Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2007-01-16COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD JANUARY 16, 2007 MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. D. Cybalski, B. McColl & A. Head. OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. T. Malone-Wright, Senior Planner, Ms. J. von Westerholt, Senior Planner, Ms. D. Gilchrist, Secretary-Treasurer, and Ms. R. Brent, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer. Mr. D. Cybalski, Chair, called this meeting to order at 10:05 a.m. That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment, of December 12, 2006, as mailed to the members, be adopted. Carried UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Submission No.: B 2006-055 Applicant: Lara & Milan Kovacevic Property Location: 58 Daniel Avenue Legal Description: Part Lot 9, Registered Plan 675 Appearances: In Support: None Contra: None Written Submissions: Mr. M. Kovacevic The Committee agreed to the written request of the applicant to defer consideration of this application to the meet ing of August 21, 2007 to allow him time to apply for rezoning or register a holding provision as agreed upon by Development & Technical Services and the Region of Waterloo. NEW BUSINESS 1. Submission No.: A 2007-001 Applicant: Luis & Noelia Machado Property Location: 122 Kimberly Crescent Legal Description: Lot 134, Registered Plan 1240 Appearances: In Support: Mr. Machado Contra: None Written Submissions: Mr. M. Blanchard & Ms. J. Hartman The Committee was ad vised that the applicant requests permission to relocate the carport such that it will have a southerly side yard of 0.91 m (2.98') at the front of the carport and 0.4m (1.31') at the rear of the carport, rather than the required 1.2m (3.93'). COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 2 JANUARY 16, 2007 1. Submission No.: A 2007-001 tCont'd) The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated January 10, 2007 advising they have no objections provided a parking space with a width of 3.04 meters and a length of 5.49 m can be provided within the interior of the carport and construction conforms to the Ontario Building Code and shall have a 45-minute fire resistance rating (6x6 posts are acceptable) and unenclosed. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated December 28, 2006 advising they have no concerns with this application. The Committee considered the written submission of the neighbours in opposition to this application. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. A. Head That the application of Luis & Noelia Machado requesting permission to relocate the carport such that it will have a southerly side yard of 0.91 m (2.98') at the front of the carport and 0.4m (1.31') at the rear of the carport, rather than the required 1.2m (3.93'), on Lot 134, Registered Plan 1240, 122 Kimberly Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall receive approval of a Building Permit prior to relocating the carport. 2. That any eavestrough shall not encroach onto the adjacent property, and all drainage shall be directed onto the applicants' 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 2007-002 Applicant: David Bossence Property Location: 6 Chicopee Terrace Legal Description: Lot 77, Registered Plan 1114 Appearances: In Support: Mr. D. Bossence Mr. W. Czurlok Ms. N. Reid Mr. D. Davenport Mr. S. Rodrigues Contra: None Written Submissions: Mr. & Mrs. D. Grzella Mr. W. Czurlok Mr. & Mrs. T. Kraenzle Ms. N. Reid Ms. C. Pentsa Mr. & Mrs. D. Davenport Mr. R. Russler COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 3 JANUARY 16, 2007 2. Submission No.: A 2007-002 tCont'd) Mr. & Mrs. J. Ecsedi Mr. R. Dunn Mr. & Mrs. N. Moss Mr. S. Rodrigues Mr. & Mrs. L. Kohlsmith Ms. M. Deter Mr. D. Bossence Ms. K. Stevenson Mr. C. Houston The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission to have 4 employees for a home business rather than the 1 employee permitted by the zoning by-law. The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated January 8, 2007 advising the subject property is located in a cul-de-sac at the end of Chicopee Terrace. The zoning is R-3 (Residential Three) under By-law 85- 1. The owner had obtained at Occupancy Permit in August 2006 fora "Home Business - Office" with one employee. An investigation by Enforcement determined that there is more than one employee and the owner has confirmed that there are actually four employees. The applicant is requesting a minor variance to permit four employees rather than the maximum permitted one employee for a home business. 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 may be considered minor for the following reasons. The by-law does permit a maximum of one employee and up to three clients/customers to the property at any one time, providing all the regulations of the by-law are met. The applicant states that this home business does not have clients to the property. As well, there is no sign on the property advertising the business, which maintains the inconspicuous nature of the business. There are courier deliveries, which are permitted, and the owner has noted that he has cut back the number of deliveries from daily to twice a week. The amount of vehicular traffic to the property for four employees would not appear much different than if there were three clients and one employee. However, the nature of the business could change and the applicant would have the potential to have up to 3 clients visit the property at any one time with the potential to add 3 more vehicles in the existing driveway. There is also no way to limit or control the number of courier deliveries to the property. Currently, the by-law requires one parking space for the dwelling, one parking space for the home business and one parking space for one non-resident employee. If the office operates in such a fashion as to not attract clients then only one parking space would need to be provided for the dwelling and the non-resident employee. It is noted that the by-law does not address parking requirements for more than one non-resident employee as only one non-resident employee is permitted. However, parking should be addressed as four employees would create a need for parking spaces to be supplied on the property. There has been a previous application to the Committee for a home business with a maximum of three employees and it was determined that one space per employee would be required. In total, the subject property would need to provide 5 unobstructed parking spaces on site to accommodate the home business and 4non-resident employees. The subject property has a driveway that is approximately 16 metres deep and four cars for the employees can be adequately parked within the property's lot lines in addition to the 3 existing parking spaces within the attached garage. Some of the vehicles would be parked in tandem, but this is preferable to having a "parking lot" created where all the vehicles would have separate access. However, as tandem parking is not permitted, the application for minor variance will need to be amended to accommodate tandem parking for 4 employees. Traffic staff has commented that they have no concerns with tandem parking. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 4 JANUARY 16, 2007 2. Submission No.: A 2007-002 tCont'd) The Municipal Plan allows residents to operate businesses as a secondary use to the primary use provided they do not generate a nuisance such as noise and traffic and parking problems and provided they do not visually detract from the residential character of the neighbourhood. Staff are of the opinion that the variance does not meet the intent of the Zoning By-law or the Municipal Plan for the following reasons. The regulation limiting the number of employees to a home business is to ensure that the business is mainly operated and run by the occupant of the residence so that it is unobtrusive and in keeping with the residential character of the neighbourhood. There is a need to accommodate 4 additional parking spaces in the existing driveway and this would not include any additional parking spaces that would need to be provided by the family in the home. As noted it also does not include parking for any clients coming to the site. The by-law does permit a maximum of one non-resident employee, if regulations are being met. It is staff's opinion that a business that requires more than one employee, such as the proposed variance request of four employees is more commercial in nature and does not meet the intent of the Zoning By-law. It could also be questionable as to whether a home business with 4non-resident employees is a secondary use of the property. The variance is not appropriate for the development and use of the land for the following reason. The City permits home business use in residential zones as a means to encourage small business owners to begin operation. It is felt that having more than one non-resident employee to a residential property is not in keeping with the residential character of the neighbourhood. The intent of the by-law is that that once a business use is able to hire more than one employee, it is deemed to be more commercial or industrial in nature and would be better-suited in zones other than residential. Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that the application be refused. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated December 28, 2006 advising they have no concerns with this application. Mr. Bossence advised the Committee that his business is that of a distributor of promotional products, which is done via his web site, and he has customers all across Canada. He has no showroom or warehouse at this property. He orders the goods through suppliers who ship them directly to the customers. He advised that very occasionally customers come to his office, and approximately once a day a courier will make a delivery to his property. He stated that the amount of traffic to his property by his 4 employees would not be as great as a home business with one employee and customers coming to the business throughout the day. Mr. Davenport, a neighbouring resident, spoke in support of Mr. Bossence's application. He advised that Mr. Bossence has upgraded this property and consequently the neighbourhood. This property was previously dangerous with people passing through from the woods beyond, and it had been used as a dumping ground for garbage. This property has been substantially improved and has added value to the whole neighbourhood. He stated that all the neighbours on Chicopee Terrace support this application. Upon questioning, Ms. Malone-Wright advised that the wide driveway with 4 vehicles parked there all day, creates the appearance of a parking lot in a residential zone. Further, if the application is to be approved, an additional variance would be required for tandem parking. There is also a potential for customers to come to this business, and staff have no way of controlling whether customers come to the property or not. Mr. Bossence advised that no customers come to his office, and his business is not changing in scope. Further, there is no repeating movement of traffic to his property, as once his employees park their vehicles there in the morning; they do not leave again until they go home after work. He also advised that 3 cars can park in his driveway, and the 4th car parks in the driveway in tandem. He then noted that the Committee of Adjustment previously approved an application for a home business with 3 employees on the condition COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 5 JANUARY 16, 2007 2. Submission No.: A 2007-002 tCont'd that no customers would be permitted to come to the property, and he would be prepared to accept a condition to this effect. The members then advised that although they are generally supportive of home businesses, they do not believe that having 4 employees for this home business is appropriate or meets the intent of the zoning by-law. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. A. Head That the application of David Bossence requesting permission to have 4 employees for a home business rather than the 1 employee permitted by the zoning by-law, on Lot 77, Registered Plan 1114, 6 Chicopee Terrace, Kitchener, Ontario, BE REFUSED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances re quested in this application are not minor in nature. 2. This application i s 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 CONSENT 1. Submission No.: B 2007-001 Applicant: Paljo & Maria Markus Property Location: 92 West Acres Crescent Legal Description: Part Lot 6, Registered Plan 864, being Parts 7 & 8, Reference Plan 58R-5823 Appearances: In Support: Mr. & Mrs. Markus Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee deferred its consideration of the above application to the meeting of February 20, 2007 to allow the applicant an opportunity to determine the location/ownership of the trees numbered as #2 - #5 on the plan submitted and meet with staff and the adjacent property owner at 96 West Acres Crescent. ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 16th day of January 2007. Dianne H. Gilchrist Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment