HomeMy WebLinkAboutDTS-06-148 - Zone Change App ZC 06/10/K/JB - 501 Krug St
)
c,_>
KITCHENER
Development &
Technical Services
~
Report To:
Date of Meeting:
Submitted By:
Prepared By:
Ward(s) Involved:
Date of Report:
Report No.:
Subject:
Mayor Zehr & Members of City Council
September 25, 2006
Jeff Willmer, Director of Planning (741-2325)
Jeff Willmer, Director of Planning (741-2325)
1 Bridgeport - Centre (Coun. John Smola)
September 25, 2006
DTS 06-148 (supplementary to Report DTS 06-138)
ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ZC06/10/K/JB
501 Krug St
1291105 Ontario Ltd.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Report DTS 06-148 regarding Zone Change Application ZC06/10/K/JB (1291105 Ontario
Ltd, 501 Krug St) be received for information.
BACKGROUND:
Report DTS 06-138 was considered by Development & Technical Services Committee on
September 18 2006. At that time, Committee asked for additional information on how or
whether an approval of the requested zone change, to allow a bingo hall, could be limited to the
specific operator, and not allow a new operator if the proposed bingo hall closes.
REPORT:
Zoning by-laws, while they can be written to specify the type of use permitted or prohibited,
cannot be used to discriminate among operators within a particular type of use. If Council
considers a bingo hall to be an appropriate land use, the zone change should be approved.
Otherwise, the application should be refused.
If Council prefers to make the proposed bingo hall a legal non-conforming use, it could amend
the zoning by-law again - after the new hall becomes legally established - to prohibit the use.
However, this would not necessarily prevent a new bingo hall from establishing if K-W Charities
Bingo closes down. Firstly, the legal non-conforming status does not prevent a transfer from
one operator to another. Secondly, even if there is a short term vacancy, but no physical
renovations or other demonstrated intent to abandon the use, a new bingo hall could be legally
established by means of the legal non-conforming status.
Temporary Use by-laws under Section 39 of the Planning Act may authorize a temporary use
for a purpose otherwise prohibited by the by-law, but only for a period of up to three years.
While additional temporary use by-laws may approved every three years, the applicant would
have no certainty of whether a new Council would approve or refuse, or whether in the event of
an appeal the OMB may refuse.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
No new or additional capital budget requests are expected with this recommendation.
COMMUNICATIONS:
None required.
CONCLUSION:
An attempt to restrict the approval to one operator by means of imposing legal non-conforming
status does not prevent another operator unless there is an abandonment of the use and a
lapsing of the legal non-conforming status. Such an attempt could leave the community with a
false sense of security, if the City is perceived as committing to a limitation that it cannot legally
enforce.
Jeff Willmer, MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning