are trying to "shoe horn"anew lot and dwelling into this lot, creating a crowded situation, and he noted the narrowness of the rear 60% of the severed lot. He pointed out the steepness of the grade up Avondale Avenue, noting that a driveway at the end of this street is dangerous in the winter because of the grade. Mr. Ginsler then stated that Kitchener is a house proud City, and these owners are not, as the lawn hasn't been mowed very much and the city had to come in and do the work. With respect to the retained land, Mr. Ginsler advised that what will remain is a 2 bedroom house with no garage which will decrease in value. The Chair questioned, and was advised by Mr. O'Neill that the existing garage is to be removed. If it is not to be removed, an Application for Minor Variance would be required. Mr. O'Neill advised that initially there was a discussion about putting a garage on the other side of the house; however the driveway would have to be closer to the intersection. The Chair noted that to fit in a garage on the other side of the existing house would mean that all that would be seen from the road would be a garage on both the severed and retained lots. Mr. J. Barlow addressed the Committee advising he lives adjacent to this property, and his house was built in 1941. A retaining wall was built on his property in 1942, which is a drywall. He presented photographs of the back yards of his and the subject property noting that the developer has not considered that he has less effective land to deal with. This proposal doesn't accommodate the slop and drainage of the area, which is a 24 degree slope. He questioned how the proposal would impact his hedge and wall. He also advised that his Florida room is sunny in winter and this would be impacted by the application and the new house. Councillor C. Weylie advised she has been a resident in this neighbourhood for 39 years. Councillor Weylie stated that the major issue is the compatibility of the new lot and house with the existing neighbourhood. It was her position that the proposal does not meet the City's infill design policies, and in this regard, she provided the Committee with the relevant extracts from the City's Design Policies. She stated that she does not want the neighbourhood to be destabilized. Ms. D. McInnis addressed the Committee advising her home was built in 1939. She stated that people buy homes in old Westmount because they want to stay there. Small properties are transitional properties, and do not create stability in the neighbourhood. Several of the other neighbours spoke briefly, against this application, citing destabilization of the neighbourhood, incompatibility of this proposal with the neighbourhood and grading and drainage as some of the reasons for their objections. Mr. O'Neill responded that everyone is talking about character but times have changes and homes in Westmount have changed. He stated that he did not think his proposal will take away from the character of the neighbourhood. He stated that he lives at 93 Union Boulevard, and there is a newly created home on York Street which has a different character but is no less desirable. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 149 SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 1. Submission No.: B 2006-028 tCon't) Ms. T. Malone-Wright summarized staff's position by stating that the lot meets the requirements of the zoning by-law. However, the question is character and the planners agree with the neighbourhood, and recommend refusal of this application. Mr. Cybalski and Ms. Angel gave the opinion that in this application the developer is trying to manipulate the zoning by-law, and has overlooked the character of the area. Further, it was their opinion that the applicant does not properly understand the provincial policy for infill development. The application is not desirable for this neighbourhood, and they can not support it. The Chair stated that not all infill is good infill, and neighbourhood character and stability are important. Full disclosure up front is also important. It was his opinion that this application represents the applicant's attempt to get around the zoning by-law. Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski Seconded by Ms. D. Angel That the application of the Laci Lamot, Rain McMillan requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having a width on Avondale Avenue of 19.925m (65.37'), by a depth of 39.636m (130.03'), and an area of 464.1 sq. m. (4,995.69 sq. ft.), on Lots 54 & 55, Registered Plan 352, 202 Union Boulevard, Kitchener, Ontario, BE REFUSED. It is the opinion of this Committee that the severance of this lot with its proposed shape and dimensions would not be suitable for the purpose for which it is intended to be subdivided. 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: Mr. L. Closenberg Contra: Mr. L Mohammed Mr. B. McColl Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission for a lease in excess of 21 years for the existing Shoppers Drug Mart Store in this plaza. The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated August 8, 2006, advising they have no objections to this application. 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. Mr. McColl advised that 3 years ago he was involved in an application for a sign variance before this Committee for this property. There were a number of meetings with the owner, staff and the neighbours at that time. He requested that the Committee turn down this application until the applicants live up to the agreements they entered into at that time. Mr. McColl then read from the Council meeting of January 12, 2004 in which Council required certain agreements about the signage. He advised these agreements were never entered into. He stated that lighting from this site is a substantial problem to the neighbours. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 150 SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 2. Submission No.: B 2006-032 tCont'd) Mr. Mohammed advised he is an adjacent neighbour to this Shoppers Drug Mart. He also advised that he did appear before Council concerning the lighting problem that was raised 3 years ago. Mr. Mohammed read aloud a letter he sent to Shoppers addressing his concerns about their late night deliveries, and he was promised by them that these deliveries would cease, but they have not. He stated that these trucks come at all hours of the night and they leave their diesel running. He has tried to work with them but they are not co-operating. He questioned why they can not reschedule their deliveries to more suitable times. The Chair stated that the matter before the Committee today is a lease and not development. However, there appears to be 2 agreements previously required by this Committee and/or City Council. Ms. Malone-Wright advised that to the best of her knowledge, these agreements are in place. Mr. Closenberg advised this lease has a potential for 30 years, but won't necessarily last that long. He also advised he was not previously aware of the concerns brought forward by Messrs. McColl and Mohammed. The Chair requested that Mr. Closenberg have regular discussion with the neighbours, and that the owners take these concerns under advisement. Moved by Ms. D. Angel Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski That the application of Dalimat Investments Limited requesting permission for a lease in excess of 21 years for the existing Shoppers Drug Mart Store in this plaza, on Block A, Registered Plan 1416, 700 Strasburg Road, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall comply with all agreements previously imposed by the City of Kitchener for this property. 2. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. 3. That the owner shall provide the Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment 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 sized paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file shall be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. 2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. 3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above- noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being September 12, 2008. Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 151 SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 3. 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 Mr. B. Reinhart Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission to sever a parcel of land having a width on Rothsay Avenue of 58.172m (190.85'), a depth along Brookfield Boulevard of 68.156m (223.6'), and an area of 3,654 sq. m. (39,332.615 sq. ft.) to be developed with a new commercial building. The retained land will have a width on Rothsay Avenue of 34.277 m. (112.45'), and an area of 2,006.55 sq. m. (21,599.031.sq. ft.), and will contain the existing commercial building. The Committee considered a report from the Region of Waterloo Planning, Housing and Community Services, dated July 31, 2006, advising they have no objections to this application. The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated August 10, 2006, requesting the application be deferred until the applicant has resolved any outstanding issues with the City's Engineering Division and the GRCA with respect to the Kolb Creek and any development setback to confirm the suitability of the severed lands for the proposed site development plan and for the applicant to provide a plan showing how the existing use will function appropriately on the retained lands. Mr. Reinhart provided the Committee this date with a report from the Grand River Conservation Authority, dated August 9, 2006 advising they have now received a surveyed plan showing the flood elevation of 317.5 m. Although a portion of the severed lot is within the floodplain of the Kolb Drain, the location of the building is beyond the 317.5 m contour line. Provided the building is constructed slab on grade and there are no building openings below the 317.5 contour line, there is no objections to the proposed severance. Mr. Reinhart also provided the Committee members with copies of a revised elevation drawing and a letter, dated September 11, 2006, from Mr. G. MacDuff, Manager of Development Engineering, in which he states in part "I can advise that the GRCA established floodline limits, and corresponding setback of structures as shown on your drawings is satisfactory at this time. As you are aware, it is our intent to undertake watercourse improvements on this reach of the Kolb Drain in the future (post 2010). The necessary watercourse improvements will be determined through a Class Environmental Assessment study, and may necessitate future land acquisition from the subject lands. Since the proposed building location is situated at a suitable distance from the watercourse, we do not anticipate any future realignment would impact said structure, however, some encroachment within the parking area may potentially occur... I can advise that the Committee of Adjustment conditions for 30 Rothsay Avenue relative to engineering matters have been addressed." Mr. Reinhart explained that since the last meeting there have been discussions with the Grand River Conservation Authority and the City's Engineering Services, and his client has engaged a surveyor to produce the elevations plan provided to the Committee this date. He noted the flood plain has pulled back considerably, and the proposed building location is no longer close to the floodline. He also advised that his client understands that site plan approval will be required before development of this land takes place. Mr. Alischer agreed to the imposition of a condition that he must comply with the Grand River Conservation Authority's requirement with respect location of the new building relative to the 317.5 contour line; however, Mr. Reinhart was of the opinion that this condition can not be fulfilled through the severance, but can be done through the site plan approval process. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 152 SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 3. Submission No.: B 2006-038 tCont'd) Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski Seconded by Ms. D. Angel That the application of 1077992 Ontario Inc. requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having a width on Rothsay Avenue of 58.172m (190.85'), a depth along Brookfield Boulevard of 68.156m (223.6'), and an area of 3,654 sq. m. (39,332.615 sq. ft.), on Lots 9 & 10, Registered Plan 769, 30 Rothsay Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall comply with the requirement of the Grand River Conservation Authority such that the building on the severed land will be slab on grade and shall have no openings below the 317.5 contour line or other elevation satisfactory to the Grand River Conservation Authority. 2. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. 3. That the owner shall provide the Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment 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 sized paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file shall be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. 2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. 3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above- noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being September 12, 2008. Carried NEW BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE 1. Submission No.: A 2006-061 Applicant: Diana Dietrich Property Location: 57 Lorraine Avenue Legal Description: Lot 16, Registered Plan 1348 Appearances: In Support: Mr. J. English Mr. A. Baribeau Contra: None Written Submissions: None COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 153 SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 1. Submission No.: A 2006-061 tCont'd) The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission to erect a carport with a left side yard of 0.5m (1.64') rather than the required 1.2m (3.93'). The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated September 5, 2006, advising they have no objections to this application provided there is no fence or other attachment to the carport; that any eaves trough does not encroach onto the adjacent property and all drainage is directed to the applicant's property. The comments of the Building Division note that the carport shall have a 45 minute fire resistance rating, and shall be unenclosed with no windows. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated August 21, 2006 advising they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Ms. D. Angel Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski That the application of Diana Dietrich requesting permission to erect a carport with a left side yard of 0.5m (1.64') rather than the required 1.2m (3.93'), on Lot 16, Registered Plan 1348, 57 Lorraine Avenue, Kitchener Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That there shall be no fence or other attachment to the carport. 2. That any eaves trough on the proposed carport shall not encroach onto the adjacent property. 3. That all drainage from the carport shall be directed onto the applicant's property. 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.: A 2006-62 Applicant: Huronwoods Development (Kitchener) Inc. Property Location: 1560 Battler Road Legal Description: Part Lot 17, Plan 1471, being Part 2, Reference Plan 58R-15163, Appearances: In Support: Mr. J. Heimpel Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant requests legalization of an existing hydro vault with a setback from Battler Road of 4.45m (14.59') rather than the required 6m (19.68'). The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated September 5, 2006, advising they have no objections to this application. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated August 21, 2006 advising they have no concerns with this application. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 154 SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 2. Submission No.: A 2006-62 tCont'd) The Committee considered the report of the Grand River Conservation Authority, dated August 28, 2006 advising they have no objection to this application; however, the subject property is regulated by the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) under Ontario Regulation 150/06 (Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation) and any future construction, development and/or site alteration within the regulated areas will require the issuance of a permit from the GRCA. Mr. Heimpel advised that the hydro vault has already been constructed, a previous application was made to this Committee. A final survey has now been prepared, and the setback is less than that previously approved by this Committee. In consideration of the comments received by the Grand River Conservation Authority, the Committee stated its assumption that the owner already received their approval to construct the existing hydro vault. Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski Seconded by Ms. D. Angel That the application of Huronwoods Development (Kitchener) Inc. requesting legalization of an existing hydro vault with a setback from Battler Road of 4.45 m (14.59') rather than the required 6 m (19.68'), on Part Lot 17, Plan 1471, being Part 2, Reference Plan 58R-15163, 1560 Battler Road, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, being subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall install additional landscaping around the hydro vault, satisfactory to the City's Planning Division. 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 2006-063 Applicant: Activa Holdings Inc. Property Location: 3 Frankfurt Street Legal Description: Lot 19, Registered Plan 58M-338 -and- Submission No.: A 2006-064 Applicant: Activa Holdings Inc. Property Location: 83 Frankfurt Street Legal Description: Lot 39. Registered Plan 58M-338 -and- Submission No.: A 2006-065 Applicant: Activa Holdings Inc. Property Location: 352 Sienna Crescent Legal Description: Lot 19, Registered Plan 58M-339 -and- COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 155 SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 3. Submission Nos.: A 2006-063 to A 200-068 tCont'd) Submission No.: A 2006-066 Applicant: Activa Holdings Inc. Property Location: 369 Sienna Crescent Legal Description: Lot 30, Registered Plan 58M-339 -and- Submission No.: A 2006-067 Applicant: Activa Holdings Inc. Property Location: 74 Woodbine Avenue Legal Description: Lot 111. Registered Plan 58M-338 -and- Submission No.: A 2006-068 Applicant: Activa Holdings Inc. Property Location: 74 Woodbine Avenue Legal Description: Lot 110, Registered Plan 58M-338 Appearances: In Support: Ms. K. Wills Contra: None Written Submissions: None Ms. Wills advised she is in attendance on behalf of Reids Heritage Group and Westbury Homes who is the builder. Mr. Britton advised that his firm has provided consulting services for the developer and the builder. He questioned Ms. Wills as to whether the offers of purchase and sale are dependent on these decisions, and Ms. Wills advised they are not. The Committee noted the report of the Region's Transportation Planner, dated August 21, 2006, advising they have no concerns with these applications. The Committee considered the reports of the Development and Technical Services department, dated September 5, 2006, in which Transportation Planning staff advise that they have reviewed these applications and note that the driveway access at the curb line must be 9m from the adjacent street line. The Committee also noted the comments of the Planning Division, in that same report, in which they advise 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. In 2000 the zoning requirement for a driveway to be setback from an intersection of streets was reduced from a 12m to a 9.Om. 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. 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 to the garage. Within the last year there have been numerous applications by builders to amend the minimum required distance from an intersection for driveways. Staff recommends that for corner lots, such as the subject properties, that the builder needs to consider a `different' house design, and in this case it may not be a double-car garage. By COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 156 SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 3. Submission Nos.: A 2006-063 to A 200-068 tCont'd) considering `different' house designs the builders should be able to meet the zoning by-law with respect to distance of a driveway from an intersection and eliminate the need for minor variances. While Planning staff note that the variances range in reductions from 0.19 m to 0.71 m Planning staff in consultation with Transportation Planning Staff have consistently recommended that the driveways be located the minimum 9 m from the intersection. Regardless of the amount of the deficiency Planning Staff are of the opinion that the applications do no meet the intent of the Zoning By-law and therefore should be refused. Transportation Planning has reviewed this application and would note that the driveway access at the curb line must be 9.0 m from the adjacent street line. Ms. Wills advised it is the applicant's intention to apply for relief from Section 6.1.B.4 of the zoning by-law which requires driveways to run perpendicular to the street and be located 9m from the intersection. These lots were registered and purchased before this by-law provision was adopted. She stated the owner does not object to the by-law, but the zoning was changed after the agreements to purchase these lots. Ms. Wills noted that this Committee has approved similar applications in the past. She also advised that the owner/applicant would not be opposed to variable width driveways. The Chair reviewed the plans submitted with Submission No.'s A 2006-063, A 2006-064 and A 2006-066, and questioned why the driveways could not be shifted in order to comply with the by- law. He recommended that consideration of these applications be deferred to allow the applicant an opportunity to determine if they can comply with the by-law, and if they can, the applicant should withdraw these applications. With respect to Submission No.'s A 2006-065, A 2006-067 and A 2006-068, Ms. Malone-Wright advised that staff have consistently been opposed to these types of applications. The Chair recommended that the applicant work with staff to shift the driveways over as far as possible, which would make them more compliant with the zoning by-law. The Committee generally agreed to defer its consideration of these applications to the meeting scheduled for Tuesday October 17, 2006, and that if the driveways in Submission No.'s A 2006- 063, A 2006-064 and A 2006-066 can be moved to comply with the zoning by-law, the application must submit a letter withdrawing these applications. 4. Submission No.: A 2006-069 Applicant: Ashok Manani Property Location: 363 Dumfries Avenue Legal Description: Part Lot 161 & 162, Registered Plan 768 Appearances: In Support: Mr. A. Manani Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting legalization of a roof over the exterior basement stairs having a side yard setback of 0.91 m (3') rather than the required 1.2m (3.93'). The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated September 5, 2006, advising they have no objections, on the understanding that a building permit is required for the construction of the addition and 5/8" Type X Drywall is installed on the interior side wall (where less than 1.2 m from the property line) to achieve the required 45 Minute Fire Resistance Rating and cladding which conforms to the Ontario Building Code. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 157 SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 4. Submission No.: A 2006-069 tCont'd) The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated August 21, 2006 advising they have no concerns with this application. It was determined that the roof already exists and the Committee directed that the owner must apply for and receive approval of a building permit for the roof. The Committee also considered drainage from the roof, advising the applicant that it must not run onto the neighbour's property. Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski Seconded by Ms. D. Angel That the application of Ashok Manani requesting legalization of a roof over the exterior basement stairs having a side yard setback of 0.91 m (3') rather than the required 1.2 m (3.93'), on Part Lots 161 & 162, Registered Plan 768, 363 Dumfries Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. The owner shall apply for and receive a building permit for the roof. 2. That the owner shall submit and receive approval of a drainage scheme from the City's Chief Building Official to ensure that all drainage from the roof remains on the applicant's property. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried 5. Submission No.: A 2006-070 Applicant: William L. Hertel Property Location: 130 Lancaster Street East Legal Description: Lot 1, Registered Plan 103 Appearances: In Support: Mr. C. Parry Mr. K. Cameron Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to convert the existing building to office space on a lot having a width of 13.41 m (43.96') rather than the required 15m (49.21'). The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated August 29, 2006, advising they have no objections to this application provided the owner shall apply for and receive site plan approval for the proposed office development. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated August 21, 2006 advising they have no concerns with this application. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 158 SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 5. Submission No.: A 2006-070 tCont'd) Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski Seconded by Ms. D. Angel That the application of William L. Hertel requesting permission to convert the existing building to office use on a lot having a width of 13.41 m (43.96') rather than the required 15m (49.21'), on Lot 1, Registered Plan 103, 130 Lancaster Street East, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall apply for and receive site plan approval for the proposed office development. 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 2006-071 Applicant: Gay Isber Property Location: 286 Duke Street West Legal Description: Part Lot 221, Registered Plan 376, being Part 1, Reference Plan Appearances: In Support: Ms. G. Isber Mr. B. Bee Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to use an existing building for a manufacturing/craftsperson's shop and a dwelling unit for the owner, on a lot having a width of 12.183m (39.97') rather than the required 15m (49.21'), having a front yard abutting Duke Street and a side yard abutting Breithaupt Street of Om rather than the required 6m (19.68'), and an interior side yard setback of Om rather than the required 1.2m (3.93'). The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated September 6, 2006, advising they recommend approval of this application provided a parking plan is submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated August 21, 2006 advising they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski Seconded by Ms. D. Angel That the application of Gay Isber requesting permission to use an existing building for a manufacturing/craftsperson's shop and a dwelling unit for the owner, on a lot having a width of 12.183m (39.97') rather than the required 15m (49.21'), having a front yard abutting Duke Street and a side yard abutting Breithaupt Street of Om rather than the required 6m (19.68'), and an interior side yard setback of Om rather than the required 1.2m (3.93') on Part Lot 221, Registered Plan 376, being Part 1, Reference Plan 58R-9291, 286 Duke Street West, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 159 SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 6. Submission No.: A 2006-071 tCont'd) 1. That the owner shall submit and receive approval of a parking plan to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. 2. That the variances as approved in this application shall apply only to the building as shown on the plan submitted with this application. 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 2006-072 Applicant: 2019188 Ontario Limited Property Location: 12 Holborn Drive Legal Description: Part Lot 11,PIan 1278, being Part 2, Reference Plan 58R-6822 Appearances: In Support: Mr. T. Allenson Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to develop this property with 5 residential buildings, each containing 8 units, with the following variances: the most easterly building to have a side yard setback of 4m (13.12') rather than the required 4.5m (14.76'), and a rear yard setback of 4.895m (16.05') to the stairs and 6m (19.68') to the building face rather than the required 7.5m (24.6'); also permission for the southwesterly building to have a setback from the corner of River Road and Holborn Drive of 1 m (3.2') rather than the required 4.5m (14.76'); and permission to provide 63 off-street parking spaces for all of the units rather than the required 70 spaces. The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated September 5, 2006, advising that the subject property is located on the north-eastern side of the intersection of River Road and Holborn Drive. The applicant is proposing to construct five multiple residential buildings with a total of 40 residential units. The subject property is designated as a Mixed Use Node in the Municipal Plan and Residential Nine Zone (R-9) in Zoning By-law 85-1. The applicant will require a reduction in the required front yard setback from 6.0 m to 4.5 m, in the required easterly side yard from 6.0 m to 4.0 m, in the required side yard abutting River Road from 6.0 m to 4.5 m, in the required side yard at the corner of River Road and Holborn Drive from 6.0 m to 1.0 m and in the required rear yard from 7.5 m to 4.8 m. The applicant has also requested a reduction in the required number of parking spaces from 70 to 63 spaces. The applicant has already received site plan approval in principle subject to receiving approval of required variances through the Committee of Adjustment. The Mixed Use Node policy encourages strong pedestrian linkages with the surrounding residential neighbourhoods. In order to achieve this objective, the City of Kitchener is able to impose maximum front yard setbacks and may consider incentives for residential development such as reduced parking requirements. The reduced side yard setbacks which abut a street and the reduced front yard setback will help to strengthen the pedestrian linkages, encourage a walkable community and bring more building massing to the street. It is desirable for the appropriate development of the area to provide a central amenity area in Mixed Use Nodes and the requested reduced setbacks will allow for this feature to be included on the site. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 160 SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 7. Submission No.: A 2006-072 tCont'd) There are no immediate structures to the rear of the property and the neighbouring property to the east is a 6 story multiple residential building. The neighbouring property to the east is also separated by landscaping including trees that serve as a visual barrier to the subject property. It is expected that the necessary setbacks would not adversely affect the adjacent property owner and would enhance the current streetscape. Staff also feel that the reduction in the number of required parking spaces from 70 to 63 spaces is acceptable for this development. The property is in the Mixed Use Node which supports parking reductions due to the location of the designation and the accessibility to public transit. As a result, the proposal is desirable for the appropriate development of the subject property, and recommend that the application be approved. Further, Transportation Planning has reviewed this application and advise that the zoning for this proposed development required 70 parking spaces for the 40 units. The developer is responsible to ensure that the required parking spaces are on site. This will ensure that there is no overflow of vehicles onto neighbouring properties or City streets. However, they recognize that the subject property is located on a major transit corridor, and in a mixed use node. Given that both the City of Kitchener and the development industry are working towards Transportation Demand Management (TDM) initiatives, we would be prepared to support approval of the deficiency of seven parking spaces provided that the applicant investigate and potentially implement alternate means of TDM measures. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated August 21, 2006 advising they have no concerns with this application. Mr. Allenson advised it is their intention to have all the buildings constructed at the same time. Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski Seconded by Ms. D. Angel That the application of 2019188 Ontario Limited requesting permission to develop this property with 5 residential buildings, each containing 8 units, with the following variances: the most easterly building to have a side yard setback of 4m (13.12') rather than the required 4.5m (14.76'), and a rear yard setback of 4.895m (16.05') to the stairs and 6m (19.68') to the building face rather than the required 7.5m (24.6'); also permission for the southwesterly building to have a setback from the corner of River Road and Holborn Drive of 1 m (3.2') rather than the required 4.5m (14.76'); and permission to provide 63 off-street parking spaces for all of the units rather than the required 70 spaces, on Part Lot 11, Plan 1278, being Part 2, Reference Plan 58R-6822, 12 Holborn 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 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 161 SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 CONSENT 1. Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location Legal Description: Appearances: B 2006-037 The Conestoga College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning Pinnacle Drive and Homer Watson Boulevard (adjacent to 39 Doon Valley Drive Part of Block 44, Registered Plan 58M-400 In Support: Ms. H. Yumoch Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having an area of approximately 415.5 sq. m. (4472.55 sq. ft.) as a lot addition to 39 Doon Valley Drive. 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, 2007, advising they have no concerns with this application. Ms. Yumoch advised that the applicant has no objection to the conditions recommended by staff. Moved by Ms. D. Angel Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski That the application of the Conestoga College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having an area of approximately 415.5 sq. m. (4472.55 sq. ft.) as a lot addition to 39 Doon Valley Drive, on Parts 1 & 5 on Reference Plan 58R- 11396, Parts 3 & 4 on Reference Plan 58R-7422, Biehn's Unnumbered Tract, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall pay to the City of Kitchener acash-in-lieu contribution for park dedication equal to 5% of the value of the lands to be severed. 2. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. 3. That the owner shall provide the Secretary-Treasurer with a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as two full size paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file must be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist. 4. That the lands to be severed shall be added to the abutting lands and title shall be taken into identical ownership as the abutting lands; with any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed complying with Sections 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended. 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 162 SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 1. Submission No.: B 2006-037 tCont'd) 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 September 12, 2008. Carried 2. Submission No.: B 2006-039 to B 2006-040 Applicant: Activa Holdings Inc. Property Location: 40 Activa Avenue & 38 Activa Avenue Legal Description: Part Block 3, being Parts 57 & 56, Reference Plan 58R-10623 -and- Submission No.: B 2006-041 to 43 Applicant: Activa Holdings Inc. Property Location: 45, Activa Avenue, 47 Activa Avenue & 49 Activa Avenue Legal Description: Part Blocks 16 & 17, being Parts 19, 108, 109, 18, 106, 107, 17, 104, 105. Reference Plan 58R-10623 -and- Submission No.: B 2006-044 Applicant: Activa Investment Corporation Property Location: 31 and 51 Hackberry Street Legal Description: Registered Plan 58M-19, Part Block 3, Reference Plan 58R-10906, Part 37 Appearances: In Support: Ms. V. Schmidt Contra: None Written Submissions: None Based on the reports of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated September 5, 2006, it was generally agreed by all parties to defer consideration of these applications to the Committee's meeting scheduled for Tuesday October 17, 2006, to allow the applicant an opportunity to submit the necessary Applications for Minor Variance. 3. Submission No.: B 2006-045 Applicant: Golden Triangle Oils Ltd. Property Location: 1221 Weber Street East Legal Description: Part Lot 5, Plan 267 Appearances: In Support: Mr. S. McCrory Contra: None Written Submissions: None COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 163 SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 3. Submission No.: B 2006-045 tCont'd) The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to allow the Shoppers Drug Mart Store a lease in excess of 21 years. The Committee noted the comments of the Development & Technical Services Department dated September 5, 2006 advising they have no objections to this application. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning Housing and Community Services, dated August 31, 2006 advising they have no concerns with this application. The Committee noted the comments of Ministry of Transportation dated August 25, 2006 advising they have no concerns with this application provided building/land use and sign permits as required by the Ministry are obtained before any grading or construction work can begin. Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski Seconded by Ms. D. Angel That the application of Golden Triangle Oils Ltd.requesting permission to allow the Shoppers Drug Mart Store a lease in excess of 21 years, on Part Lot 5, Plan 267, 1221 Weber Street East, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED. 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 September 12, 2008. Carried 4. Submission No.: B 2006-046 Applicant: Zevest Development Corporation Property Location: 1373 Victoria Street North Legal Description: Part 1, being Lots 5 to 12, Registered Plan 947 Appearances: In Support: Mr. D. Bailey Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to give the property at 1381 Victoria Street North an easement for access and shared parking over the most easterly 27.8 m (91.2') of 1373 Victoria Street North. The Committee noted the comments of the Development & Technical Services Department dated September 5, 2006 advising they have no objections subject to certain conditions. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 164 SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 4. Submission No.: B 2006-046 tCont'd) The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning Housing and Community Services, dated August 31, 2006 advising they have no concerns with this application. The Committee considered the report of the Grand River Conservation Authority, dated August 25, 2006 advising they have no objection to the creation of an easement on the existing parcel to service the proposed new development to the east. The issuance of a permit from the GRCA will be required for any proposed development within 6 m of the rear property line. Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski Seconded by Ms. D. Angel That the application of Zevest Development Corporation requesting permission to give the property at 1381 Victoria Street North an easement for access and shared parking over the most easterly 27.8 m (91.2'), on Lots 5 to 12, Registered Plan 947, being Part 1, Reference Plan 58R- 12197, 1373 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall receive approval of a draft reference plan of the proposed easement for access and shared parking from the City's Director of Planning, to ensure its dimensions and location are in accordance with an approved site plan. 2. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. 3. That the owner shall provide the Secretary-Treasurer with a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or.dgn (Microstation) format, as well as two full size paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file must be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. 2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. 3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above- noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being September 12, 2008. Carried ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 12:30 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 12th day of September 2006. Dianne H. Gilchrist Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment