Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2006-12-12COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD DECEMBER 12, 2006 MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. C. Balcerczyk and Messrs. D. Cybalski, B. McColl, M. Hiscott & A. Head. 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. D. Cybalski, Chair, called this meeting to order at 9.30 a.m. On motion by Mr. M. Hiscott it was resolved: That Mr. D. Cybalski be appointed Chair of the Committee of Adjustment for a term to expire November 30, 2007. On motion by Mr. A. Head it was resolved: That Mr. M. Hiscott be appointed Vice-Chair of the Committee of Adjustment for a term to expire November 30, 2007. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Submission No.: A 2006-085 Applicant: Konrad & Jill Sauer Property Location: 21 Maynard Avenue Legal Description: Part Lot 178, Registered Plan 374 Appearances: In Support: Mr. K. Sauer Contra: Ms. G. Gubitz Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission to provide 0 parking spaces for a home business which has no employees rather than 1off-street parking space, and permission for an accessory building having a height of 5.76m (18.89') rather than the permitted 5.5m (18.04') with a wall height to the underside of the fascia of 5.43m (17.81') rather than the permitted 3m (9.84'). The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated November 29, 2006, advising the subject property is zoned R-5 (1270) and contains an existing single family dwelling. The applicant is requesting permission to provide no parking space for an established home business, rather than the one required space. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 220 DECEMBER 12, 2006 1. Submission No.: A 2006-085 tCont'd) The applicant had previously applied for and received approval of Committee of Adjustment Submission No. A 2004-053 to construct a detached accessory building having a building height of 5.76 metres rather than the permitted 5.5 metres and to have the wall height to the underside of the fascia 5.43 metres rather than the permitted 3.0 metres subject to providing one parking space inside the accessory building. Since that time, the applicant has removed the parking space from the interior of the accessory building and it is therefore necessary to re-approve the building and wall height for the existing structure as well as the parking space variance. The current application was heard at the November 21, 2006 Committee of Adjustment meeting; however, at that time there was a question regarding the size of the applicant's home business. The application was deferred to determine whether or not an additional variance would be required if the home business exceeded the maximum area permitted in the by-law. The applicant has submitted a letter to staff confirming that the home business does not exceed the maximum 50 square metres that is permitted. The balance of the space in the accessory building is to be used for the owners' personal storage. As such there is no amendment required to the application and the original request for variance can now be assessed without question. The applicant operates an "artisan's establishment" as a home business which does not attract or require customers/clients to come to the premises. The zoning by-law requires the provision of one parking space for a home business, unless the business is an "office" use that does not attract customers/clients to the premises. In this case, the argument can be made that the "artisan's establishment" functions on the same premise as the "office" use by not attracting customers/clients to the premises. In this regard staff have no concern with the requested variance. Aside from the variance to the parking requirement, staff identified that the earlier variance (A2004-053) has been voided as the condition to provide one parking space inside the building has not been maintained. In this regard staff recommend re-approving the variance to building height of 5.76 metres rather than the permitted 5.5 metres, and wall height to the underside of the fascia of 5.43 metres rather than the permitted 3.0 metres. The City encourages the concept of "live/work" space by permitting home business. In this case, the variance will enable the applicant to continue to work at the residence while having no affect on the neighbourhood. Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommend that the application be approved. Transportation Planning has reviewed this application and has no concerns with the proposed variance. Additionally, Transportation Planning was asked to investigate the parking in the rear lane. The property owner at 21 Maynard Avenue has successfully acquired an encroachment agreement from the City in the rear laneway. These acquired lands enable the property owner to legally park their vehicle clearly off the City laneway. Transportation Planning has no concerns with this designated parking area. The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated November 14, 2006 advising they have no concerns with this application. Mr. Sauer explained that he moved back to the City of Kitchener in 2004, and approached the City for permission to build a studio workshop. His business has grown but he still conducts his business by mail and no customers come to his home. Mr. Sauer further advised that he has no employees. His business involves hand making tools, where no forging or grinding is done at his studio. With respect to parking, Mr. Sauer advised that the parking space which was originally in the accessory building has now been reused for personal storage, and he now parks behind the accessory building beside the lane, at the back of the property. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 221 DECEMBER 12, 2006 1. Submission No.: A 2006-085 tCont'd) Mr. Parent advised that Mr. Sauer has entered into an encroachment agreement with the City that allows him to park on a portion of the lane. Further, parking is permitted on Maynard Avenue. Ms. Gubitz advised she lives in a condominium at 43 Margaret Avenue. She stated she had no objection to this applicant's previous application when he was going to provide a parking space in the accessory building. However, she has concerns with Mr. Sauer's parking space on the lane. Concerns include snow removal in the winter because of the angle of the lane. It is difficult for them to get out of the lane. This lane is used by 41 & 43 Margaret Avenue as well as by 21 Maynard Avenue. It was noted by Ms. Gubitz that the lane is ploughed by the City of Kitchener. Moved by Mr. M. Hiscott Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of Konrad & Jill Sauer requesting permission to provide 0 parking spaces for a home business of "artisan's establishment" which has no employees and does not attract or require customers/clients to the premises, rather than the required 1 off- street parking space, and; legalization of an accessory building having a height of 5.76m (18.89') rather than the permitted 5.5m (18.04') with a wall height to the underside of the fascia of 5.43m (17.81') rather than the permitted 3m (9.84'), on Part Lot 178, Registered Plan 374, 21 Maynard Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: 1. That the variance as approved in this application shall apply to use of the property for a home business of "artisan's establishment" only. 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 2006-086 Applicant: Sara J. Sutherland Property Location: 196 Grand River Boulevard Legal Description: Lot 26, Registered Plan 1447 Appearances: In Support: Mr. B. Sutherland Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant requests legalization of a deck having a rear yard of 6.3 m (20.66') rather than the required 7.5m (24.6'). The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated November 15, 2006, advising they have no objections to the proposed variance; a building permit is required for the addition/enclosing the gazebos. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated November 14, 2006 advising they have no concerns with this application. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 222 DECEMBER 12, 2006 2. Submission No.: A 2006-086 tCont'd) Moved by Mr. A. Head Seconded by Mr. C. Balcercyzk That the application of Sara J. Sutherland requesting legalization of a deck having a rear yard of 6.3m (20.66') rather than the required 7.5m (24.6'), on Lot 26, Registered Plan 1447, 196 Grand River Boulevard, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall apply for and receive a building permit for the addition/enclosing the gazebos. 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 2006-089 Applicant: Negoslav Radulovic Property Location: 144 Water Street South Legal Description: Part Lot 24, Registered Plan 47 Appearances: In Support: Mr. N. Radulovic Mr. R. Sajkonovic Contra: Mr. M. Chilanski Ms. M. McKenna Mr. Etherington Ms. L. Economides Written Submissions: Ms. M. McKenna Mr. M. Chilanski Ms. S. Coulter Mr. F. Etherington Ms. L. Economides The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to locate an off-street parking space, having a length of 3.7 m (12.13') rather than the required 5.49m (18.01'), 0 m from the lot line along Water Street rather than the required 6m (19.68'). The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated December 6, 2006 in which they advised that further to the last Committee of Adjustment meeting, the recommendation of the Committee was that the applicant prepare and submit a revised parking plan and meet with staff and the neighbours to discuss. As of December 1, 2006, Planning staff was not in receipt of a revised parking plan and contacted the agent for the applicant to inquire. Staff were advised that a revised parking plan would hopefully be submitted the following week. At the time of finalizing the planning staff report, Planning staff had still not received a parking plan and are not in a position to provide further comments on the minor variance application. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 223 DECEMBER 12, 2006 3. Submission No.: A 2006-089 tCont'd Transportation Planning has reviewed this application and cannot support the proposed variance. Detailed investigation has revealed that not even a standard North American mini van can park legally in the proposed parking area. While we sympathize with the situation of not having a driveway, we cannot support this variance given the likelihood that cars will park illegally on the City sidewalk. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated November 14, 2006 advising they have no objections to this application. The Committee considered the report of the Grand River Conservation Authority dated November 3, 2006 advising the entire property is regulated for floodplain adjacent to Victoria Park Lake and a permit will be required from the Grand River Conservation Authority pursuant to Ontario Regulation 150/06. Mr. Sajkunovic advised that the applicant wishes to provide a single parking space for a single family dwelling. There is an existing curb cut for this property, and without a parking space it is difficult to resell the property. Mr. Etherington advised the Committee that his concern with this application relates to safety. He stated this property has never had a parking space. Because of the angle of the parking space, it is necessary to reverse into the parking space. He stated that people in this area are improving their properties. This area of the City is a heritage conservation district, and this parking space is not in keeping with the area's heritage. Mr. Chilanski advised that he had only received the revised site plan this morning and he believes that the measurements on this plan are not correct. He advised that he has never seen a vehicle park in the proposed parking space that does not hang over onto his property. Mr. Chilanski noted that the previous owner made arrangements to park his vehicle at an apartment building on Heins Avenue. Mr. Parent advised that he had initially supported this application from a practical point of view; however, since his visit to the property when he parked his mini van in the proposed parking space, he realized that a vehicle can not properly fit in this parking space. He also noted that this area of the property was previously green space. Mr. Hiscott put forward a motion to refuse this application. Mr. Radulovic stated that when this house was built, 90 years ago, parking spaces were not required. Today everyone has a car. He stated he is asking permission to park a car on this property which will not encroach on the neighbour's land or City land. Moved by Mr. M. Hiscott Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of Negoslav Radulovic requesting permission to locate an off-street parking space, having a length of 3.7m (12.13') rather than the required 5.49m (18.01'), to be located Om from the lot line along Water Street South rather than the required 6m (19.68'), on Lot 24, Registered Plan 47, 144 Water Street South, Kitchener, Ontario, BE REFUSED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is not minor in nature. 2. This application is not desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan is not being maintained on the subject property. Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 224 DECEMBER 12, 2006 NEW BUSINESS 1. Submission No.: A 2006-094 Applicant: BNAI Fishel Inc. Property Location: 4220 King Street East Legal Description: Part of Lot 9, Beasley's Broken Front Concession Appearances: In Support: None Contra: None Written Submissions: Mr. P. Wynn The Committee was ad vised the applicant is requesting deferral of this application to allow them an opportunity to submit a variance as required for HVAC screening on the south elevation. The Committee agreed not to consider this application this date, given that the application is incomplete, and that the owner submit a revised application. Once the revised application has been received a new Notice of Hearing will be published prior to the Committee's considerat ion of the application. 2. Submission No.: A 2006-095 Applicant: David Zeigler Property Location: 63 Claremont Avenue Legal Description: Lot 113, Registered Plan 248 Appearances: In Support: S. O'Neill Contra: F. Millerd C. Boots B. Davidson C. Grierson R. Ross L. Economedes J. McCormack E. Trafford H. Munro R. Zimmer N. Bechtel L Kadela J. Patterson J. Hollchan-Raben B. Raben E. Ginsler T. Mavor L. Hishon M. Ferraro D. Reid S. Bellingham J. Stockill L Hurlbut R. Sorkin F. Husein R. March E. Gierson L. Kraeyn L. Jarrett COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 225 DECEMBER 12, 2006 2. Submission No.: A 2006-095 tCont'd) R. Irwin R. Barlow D. Garrett J. Barlow J. Goemans Written Submissions: M. Carty B. Cochrane Dr. A. Houston D. & B. Depew B. Harris N. Ellis C. Duke Dr. B. & C. Boots M. Reive B. Oliver D. Wiegand Dr. F.H.R. Seringhaus D. Parry J. Patterson J. & F. Laband M. & R. Crowley P. & P. Schacht F. Marino T. Ashwell D. Kraus J. Trip D. Robertson D. & F. Forler T. Mavor J. & F. Emrich G. & C. Sullivan P. Fraser C. Fraser J. Fraser J. Weber B. Hall J. & R. Barlow E. Ginsler S. Ross M. Bardeggia-Irwin W. & N. Schmidt R. Ross F. Millerd D. Koehler L. McCain W. & C. Jenkins F. Nichols R. & D. Casselli D. McInnis & S. Rangaswamy C. Boehmer B. N. Boots J. & K. Sanderson S. A. Reinhardt L Syrokomla D. Whitfield B. Timmins A. Rieger R. & E. Smart D. Darling COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 226 DECEMBER 12, 2006 2. Submission No.: A 2006-095 tCont'd) J. Weber B. Davidson R. Trafford L & C. Hurlbut N. Bechtel H. Brandon E. Thomas T. & A. Witzel O. & J. Carless M. Andrus A. Stahlke & G. Melanson D. Mitchell D. Garrett J. Garrett J. Ginsler S. Bellingham H. & S. Munro M. Worden W. Vaughan L. Jarrett E. Davis B. & J. Uttley C. & M. Thomson V. DiCiccio T. & M. Pick B. Evans J. & J. Stemerdink T. & L Tyhurst M. Nowak J. & S. Hoffman J. Goemans M. Bender E. Moloney L Kadela J. & P. Griggs A. MacLeod The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to construct a single family dwelling on a corner lot having a width of 12.19m (40') rather than the required 15m (49.21'). The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated December 6, 2006, in which staff advise that the subject property is located within the `Westmount' neighbourhood located north of Glasgow Street and west of Belmont Avenue West. The subject property is located at the southwest corner of Claremont Avenue and Earl Street and is legally described as of Lot 113, Registered Plan 248. The lot is currently vacant. As this property has been used by the abutting lot to the west, 63 Claremont Avenue for many years, there had been some question as to whether this is actually a lot and can be built upon. The lot was created by Registered Plan 248 which was registered in April of 1914. Given the age of abovementioned registered plan of subdivision, City staff undertook research concerning the subject property and confirm that it is indeed the whole of a lot within the plan, and is, therefore, legally conveyable under the Planning Act. Section 50 (3) of the Planning Act permits the conveyance of land by way of deed, transfer or grant, provided, as noted in Section b), the land is the whole of a lot on a registered plan of subdivision. The subject property is the whole of a lot on a plan of subdivision that was registered in 1914. Staff also confirmed that the dimensions of the lot as indicated on the application are correct. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 227 DECEMBER 12, 2006 2. Submission No.: A 2006-095 tCont'd) Up until May of 2000, the minimum lot width requirement for a corner lot was 12 metres. Prior to May of 2000, the applicant would have been able to obtain a building permit to construct a single detached dwelling without the need for a minor variance. As the requirement for minimum lot width for corner lots was increased from 12 metres to 15 metres in May of 2000, a minor variance is now required to permit the construction of a single detached dwelling on the subject lot. The subject lot is currently vacant and is located within a well established neighbourhood, in close proximity to Belmont Village. The neighbourhood is composed primarily of single detached dwellings built between 1910 and 1960. The lot is designated Low Rise Residential in the Municipal Plan and is zoned Residential Three (R-3) in the Zoning By- law. The subject application proposes to reduce the required minimum corner lot width from 15.0 (49.21 feet) metres to 12.19 metres (40 feet) in order to allow for the construction of a single detached dwelling. In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following comments. The variance meets the intent of the Municipal Plan for the following reasons. The City's Municipal Plan states that the City recognizes that the creation of additional housing in existing developed areas through conversion, infill and redevelopment is an appropriate response to changing housing needs which occur from time to time, and that it is a way of making better use of existing infrastructure. In addition, the Municipal Plan states that the City shall create opportunities for residential infill throughout the City. The proposed variance would allow for low rise residential infill development to take place. The Municipal Plan also states that the City shall also endeavour to ensure that housing being created in existing areas is of good quality in terms of health and safety and is compatible in building form with the massing, scale and design of the surrounding area. This issue will be addressed further in this report. The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law for the following reasons. The variance would allow a single detached dwelling, which is a permitted use in the R-3 Zone, to be constructed on a lot that currently meets the minimum required lot area. The single detached dwelling would be able to meet all minimum setback requirements. In addition, as noted previously, the minimum lot width regulation was increased in 2000 from 12 m to 15 m. This was done to address the issue of driveway location from an intersection of streets. Previously, given corner lot widths of 12 metres and the need to locate a driveway 9 metres from the intersection, homeowners were forced to locate a driveway along the longer lot line abutting a street. The increase in the minimum lot width was intended to provide the opportunity to locate a driveway along the shorter lot line abutting a street. As a driveway and parking space for the proposed single detached dwelling can be located along the Earl Street frontage and be located 9 metres from the intersection of Earl Street and Claremont Avenue, the intent of the by-law is maintained. The applicant is requesting variance to reduce the minimum corner lot width in order to allow the construction of a single detached dwelling. In assessing whether the variance is desirable for the appropriate development of the land, consideration should be given as to whether an appropriately sized single detached dwelling may be accommodated on the subject lot, especially with respect to dwelling width, and whether the proposed single detached dwelling would be compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood in terms of massing and design. In addition to the plan submitted with the application which shows the proposed dwelling footprint, the applicant provided the Planning Division with renderings of six different single detached dwellings with corresponding floor plan drawings. The applicant has requested that these be considered along with the application for the purpose of demonstrating an COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 228 DECEMBER 12, 2006 2. Submission No.: A 2006-095 tCont'd) ability to construct a dwelling of dimensions similar to those proposed. As well, the applicant requests that these be considered in order to demonstrate the applicant's willingness to be flexible in terms of dwelling design. One of the plans does illustrate that an attractive dwelling can be constructed to a width of less than the proposed 6.49 metres (21.29 feet). In the past, the City has issued building permits for the construction of single detached dwellings with widths less than the abovementioned figure. Building Division has commented that they have no objections to the subject application. In considering whether the proposed development would be compatible with the neighbourhood, a similar example should be examined. For instance, the lot located at the northeast corner of Avondale Avenue and Claremont Avenue (municipally addressed as 700 Avondale Avenue) has roughly the same dimensions as, and is within 60 metres of the subject lot. It contains 12.19 metres of frontage onto Claremont Avenue and possesses a driveway off Avondale Avenue, being the side yard abutting a street. This situation appears markedly similar to the subject proposal and appears to function well on its own and with the neighbourhood. Other examples include 30 Earl Street and 232 Glasgow Street. The corner lot at 86 Earl Street is also similar in size although driveway access is provided at the front of the house rather than on the Argyle Street frontage. The proposed dwelling also appears as if it would continue the street wall created by the existing houses located on Claremont Avenue, within the same block. Although the street wall along Earl Street would be interrupted by the proposed dwelling, it appears that this type of inconsistency is typical for corner lots within this established neighbourhood. Another important consideration in determining compatibility with the neighbourhood is the width of the dwellings in the area when compared with the proposed dwelling. Due to the narrow nature of the lot and the minimum side yard and side yard abutting a street requirements, the width of the proposed dwelling is limited to 6.49 metres. Consequentially, the width of the proposed dwelling ranks among the narrowest in the neighbourhood. Notwithstanding, several dwellings in the area are less than eight metres in width and, as such, Planning staff do not consider the proposed width to be out of character. Although the applicant has provided numerous renderings of dwellings that could potentially be constructed on the subject lot, no formal drawings have been submitted as part of the application. In order to ensure appropriate massing, scale, and design of the proposed dwelling with the surrounding area, Planning staff advise that as a condition of approval of the minor variance that a site plan and elevation drawings to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of any building permit. The approval of a site plan and elevation drawings would help to ensure the dwelling's compatibility with the neighbourhood. Planning staff are satisfied that if Committee of Adjustment approval is made conditional upon the submission of detailed drawings of the location and type of dwelling that is proposed to be constructed, the variance could be considered desirable for the appropriate development of the land. The variance can be considered minor for the following reasons. As many lots within this neighbourhood are approximately 12.19 metres in width, the impact upon the surrounding neighbourhood is negligible. The plan of subdivision which was registered in 1914 to create the residential neighbourhood contemplated 12.19 metre (40 foot) lots. With a few exceptions, the majority of the 12.19 (40 foot) lots were developed with single detached dwellings including at least 4 examples of corner lots. Furthermore, at least 3 of the 4 examples of corner lots in the area have similar site conditions to what is proposed. Required parking, setbacks, and lot area regulations would be complied with and the corner visibility triangle would be maintained. In addition, adequate amenity space could be provided in the rear yard. The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 229 DECEMBER 12, 2006 2. Submission No.: A 2006-095 tCont'd) Transportation Planning has reviewed this application and has no concerns with the proposed variance provided that the condition of any future driveways comply with the 9 metre setback from the intersection. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated November 23, 2006 advising they have no concerns with this application. Mr. S. O'Neill advised the Committee that through this application he is requesting a reduction in the minimum lot width for this corner lot, and he noted that this lot meets all the other requirements of the zoning by-law. Mr. O'Neill also advised that he has submitted several house designs to the Planning Division in order to design a house that is compatible with the neighbourhood. Mr. E. Ginsler addressed the Committee advising that he is representing the Westmount Neighbourhood Association. Mr. Ginsler then verbally presented his written submission. He stated that Old Westmount is the first and only large lot urban centred neighbourhood in the City of Kitchener. Large lots are characteristic in this area, through time. Westmount is an area of stability as outlined in the City's Official Plan and is not designated for intensification. The width of this proposed lot is a reduction of 18% of the by-law requirement and is narrower than most lots in the area. Further, this applicant was previously refused the severance of a small lot at 202 Union Boulevard earlier this year. Mr. F. Millerd, an area resident, addressed the Committee advising that he has received letters from the closest neighbours to 63 Claremont Avenue, allowing him to represent them at this meeting. He advised the Committee that the lot and the proposed development are completely out of character with the rest of the neighbourhood. Mr. Millerd stated that Registered Plan 248 was registered in 1914, and envisioned 40' lots with some larger lots; however, Registered Plan 248 only applied to a small area of Westmount. When building occurred, development actually took place on much larger pieces of property. Approval of this variance would allow for a lot that is an interior lot as well as the corner lot. Mr. Millard then referred to several properties around the intersection of Earl Street and Claremont Avenue that have much greater widths than the subject property. In referring to the Planning Division report, dated December 6, 2006, Mr. Millerd stated that the lots included in Registered Plan 248 are not how this area was actually developed. Planning staff refer to some smaller corner lots, but these are an anomaly. The City has always treated 63 Claremont Avenue as one property, as evidenced by the fact that the entire property receives only one tax bill. The neighbours were shocked to find 63 Claremont Avenue is two properties, as everyone assumed it was one lot. Ms. C. Boots, a resident of Claremont Avenue, addressed the Committee stating that this neighbourhood is stable at this time. All four properties on this side of Claremont Avenue have only had two owners, and the City has always treated this as one property. Given the required side yard width, the house which could be built on this property will be smaller than a school portable. The house will be substantially smaller than any other house in the area. Further, the existing house would be on a lot that only has a 39' frontage. Ms. Boots then referred to several addresses in the area noting that these small corner lots are an anomaly, and the subject corner lot is narrower than what is permitted for interior lots. Ms. Boots then advised that the Westmount Neighbourhood Association is unanimously opposed to this application. This is not a minor variance but a major variance. Further, this application will not only benefit the owner, but will be detrimental to the neighbourhood. The 1914 conditions are no longer valid, and the dwelling will be dramatically out of character with the neighbourhood. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 230 DECEMBER 12, 2006 2. Submission No.: A 2006-095 tCont'd) When questioned by the Committee as to why staff believes this variance is minor, Ms. T. Malone-Wright advised that staff reviewed this application in light of the four tests in the Planning Act, and believe that it meets the 4 tests. Staff believes a dwelling can be built on this property that meets the character of the neighbourhood. The lot exists and has existed since 1914. Mr. Hiscott questioned Ms. Boots, as to what future she sees for this lot, given the lot can be sold separately. Ms. Boots advised that 2 other neighbours wanted to buy this property and enlarge the existing house. Again Mr. Hiscott questioned what the neighbours perceive this lot will be used for, as this lot will be sold separately. Mr. Millard responded that this property has always been used as, and was assumed to be one property. Further, on that side of Claremont all properties have widths greater than 40'. Mr. McCormick, an area resident, advised the Committee that under the previous ownership, this was assumed to be one parcel of land. Approximately 81/2 years ago, he looked at the property and thought is was one property. The current owners used the entire property as one. The current owners would never accept a house on this lot. It's unfair for the present owners to move to subdivide this lot. This property has only been on the market for approximately one month, and there could be many people who would buy this property as one lot. Upon questioning by the Committee, Ms. Malone-Wright advised that the City initiated zone change that took place in the year 2000 expanded the required size of corner lots to allow for driveways on the shorter frontage. In this case, the applicant proposes to have the driveway access on the flanking side. Several people seated in the audience spoke against this application, without identifying themselves. The Chair confirmed with Ms. Malone-Wright that up until the year 2000, this lot could have been developed without the approval of the Committee of Adjustment. The Chair also confirmed with staff that the proposed building is not one which would require a subdivision type lot. Moved by Mr. A. Head Seconded by Mr. M. Hiscott That the application of David Zeigler requesting permission to construct a single family dwelling on a corner lot having a width of 12.19m (40') rather than the required 15m (49.21'), on Lot 113, Registered Plan 248, 63 Claremont Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: 1. That a site plan showing the location of the proposed single detached dwelling on the lot and elevation drawings be submitted to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning, illustrating that the proposed dwelling will be compatible with the neighbourhood in terms of massing, scale and design, and that the drawings be approved prior to the issuance of any building permit. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried Mr. B. McColl voted against this decision. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 231 DECEMBER 12, 2006 ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 12th day of December 2006. Dianne H. Gilchrist Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment