Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2007-08-21COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD AUGUST 21, 2007 MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. D. Cybalski, M. Hiscott & Ms. C. Balcerczyk OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. von Westerholt, Senior Planner, Mr. R. Parent, Traffic Analyst, Mr. J. Bannon, Planner, Ms. D. Gilchrist, Secretary- Treasurer, Ms. T. Kraemer, Administrative Clerk and Ms. D. Hartleib, Administrative Clerk. Mr. D. Cybalski, Chair, called this meeting to order at 9:35 a.m. MINUTES Moved by Ms. C. Balcerczyk Seconded by Mr. M. Hiscott That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment, of July 17, 2007, as mailed to the members, be accepted. Carried UNFINISHED BUSINESS CONSENT 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: None The Committee was advised that the applicants request permission to sever a parcel of land for future residential development, to have a width on Daniel Avenue of 36.658m (120.26') by a depth of 30.614m (100.43'), and an area of 1,122.25 sq. m. (12,080.19 sq. ft.). The retained land will contain the existing duplex, and have a width on Daniel Avenue of 19.73m (64.73'), a depth of 30.53m (100.16') and an area of 602.36 sq. m. (6,483.96 sq. ft.). Mr. Bannon advised the Committee that the zone change required to allow for the proposed severance will not be considered by City Council until late October. As no one appeared in support of this application, the Committee agreed to defer its consideration of the application until November 20, 2007. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTI 2. Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: Appearances: ~IENT 153 AUGUST 21, 2007 B 2007-019 William Roberts 715 Glasgow Street Blocks H & I, Registered Plan 1273 In Support: P. Grespan W. Roberts Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission to sever a parcel of land having a width on Gallarno Court of 23.509m (77.129'), a depth of 26.146m (85.78'), and an area of 564.5533 sq. m. (6,077 sq. ft.), to be developed with a residential building. The retained land will have a width on Glasgow Street of 76.532 m (251.089'), a depth of 128.827m (422.66'), and an area of 11,250.2708 sq. m. (121,100.869 sq. ft.), and contains an existing dwelling. The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated August 17, 2007, in which they advise that at the Committee of Adjustment meeting held on June 18th, 2007, the Committee deliberated over this proposed lot configuration and proposed consent and subsequently deferred the application in order to allow the applicant and/ or his agent to meet with staff to discuss possible lot configurations that staff could support. Since the last meeting, further investigation by staff has revealed that Ms. Lavalee and her client Mr. Roberts were indeed made aware of staff's position concerning the exclusion of Block "H" from the proposed lot configuration on Gallarno Court. Correspondence dating back to August 2006, clearly states staff's support for a lot configuration excluding Block "H" so as to provide sufficient frontage along Gallarno Court in the event that adjacent lands along the cul-de-sac are developed. In addition, the attached correspondence indicated that a tree preservation plan (TPP) was required prior to consideration of a consent and that the TPP must be approved by the City's Environmental Planner. We have not received a tree preservation plan from the applicant to date. Ms. Lavalee, on behalf of her client Mr. Roberts, forwarded staff a revised sketch which would exclude the majority of Block H and would allow proper development of adjacent lands to occur if and when it may be contemplated. Staff has reviewed this option and could support this lot configuration, provided that the owner retains a qualified Arborist or Landscape Architect to prepare the Tree Preservation Plan (TPP), and that the City's Environmental Planner has to approve the TPP. This condition should be registered on title. In light of these findings and in the interest of ensuring the future ability to develop adjacent lands if and when it becomes desirable to do so, the application for consent could be supported. RECOMMENDATION That application B2007-017 for the creation of a new lot be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That satisfactory arrangement be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 154 AUGUST 21, 2007 2. Submission No.: B 2007-019, tCont'd) 2. That the owner provide 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 one full size paper copy of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist. 3. That the owner pay to the City of Kitchener acash-in-lieu contribution for park dedication equal to (5% (residential) of the value of the lands to be severed) or (the value of one hectare of land for each 300 dwelling units proposed for the severed lands). 4. That the owner make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services, for the installation of all new service connections to the (severed lands and/or retained) lands. 5. That the owner make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping including street trees, and a paved driveway ramp, on the (severed lands and/or retained) lands. 6. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to be prepared by the City Solicitor and registered on title of the severed lands which shall include the following: a) That the owner shall prepare a Tree Preservation Plan for the severed lands in accordance with the City's Tree Management Policy, to be approved by the City's Director of Planning and where necessary, implemented prior to any grading, tree removal or the issuance of building permits. Such plans shall include, among other matters, the identification of a proposed building envelope/work zone, landscaped area and vegetation to be preserved. b) The owner further agrees to implement the approved plan. No changes to the said plan shall be granted except with the prior approval of the City's Director of Planning. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing & Community Services, dated June 11, 2007, advising that they have no concerns with this application. The Committee considered correspondence from Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc., dated June 8, 2007, in which they advise that if this application is approved, the owner will be required to make satisfactory arrangements with them for permanent electrical servicing to the severed land. Mr. Grespan advised that he has reviewed the staff report and the applicant is in support of the staff recommendation. Moved by Mr. M. Hiscott Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk That the application of William Roberts requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a width on Gallarno Court of 14.221 m (46.65'), a depth on the southerly side of 30.684m (100.66'), and an area of 654.2 sq. m. (7,041.98 sq. ft.), on Blocks H & I, Registered Plan 1273, 715 Glasgow Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangement with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 155 AUGUST 21, 2007 2. Submission No.: B 2007-019, tCont'd) 2. 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 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. 3. 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 or the value of one hectare of land for each 300 dwelling units proposed for the severed lands. 4. That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services, for the installation of all new service connections to the severed lands and/or retained lands. 5. That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping including street trees, and a paved driveway ramp, on the severed lands and/or retained lands. 6. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to be prepared by the City Solicitor and registered on title of the severed lands which shall include the following: a) That the owner shall prepare a Tree Preservation Plan for the severed lands in accordance with the City's Tree Management Policy, to be approved by the City's Director of Planning and where necessary, implemented prior to any grading, tree removal or the issuance of building permits. Such plans shall include, among other matters, the identification of a proposed building envelope/work zone, landscaped area and vegetation to be preserved. b) The owner further agrees to implement the approved plan. No changes to the said plan shall be granted except with the prior approval of the City's Director of Planning. 7. That the owner shall make arrangements satisfactory to Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. for permanent electrical servicing for the severed land, including any easements which may be required by them. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. 2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. 3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being August 21, 2009. Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 156 AUGUST 21, 2007 This meeting recessed at 9:45 a.m. and reconvened at 10:36 a.m. with the following members present: Ms. C. Balcerczyk and Messrs. D. Cybalski and M. Hiscott. NEW BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE 1. Submission No.: A 2007-011 & A 2007-012 Applicant: AI & Brigette Kavanaugh Property Location: 701 & 711 Westmount Road West Legal Description: Lots 11 & 35 and Part Lot 10, Plan 350 Appearances: In Support: K. Barisdale Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicants request legalization of an enclosed breezeway at 701 Westmount Road West, having a setback from the southerly side lot line of Om rather than the required 1.2m (3.93'). Also legalization of the following variances at 711 Westmount Road West: an enclosed breezeway having a setback from the northerly side lot line of Om rather than the required 1.2m (3.93'), legalization of a driveway having a width of 12.19m (40') rather than the width of the garage to which it leads, as permitted in the zoning by-law; and, legalization of a parking lot (an area which contains 4 or more separate parking spaces) to have egress to a street in a rearward motion only, rather than in a forward motion. The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated April 11, 2007, in which they advised that the subject properties are located on the west side of Westmount Road West between Union Boulevard and Claremont Avenue, the zoning designation is Residential Two (R-2) under By- law 85-1 with a Municipal Plan designation of Low Rise Residential. Both lots contain single family dwellings currently under the same ownership. Last summer/fall the owners undertook some renovations of the properties, both exterior and interior. The property at 701 Westmount Road is occupied by the owners and the other property at 711 Westmount Road is occupied by the owner's mother-in-law. Recent alterations have resulted in the garage at 701 Westmount Road being enclosed and converted to a kitchen. The driveway leading to the garage was also removed and the area landscaped. This has resulted in the property not having an off-street parking space. The owner is in the process of having ownership of the two properties changed so that different names are registered on title for the lands. Once this is done, an off-street parking agreement can be prepared by our Legal Services and the required parking space for 701 Westmount Road will be accommodated on the lands at 711 Westmount Road. The applicant is requesting a minor variance to permit an enclosed breezeway located Om from the side lot line of 701 Westmount Road West rather than the required 1.2m, and Om from the rear lot line of 711 Westmount Road West rather than the required 7.5m. In addition, a site visit by staff has determined another variance exists in regards to the parking area on 711 Westmount Road West. There exists a double car garage on the site and alterations last year were made to widen the driveway to accommodate additional parking spaces. This has resulted in a "parking lot" being created. A "parking lot" is defined as an area for four or more independently accessible parking spaces. As a result, staff recommend that this variance request be amended to request permission fora "parking lot" to have egress in a rearward motion whereas the by-law requires egress in a forward motion only; for two of the COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 157 AUGUST 21, 2007 1. Submission No.: A 2007-011 & A 2007-012 tCont'd) parking spaces located on either side of the garage door to be located approximately 1.5m from a lot line abutting a street rather than the required 3m setback for parking spaces, and for a parking lot not to have a visual barrier located between the parking area and the abutting Residential zone. As well, the application should be amended to permit a driveway width of 12. 19m whereas the maximum width permitted by the by-law is the width of the attached garage. In regards to the variance for the breezeway, staff has considered the four tests for minor variances as outline in Section 45 (1) of the Planning Act, as amended, and offer the following comments. The variance does meet the intent of the Zoning By-law and is considered minor for the following reasons. The breezeway is located over both lots and is 4.44m by 4.1 m in size. Its purpose is to permit access from the driveway at 711 Westmount to the dwelling at 701 Westmount and can be considered accessory. The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the lands for the following reason. The breezeway provides shelter and accommodates movement between the two lots that are occupied by relatives. It is adequately landscaped from the street and does not detract from the residential character of the streetscape. However, staff recommends the deferral of decision at this time. A zoning analysis has identified the parking deficiency for 701 Westmount Road West where the garage has been replaced by a kitchen and the driveway removed. As the property does not currently meet all the requirements of the Zoning By-law staff consider this request is premature until the parking has been legally provided for on the abutting lot with an off-street parking agreement. In regards to the variance for the parking lot, staff has considered the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45 (1) of the Planning Act, as amended, Planning staff offer the following comments. The variance does not meet the intent of the Zoning By-law nor is it considered minor in nature for the following reason. The applicant has supplied an overhead sketch of the parking area. Staff notes that it appears to be an older photo. The most recent 2003 aerial photo, as well as a site visit, indicated that the parking lot extends over the lot line onto 701 Westmount Road in addition to what is shown on the sketch. As well a site visit has noted vehicles parked parallel to the street on the portion of the widening to the right of the garage. This has resulted in the parking of motor vehicles within the 3 m. setback. It is noted that this is a corner lot and that a second driveway located off Union Boulevard would better accommodate the parking of more vehicles rather than this expanded parking area on Westmount Road. The variance is not appropriate for the development and use of the land for the following reasons: the parking lot located between the garage fagade and the lot line abutting Westmount Road is not visually appropriate for the streetscape of this residential neighbourhood. As well, there are safety concerns with a larger number of vehicles on the lot exiting in a rearward motion onto a busy Regional road that is four lanes wide. Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that the variance request for the two variances be deferred in order that the off-street parking for 701 Westmount Road may be legalized before a decision is made on the breezeway. Staff does not support the variance request for the driveway widening and notes the variance for the parking lot has not been advertised in the newspaper nor circulated to neighbours in a notification letter. Should the Committee consider approving this application, staff recommends that the appropriate notification is processed by the City before a decision is made. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 158 AUGUST 21, 2007 1. Submission No.: A 2007-011 & A 2007-012 tCont'd) Transportation Planning staff advised that they have no concerns with the proposed variance; however, noted that they have concerns with the existing parking layout at 711 Westmount Road. It would appear that the driveway has been altered to accommodate in excess of 3 parking spaces. This would require that vehicles exit the property in a forward motion, and that the parking area comply with commercial parking standards (i.e. 3m setback, landscaping etc.). The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated August 1, 2007 in which they advise that it appears that the applicant has widened the driveway internally but has not widened the curb opening on Westmount Road. Region of Waterloo staff would not support the issuance of an Access Permit to widen the curb opening to 12.19m as this exceeds the maximum width for a residential driveway of 6 m as identified in the Region of Waterloo Access Policy. Ms. Barisdale advised that the owners now request legalization of the existing enclosed breezeway, legalization of the driveway width and legalization of a parking lot from which cars exit in a rearward motion. She noted that he driveway has not been widened at the street. Ms. Barisdale advised that since the last meeting, as requested by staff, the owners of these 2 properties have entered into an off-site parking agreement with the City of Kitchener. Also, the owners have installed a significant amount of landscaping. Mr. Parent stated that staff is not supportive of a parking lot where vehicles do not have the ability to leave in a forward motion. Ms. Barisdale responded that 2 to 3 cars park in this parking area, and the parking lot is the size it is so that there is an area for cars to turn and leave the driveway in a forward motion. She stated that the driveway has been its current width for 2 to 3 years, and is only 6m wide at the street. She stated that if staff would not support the driveway width, they would not have requested approval of this variance. Further, the owners have gone to considerable cost to take-up part of the driveway and install landscaping to make the front of the property aesthetically pleasing from Westmount Road. Submission No. A 2007-011 Moved by Mr. M. Hiscott Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk That the application of AI & Brigette Kavanaugh requesting legalization of an enclosed breezeway having a southerly side yard of Om rather than the required 1.2m (3.93'), on Lot 11, Registered Plan 872, 701 Westmount Road West, 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 159 AUGUST 21, 2007 1. Submission No.: A 2007-011 & A 2007-012 tCont'd) Submission No. A 2007-012 Moved by Mr. M. Hiscott Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk That the application of AI Kavanaugh requesting legalization of an existing enclosed breezeway having a rear yard of Om rather than the required 7.5m (24.6'), a driveway having a width of 12.19m (40') rather than the width of the garage to which it leads, and legalization of a parking lot from which vehicles must exit in a rearward motion rather than the required forward motion, on Lot 35, Registered Plan 810, 711 Westmount Road West, 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 2. Submission No.: A 2007-050 Applicant: P. Lupuleseu Property Location: 166 Chandler Drive Legal Description: Lot 3, Plan 1270 Appearances: In Support: J. Clinckett Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission to expand a legal non-conforming 17 unit apartment building by adding 3 more units within the existing building, and permission to provide 21 off-street parking spaces for the 20 unit apartment building rather than the required 32 spaces. The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated August 14, 2007, in which they advise that the subject property is located on the north side of Chandler Drive, and backs onto Highway 7/8. The property is designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan and is zoned Residential Six Zone (R-6). The subject property contains a 3-storey, 17-unit multiple dwelling built in the early 1970s. All existing dwelling units are greater than 51 square metres in area. The surrounding area is comprised of a diverse range of residential uses including single detached and semi-detached dwellings, multiple dwellings, and townhouse complexes. A site plan was approved for the existing multiple dwelling in 1971 with 21 parking spaces in the rear yard. A site inspection on August 1, 2007, revealed that the site is not as shown on the site plan or the plan circulated with the subject minor variance application. The inspection revealed that the site has 18 regular parking spaces in the rear yard (9 spaces in the row showing 10 spaces, 6 in the row showing 9 spaces, and 3 in the row showing 2 spaces) and 2 visitor parking spaces in the front yard for a total of 20 spaces. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 160 AUGUST 21, 2007 2. Submission No.: A 2007-050 tCont'd) The applicant is proposing internal changes that would create 3 additional dwelling units within the existing building for a total of 20 dwelling units. Two of the additional units would be located on the lower floor and would be less than 51 square metres in area and one of the units would be located on the main floor and would be greater than 51 square metres. In order to allow these changes Committee of Adjustment approval is required in three areas: 1. Under the current Zoning By-law, 32 parking spaces would be required for all 20 dwelling units, while 20 spaces are currently provided. Minor variance approval is required to reduce the required parking to 20 spaces: 18 dwelling units > 51 square metres x 1.75 = 31.5 + 2 dwelling units <- 51 square metres x 0.165 = 0.33 = 31.83 = 32 parking spaces required. 2. The Zoning By-law specifies that a minimum of 15 percent of the required parking spaces for the multiple dwelling are required to be designated for visitor parking: 0.15 x 32 = 4.8, or 5 spaces required. Currently, 2 visitor parking spaces are provided, whereas 5 spaces are required. Minor variance approval is required to reduce the number visitor parking to 2 spaces. 3. The Zoning By-law requires a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.6 for multiple dwellings in the R-6 Zone, whereas the FSR of the existing building is 0.68: 1350 square metres (building floor area) / 1974 square metres (lot area) = 0.68 The existing building used as a 17-unit multiple dwelling is considered legal non- conforming due to non-conformity with the current Floor Space Ratio provisions of the Zoning By-law. Permission from the Committee of Adjustment is required to allow the existing building to be used as a 20-unit multiple dwelling (instead of a 17- unit multiple dwelling) with a legal non-conforming Floor Space Ratio. 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 proposed variances meet the intent of the Official Plan for the following reasons. The Official Plan states that "The City may consider reducing parking requirements for properties within an area or areas, where adequate alternative parking facilities are available, or where it can be demonstrated that such reductions will not negatively affect the community." In this case, Transportation Planning staff does not have any concerns with the proposed reduced parking requirements, but recommend that a bike rack be installed on-site to encourage alternative methods of transportation. The proposed variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-law for the following reasons. The Zoning By-law seeks to achieve parking supplies that are consistent with the needs of development and encourage the use of alternative means of transportation. In particular, the City seeks to ensure that parking requirements for residential uses are reasonable and based on expected automobile ownership and parking demand. As abovementioned, Transportation Planning staff is satisfied that the proposed parking satisfies this objective. The proposed variances are desirable for the appropriate use of the land and building for the following reasons. The variance would allow increased dwelling unit variety within the existing building by adding 2 bachelor style units. In addition, the variance would allow the intensification of the existing building at a scale appropriate to the Low Rise Residential designation. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 161 AUGUST 21, 2007 2. Submission No.: A 2007-050 tCont'd) The proposed variances are minor for the following reasons. The impact on the adjacent properties is negligible, especially considering only 3 additional dwelling units are proposed, of which 2 are considered to be bachelor style (i.e., one bedroom dwelling units). These additional units are not expected to generate significant parking demands. Planning staff recommend that a bike rack be installed on-site to encourage alternative methods of transportation as a condition of minor variance approval. In addition, staff recommends that a revision to the existing site plan be required to update the parking layout as a condition of approval. With respect to the legal non-conforming Floor Space Ratio, the question that must be answered is: Is the proposed use of the existing building (with a floor space ratio of 0.68) as a 20-unit multiple dwelling similar to a 17-unit multiple dwelling, being the purpose for which it was used on the day the by-law to require a maximum Floor Space Ratio of 0.6 was passed? Case law sets out the tests to be applied in considering permission applications under Section 45(2)(a)(ii). Planning staff offer the following comments in this regard: 1. Whether the approval of the application is in the public interest. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed increase in the number of dwelling units would not negatively impact the public realm. It is in the public interest to intensify the city, thus creating a compact, efficient community. 2. Whether the approval represents good planning. Staff is of the opinion that the proposal represents good planning since no adverse impacts are foreseen and would add dwelling unit diversity and intensify the use on the site. 3. Whether the proposed application creates unacceptable adverse impacts upon the abutting properties. Staff do not foresee any adverse impacts upon the abutting properties with the increased number of units. 4. Is the proposed use similar as required in Section 45(2)(a) (ii) of the Planning Act . Especially since 2 of the proposed 3 units are bachelor style dwelling units, the additional units do not represent a significant change in the use of the building and can be considered "similar". Transportation Planning has reviewed this application and has no concerns with the proposed reduced parking requirements, but recommends that a bike rack be installed on site in place of these parking stalls to encourage alternative methods of transportation. Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that A2007-050, requesting: 1. approval of a minor variance to reduce the required parking from 32 to 20 spaces, 2. approval of a minor variance to reduce the required visitor parking from 5 to 2 spaces, and 3. permission to allow the existing building with a legal non-conforming Floor Space Ratio of 0.68 to be used as a 20-unit multiple dwelling, be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. That approval of a revision to the existing site plan, approved on May 25, 1971, be obtained from the City's Supervisor of Site Plan Development. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 162 AUGUST 21, 2007 2. Submission No.: A 2007-050 tCont'd) 2. That as part of the site plan approval process as outlined in Condition #1, a bike rack be installed on the subject property. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated August 1, 2007 in which they advise that they have no concerns with this application. Mr. Clinckett advised that he has reviewed the staff report and is in agreement with the staff recommendation. Moved by Ms. C. Balcerczyk Seconded by M. Hiscott That the application of Peter Lupuleseu requesting permission to expand a legal non- conforming 17 unit apartment building, having a floor space ration of 0.68, by adding 3 more units within the existing building, for a total of 20 residential units, and permission to provide 20 off-street parking spaces for the 20 unit apartment building rather than the required 32 spaces, with only 2 visitor parking spaces rather than the required 5, on Lot 3, Plan 1270, 166 Chandler Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall obtain approval of a revision to the existing site plan, approved on May 25, 1971, from the City's Supervisor of Site Plan Development. 2. That as part of the site plan approval process outlined in Condition #1, a bike rack shall be installed on the subject 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. 4. That the approval of the application is in the public interest. 5. That the approval represents good planning. 6. That approval of this application does not create unacceptable adverse impacts upon the abutting properties. 7. That the proposed use as a 20 unit multiple dwelling, within the existing building, is similar to the use of this property as a 17 unit multiple dwelling. Carried 3. Submission No.: A 2007-051 Applicant: Quasar Realty Services Corp. Property Location: 259 Courtland Avenue East Legal Description: Lot 23 & Part Lot 22, Subdivision of Lot 18, German Company Tract Appearances: In Support: G. MacKinnon Contra: None COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 163 AUGUST 21, 2007 3. Submission No.: A 2007-051 tCont'd) Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant requests legalization of an existing parcel of land having a width of 12.18m (39.96') rather than the required 15m (49.21'), with a front yard setback of 2.79m (9.14') to the front porch rather than the required 6m (19.68'). The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated July 26, 2007, in which they advise that the subject property is located on the south side of Courtland Avenue East near the intersection of Courtland Avenue East and Stirling Avenue South. The property is zoned General Industrial (M-2) with special regulation 1 R and is designated as General Industrial in the Mill Courtland Woodside Park Neighbourhood Secondary Plan. The applicant is proposing to change the use of the building to commercial recreation, which requires the applicant to legalize the existing zoning on the property. This will require a reduction in the required minimum lot width from 15 metres to 12.18 metres and a reduction in the front yard setback from 6.0 metres to 2.79 metres. A site inspection was conducted on July 24, 2007. The applicant is applying to legalize an existing situation and the applicant has noted that the current property lines and building envelope have been in place since 1930. The General Industrial designation in the secondary plan is intended to accommodate complimentary uses to industrial activities that do not interfere or are detrimental to the development of industrial operations. The General Industrial (M-2) zoning permits commercial recreation uses. The 1 R requires the applicant to contact the Grand River Conservation Authority for a permit as the lands are within the Regulatory Area of Schneider's Creek. As a result, the proposed variance maintains the general intent of the Zoning By-law and the Municipal Plan. Transportation Planning Staff was contacted concerning the driveway/aisle width which is only 11.9 ft and whether or not this was adequate to accommodate vehicular movement on the site. Although staff recognized that the aisle is considerably smaller than what would be required today, however it is an existing situation and no real concern over this site was raised. Comments received from the Region of Waterloo indicate that a 13 feet road widening will be required along this portion of Courtland Avenue. They also note that the existing house is situated approximately 9 feet from the Courtland Avenue property line and that a reduced widening may be imposed at the time of the widening. As this application is for a variance, the Planning Act does not provide for the dedication of road allowances through the variance process, which is only permitted through the consent or subdivision processes. These comments are intended to inform the property owner that a widening may occur at some point in the future. The applicant has noted that the building has been in existence since 1930 and the current setbacks and lot width is an existing situation. There are no changes between proposed to the exterior of the property with the exception of the possible extension of the parking at the rear of the building. The rear of the property is currently fenced from residential neighbours and the commercial recreation use will act as a buffer between the adjacent commercial use and the neighbouring residential property to the south. As a result, the variance should not significantly impact the neighbouring property and therefore, the effect of the variance is minor and can be considered to be appropriate for the proper development of the area. It is the opinion of staff that the proposed variance meets Municipal Plan policy and Zoning By-Law regulations and is considered to be proper and orderly development. The uses of the property are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) issued under Subsection 3 (1) of the Act, and they conform to or do not conflict with any applicable provincial plan or plans. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 164 AUGUST 21, 2007 3. Submission No.: A 2007-051 tCont'd) Staff recommend that: 1. That application A2007-051, allowing a reduction in the front yard setback from 6.0 metres to 2.79 metres and a reduction in the minimum lot width from 15 metres to 12.18 metres be approved. 2. That the owner obtains the necessary permit from the GRCA for any fill or construction that is contemplated for the site. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated August 1, 2007, in which they advise that at this location, Courtland Avenue has an existing road allowance width of 60 feet and a designated road allowance width in the Region's Official Plan of 86 feet. Therefore, any future redevelopment of these lands would normally require the Region of Waterloo to acquire a conveyance of (89-60=26/2=13) 13 feet. However, as the existing house is located approximately 9 feet from the Courtland Avenue property line, a reduced road allowance widening would be imposed at that time. The Committee considered the report of the Grand River Conservation Authority, dated August 3, 2007, in which they advised that they have no objection to this application which requests a minor variance to the minimum lot width and front yard setback for the property at 259 Courtland Avenue East, Kitchener to legalize an existing building. Information available to them indicates that the subject property is located in the Flood Fringe of Schneider Creek. They advised that any new development or site alteration on the subject property within the Regulation limit will require the prior issuance of a permit from the Grand River Conservation Authority. Mr. MacKinnon advised that he has reviewed the staff report and is in agreement with it. Moved by Mr. M. Hiscott Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk That the application of Quasar Realty Services Corp. requesting legalization of an existing parcel of land having a width of 12.18m (39.96') rather than the required 15m (49.21'), containing a building with a front yard setback of 2.79m (9.14') to the front porch rather than the required 6m (19.68'),on Lot 23 & Part Lot 22, Subdivision of Lot 18, German Company Tract, 259 Courtland Avenue East, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain the necessary permit from the Grand River Conservation Authority for any fill or construction that is contemplated for the site. 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 165 AUGUST 21, 2007 4. Submission No.: A 2007-052 Applicant: Michael Shultz & Russel Wilton Property Location: 529 Park Street Legal Description: Part Lot 285, Plan 385 Appearances: In Support: None Contra: None Written Submissions: None As no one appeared in support of this application, the Committee agreed to defer its consideration of the application to its meeting scheduled for Tuesday September 18, 2007. 5. Submission No.: A 2007-053 Applicant: Joseph Triumbari Investments Ltd. Property Location: 55 Mooregate Crescent Legal Description: Lot 13, Plan 1268 Appearances: In Support: None Contra: None Written Submissions: B. Kowalchuck As no one appeared in su pport of this application, and in light of the Planning staff recommendation, the Com mittee agreed to defer its consideration of this application until Tuesday October 16, 2007, as recommended by staff. 6. Submission No.: A 2007-054 Applicant: Laurel View Homes Inc. Property Location: 213 Edgewater Crescent Legal Description: Lot 97, Registered Plan 58M-393 Appearances: In Support: K. Barisdale Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission to construct a dwelling which will cover 48% of the lot rather than the permitted 45% of the lot, and permission for eaves on the back of the house to project 0.91 m (2.98') into the rear yard rather than the permitted 0.6m (1.96'). The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated August 14, 2007, in which they advise that the subject property is a vacant lot located on the west side of Edgewater Crescent, in the neighbourhood generally located between Fairway Road North and the Grand River. A single detached dwelling is proposed. The subdivision containing the subject property is currently being built out. The property is designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan and is zoned Residential Three (R-3). A site inspection was conducted on August 1, 2007 by City Planning Staff. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 166 AUGUST 21, 2007 6. Submission No.: A 2007-054 tCont'd) The applicant is requesting a minor variance to allow the development of a single detached dwelling with a rear eave that projects 0.91 metres into the rear yard, whereas the Zoning By-law allows an eave to project a maximum of 0.6 metres into the required rear yard (the rear eave would be permitted to be set back a minimum of 6.9 metres, while an eave setback of 6.59 is proposed). The applicant is also requesting a minor variance to allow an increase in the maximum primary building coverage from 45 percent to 48 percent. Through further communication with the owner, it was determined that the building coverage information indicated on the application is incorrect. Based on further discussions with the owner, the proposed total building coverage is 48 percent (221.94 square metres), whereas the Zoning By-law allows a maximum of 55 percent, and the habitable building coverage is 40 percent (185.73%), whereas the Zoning By-law allows a maximum of 45 percent; therefore, this variance is not required. 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 Official Plan and Zoning By-law for the following reasons. The purpose of the maximum eaves projection regulation is to ensure that adequate space is provided to allow maintenance of the sides and roof of the dwelling without passing over neighbouring properties, to ensure that privacy of adjacent properties is maintained, and to ensure adequate uncovered outdoor amenity space is provided. In this case, maintenance space is easily provided, since the encroachment is in the rear yard and the building maintains a 6.59 metre setback. Adequate amenity space and privacy for neighbouring properties is also provided in the rear yard, especially considering that the building is angled to the rear lot line. A slightly greater than minimum rear yard is provided toward the north end of the rear yard due to the angle. The variance is minor since the impact on the neighbouring properties is minor in nature, for the reasons outlined above. The variance is appropriate for the desirable development and use of the land since it allows a single detached dwelling to be built which is a permitted use in the R-3 Zone. Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that the application be approved. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated August 1, 2007, in which they advise that they have no concerns with this application. Ms. Barisdale requested an amendment to the application as it has been determined that the only variance required is for the eave projection. Moved by Ms. C. Balcerczyk Seconded by Mr. M. Hiscott That the application of Laurel View Homes Inc. requesting permission to construct a dwelling with eaves on the back of the house to project 0.91 m (2.98') into the rear yard rather than the permitted 0.6m (1.96'), on Lot 97, Registered Plan 58M-393, 213 Edgewater Crescent, 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 167 AUGUST 21, 2007 7. Submission No.: A 2007-056 Applicant: Nova Casa Custom Homes Inc. Property Location: 2 Huck Crescent Legal Description: Lot 49, Registered Plan 58M-435 Appearances: In Support: E. Santos R. Angad Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission for the driveway to be located 8.13m (26.67') from the intersection rather than the required 9m (29.52'). The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated August 14, 2007, in which they advise that the subject property is located near the southeast corner of Highgate Road and Victoria Street in the planning community of Highland West. The property is currently being developed with a single detached dwelling with attached garage. A site visit was conducted on August 1, 2007 by City Planning Staff. The property is currently zoned Residential Four (R-4) and designated as Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan. To accommodate the size of the garage, the applicant intends to construct an access driveway with a setback of 8.13 metres to the nearest intersection, rather than the minimum 9.0 metre permitted distance according to s6.1.1.1 b)iv) of City's Zoning by- law 85-1. As such, the proposed design is modified so that the driveway access at the curb line is 9.0 metres from the adjacent street line, while leaving a 4.01 metre width for the driveway entrance at the front lot line. To accommodate the width of the garage door, which is 4.88 metres wide, the owner intends to widen the driveway beyond 0.8 metres from the front lot line. Accordingly, this will cause the driveway to set back 8.13 metres from the nearest intersection for which relief is sought by the owner. Therefore, the applicant is requesting the following minor variance: 1. to allow a driveway with a setback of 8.13 metres to an intersection from a point 0.8 metre from the front lot line 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. According to the transportation policies (s8.3) of the City's Official Plan, "street pattern of new neighbourhood should be designed to ensure efficient and safe vehicular access to all parts of the neighbourhood." The intent of the regulation is to avoid confusion for drivers and to ensure traffic safety at intersections. Staff feels that the variance meets the intent of the Official Plan to promote a safe and efficient road system. As previously mentioned, traffic safety chiefly forms the basis of the related regulation. The by-law is intended to reduce misunderstanding between the turning traffic and the through traffic on intersecting roads. For corner lots, by locating the access driveway 9.0 metres away from the street lines abutting the lot, there will be sufficient time for drivers in the through traffic to determine whether the turning traffic is turning into the access driveway of the lot or turning at the intersection. Therefore, the driveway access at the curb line must be at least 9.0 metres from the adjacent street line. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 168 AUGUST 21, 2007 7. Submission No.: A 2007-056 tCont'd) To determine whether it is safe to allow the requested driveway widening beyond the front lot line, the basis rests on whether or not the 7.5 metre visibility triangle is kept at the intersection with the driveway being built. In fact, it is possible to shift the driveway further 2.3 metres right before it will obstruct the visibility triangle at Huck Crescent and Highgate Road. As such, planning staff are of the opinion that the driveway is located at an appropriate location and the proposed widening will not undermine the safety for pedestrian and vehicles. Likewise, staff feels that the variance would not have any adverse impacts in the surrounding area and, therefore, is considered as minor in nature. Given that the variance would allow additional off-street parking spaces on the subject property, it will help reduce the on-street parking usage on Huck Crescent. Hence, the variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land. Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommend application A2007-056 for a setback reduction, from 9.0 metres to 8.13 metres, of a driveway to an intersection from a point 0.8 metre from the front lot line be approved. Transportation Planning has reviewed this application and would note that the driveway access at the curb line must be 9.0 metres from the adjacent street line. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated August 1, 2007 in which they advise that they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Ms. C. Balcerczyk Seconded by Mr. M. Hiscott That the application of Nova Casa Custom Homes Inc. requesting permission for the driveway to be located 8.13m (26.67') from the intersection, from a point 0.8m (2.62') from the front lot line, rather than the required 9m (29.52'), on Lot 49, Registered Plan 58M-435, 2 Huck Crescent, 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 8. Submission No.: A 2007-057 Applicant: Tanana Duca Property Location: 251 Highland Road West Legal Description: Part Lots 655 & 696. Plan 230 Appearances: In Support: T. Duca Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission to construct an addition onto the rear of an existing building to have a setback from Belmont Avenue COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 169 AUGUST 21, 2007 8. Submission No.: A 2007-057 tCont'd) of 3.06m (10') rather than the required 4.5m (14.76'), on a lot having a width of 12.2m (40') rather than the required 15m (49.21'). The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated August 14, 2007, in which they advise that the subject property is located at the corner of Highland Road and Belmont Avenue and the existing building was constructed in 1949 as a single family dwelling. In 2003, a zone change approved the current use of the building for a hair salon and spa (personal service). A site visit was made by staff on July 23rd, 2007. The Official Plan designation is Low Rise Residential and the zoning is Residential Five (R-5) with special provision 3260 in By-law 85-1 and the use of the property for a personal service is permitted. The applicant is requesting minor variance approval to construct an addition onto the rear of the existing building to have a setback from a side yard abutting a street (Belmont Avenue) of 3.06 m (10 ft) rather than the required 4.5 m (14.76 ft) on a lot having a width of 12.2 m (40 ft) rather than the required 15 m (49.21 ft). 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 and Zoning By-law for the following reasons. The intent of the lot width and side yard setbacks is to provide an adequate distance for privacy and landscaping between buildings and lot lines. The proposed addition will provide a sufficient distance from the structure to the lot line abutting Belmont Avenue and to maintain privacy and landscaping. The request for lot width reduction recognizes an existing situation for the main building. The variance is minor for the following reasons. The reduced side yard setback from Belmont Avenue is requested in order to keep the proposed addition in line with the building setback which has existed since 1949. The reduced lot width requested recognizes an existing lot which was approved for the current use of personal service by a zone change in 2003. No concerns or complaints have been received for the existing building. The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land for the following reasons. As mentioned above, the variance requests recognize existing situations in regards to the existing building and lot width. Though this property was originally developed for use as residential, it now is located on a busy arterial road and an intersection with nearby commercial zoning and therefore will not adversely affect the neighbouring properties. The proposed addition will meet all other regulations of the Zoning By-law and Site Plan approval will ensure the development is appropriate for the aesthetics of the streetscape. Transportation Planning has reviewed this application and has no concerns regarding the proposed reduction in lot width or side yard setbacks, but recommends that the proposed plan be subject to site plan control. Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that application A 2007-057 requesting approval to construct an addition to have a setback from a side yard abutting of street (Belmont Ave) of 3.06 m (10 ft) rather than the required 4.5 m (14.76 ft) on a lot having a width of 12.2 m (40 ft) rather than the required 15 m (49.21 ft) be approved subject to the following condition: 1) that Site Plan approval is obtained for the proposed addition. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated August 1, 2007, in which they advise that at this location, Highland COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 170 AUGUST 21, 2007 8. Submission No.: A 2007-057 tCont'd) Road has an existing and designated road allowance width of 86 feet, therefore, no further road allowance widening is required. However, a 25 foot daylight triangle will be required to be conveyed to the Region of Waterloo at the intersection of Highland Road and Belmont Avenue if a development application is proposed on this property. The daylight triangle appears to be shown correctly on the site plan attached to this application. Moved by Ms. C. Balcerczyk Seconded by Mr. M. Hiscott That the application of Tatiana Duca requesting permission to construct an addition onto the rear of an existing building to have a setback from Belmont Avenue of 3.06m (10') rather than the required 4.5m (14.76'), on a lot having a width of 12.2m (40') rather than the required 15m (49.21'), on Part Lots 655 & 696, Plan 230, 251 Highland Road West, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain approval of a site plan from the City's Supervisor of Site Development, prior to constructing the proposed addition. 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 9. Submission No.: A 2007-058 Applicant: Donald Beldock Property Location: 205 Ahrens Street West Legal Description: Lot 66, Plan 34 Appearances: In Support: A. Baribeau Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission to construct a carport onto the left side of the existing dwelling to have a side yard of Om rather than the required 1.2m (3.93') without obtaining a maintenance easement on the abutting property. The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated August 7, 2007, in which they advise that the subject property is located on the west side of Ahrens Street West between Blucher Street to the north and Wilhelm Street to the south. The property is zoned Residential Five (R-5) and is designated as Low Rise Residential in Kitchener's Municipal Plan. The building that exists on the site is atwo-storey single detached house. The applicant requests a minor variance concerning the proposed location of a carport at the side of the house. Under section 39.2.1 of Zoning By-Law 85-1, the minimum side yard required is 0 metres to a maximum of 0.2 metres on one side, and a COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 171 AUGUST 21, 2007 9. Submission No.: A 2007-058 tCont'd) minimum of 1.5 metres on the other side for a dwelling with a building height not exceeding 9.0 metres. The applicant has asked that this regulation be relaxed to permit the construction of a carport addition to the south side of the house with a 0 metre side yard setback. While a 0 metre side yard is permitted in the zoning by-law, an easement with the adjacent site would be necessary in order for the proper repair and maintenance of the structure. The applicant requests a minor variance for permission to build a carport located 0 metres from the side lot line without an easement for encroachment. In considering the requested variance to the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law, staff must examine whether this minor variance would meet the four tests as set out in section 45(1) of the Planning Act, that is, the variance must: (1) be desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building, or structure; (2) maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law, (3) maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and lastly, (4) be minor. Only in circumstances where the application meets all four criteria should a minor variance be granted. The building and its neighbourhood is one of established well-kept single-detached dwellings. A site visit was conducted on August 1/2007, at which time Planning staff noted that the area is primarily residential, though a convenience store exists further south on Ahrens Street. The applicant indicates that he cannot comply with the by- law because "the homeowner is handicapped and ice forms on driveway". As such, the proposed carport would "provide cover from the ice hazard and weather issues". Given that this site is used for residential uses, and considering the issue of mobility and safety, staff feels that a carport would be a desirable and appropriate development for the use of the land. In respect to keeping the intent and purpose of the by-law; however, Section 5.20 of Kitchener Zoning By-Law 85-1 states clearly that "the development of dwellings and accessory buildings in excess of 9.3 square metres with 0 to 0.2 metre side yards which do not form part of a common wall with a building on an adjacent lot, shall be permitted provided that a maximum encroachment of 0.3 metres into abutting lands is provided for the projection of eaves and a 1.5 metre easement is granted by the owner of the subject abutting lands for the maintenance of walls, eaves and real property." This regulation was created due to concerns about the maintenance and repair of structures having no side access. Given that the zoning by-law is clear and explicit about the intent and purpose of an easement on adjacent properties, staff feels that this application is not in keeping with the spirit of the by-law, and thus it does not meet one of the tests for minor variance. The Official Plan on the other hand, speaks broadly about the need to provide opportunities for a wide variety of housing options, with the aim that all residents in the City of Kitchener in all income ranges are able to afford adequate, safe and good quality housing in an appropriate community setting which meets their needs. Further, other objectives of the Official Plan include supporting the maintenance and rehabilitation of existing housing stock, as well as supporting a high quality of life in residential neighbourhoods. Staff feel that this application would meet the intent of the Official Plan. A site inspection revealed that the building adjacent to the proposed carport is a multiple residential dwelling with a wooden fence separating the two from each other. Given that there is a fairly large setback from the building at 199 Ahrens St. West, and the lot line bordering to the subject property, staff feels that a proposed carport on 205 Ahrens St. West would not have significant impacts on the nearby property to the south. As it stands currently, a large wooden fence obfuscates the view from the ground floor of 199 Ahrens St. West onto the subject property. The construction of the proposed carport would most likely not detract from the reasonable enjoyment of the property to the north either. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 172 AUGUST 21, 2007 9. Submission No.: A 2007-058 tCont'd) While three of the four tests are met, it is clear that the intent of the Zoning By-Law would not be upheld if this proposed minor variance were to be allowed. The 1.2 metre setback is necessary for reasonable side access for the repair and maintenance of one's own structures. Further, while the 0 metre setback is permitted, a 1.5 metre easement onto the adjacent property would be necessary so as to allow for legal access in instances where repair and maintenance are necessary. This minor variance application proposes neither. Reducing the carport size so as to leaving a 1.2 metre side yard setback or securing an easement agreement with the owner of 199 Ahrens St. West would yield a solution to the problem. As it stands however, Planning staff recommends that this application be refused. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated August 1, 2007, in which they advise that they have no concerns with this application. Mr. Baribeau advised that the owner of the abutting property lives in Toronto, and he was told that the owner would probably not agree to a maintenance easement. Mr. Baribeau advised that the other solution offered by staff, to reduce the width of the carport, would not be feasible as it would be necessary to reduce the width of the driveway. He stated that if the carport is constructed with a peak roof, it would be possible to install the fascia from the roof. He noted that there is an existing fence on that side of the property and they were going to incorporate the carport posts into the fence. The Committee stated that an easement on the abutting property is a practicality. They generally agreed to defer consideration of this application to its meeting scheduled for September 18, 2007, to allow Mr. Baribeau an opportunity to contact the abutting property owner about a maintenance easement. 10. Submission No.: A 2007-059 Applicant: L. P. Holdings Inc. Property Location: 521 King Street West Legal Description: Lot C, Part Lots 1-3 & 7-18 & Part Lots A & B, Plan 420, & Part Lot 488, Plan 375 Appearances: In Support: D. Johnston N. Moores L. Khoubesserian Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicants request permission to provide 230 off-street parking spaces for the University of Waterloo, School of Pharmacy rather than the required 361 spaces. The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated August 10, 2007, in which they advise that the subject property is located on the north-west corner of the Victoria/King Street intersection. The site is approximately 2.35 acres in size, and is currently being developed by the University of Waterloo as a Health Sciences Campus. Building A of the Health Sciences Campus -the School of Pharmacy - is currently under construction, and the University is seeking approval of Building B -the School of Medicine. The site is located within the downtown boundary. It is designated as part of the Warehouse district in the City's Official Plan and is zoned Warehouse District Zone (D-6). The COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 173 AUGUST 21, 2007 10. Submission No.: A 2007-059 tCont'd) lands are also subject to downtown parking provisions, which do not provide specific regulations for downtown university campuses. A site visit was conducted on August 10, 2007. The University of Waterloo is requesting a minor variance to allow 230 parking spaces whereas the Zoning By-law 85-1 requires 361 parking spaces based on planning staff's calculations and interpretation (provided as an attachment to the Parking Study provided by Stantec Consulting Ltd). Planning staff note that 227 spaces are currently being shown on the Site Plan. Therefore, it is recommended that the variance should be: to allow 227 parking spaces whereas the Zoning By-law 85-1 requires 361 parking spaces. As described in the attached Parking Requirements Study (hereafter referred to as `the Parking Study') the City of Kitchener by-law requires 361 parking spaces for Phases 1 and 2 (Buildings A and B) as described in Table 1 below. The results of the Parking Study recommend that a parking supply of 195 spaces will meet the parking demands of Phases 1 and 2. The Parking Study methodology consisted of examining the City's Zoning By-law requirements, recommendations from the Institute of Transportation Engineer's Parking Generation, and investigating parking requirements at other comparable university campuses. Table 2 in the Parking Study summarizes the parking supply requirements of the various calculations used. It should be noted that throughout the Parking Study, and in the proposed variance, it is assumed that 55 spaces will be maintained for the public clinic at the by-law's required parking rate (1/55m2). Transportation Planning has reviewed the Parking Study and (as outlined in their comments below) is able to accept a minimum of 215 spaces based on their analysis. The University is proposing 227 spaces, 12 spaces beyond Transportation Planning's minimum. Parking Total Phase 1 Phase 2 Buildi n B Criteria (Building A) School Clinic City of 361 224 (based on $2 (based on 55 Kitchener (361-55=306 for GFA of school GFA of school By-law school use) uses) uses) Parking 195 115 (90 25 (90 55 Study (195-55 = 140 for percentile) percentile) Results school use Traffic 215 160 55 Division (215-55=160 for accepted minimum school use) requirement of 215 Minor 227 172 55 Variance (227-55=172 for Re uest school use Table 1. Required, Recommended and Proposed Parking Ratio's. 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. Intent of Municipal Plan Planning staff feel that the proposed variance meets the intent of the Municipal Plan for the following reasons. The Warehouse District represents an area of transition and permits a broad range of land uses, including uses consistent with a university campus. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 174 AUGUST 21, 2007 10. Submission No.: A 2007-059 tCont'd) Intent of Zoning By-law Planning staff feel that the variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law for two reasons. First, the intent of the parking regulations in the zoning by-law is to ensure sufficient onsite parking to meet the needs of the associated use. Secondly, the intent of the downtown parking regulations are to recognize that while parking is necessary in downtown areas, parking does not need to be provided at the same rate as in non-downtown areas because of the increased ease of access to transportation alternatives such as public transit, and walking and cycling facilities. As discussed in the Parking Study the City of Kitchener's downtown off-street parking regulations do not specifically address parking for downtown college or university campuses. As such, the `required' parking for this project was based on the application of the City's by-law to individual uses contained within the buildings (these uses are outlined in Table 1. of the Parking Study and range from Auditorium to Conference Facility to Office to "Other"). This is a complicated method of calculating parking requirements which doesn't necessarily represent the actual parking requirements of a university campus. The Parking Study examined the parking needs of several different university campuses, located both in downtown and non- downtown settings. Results of this analysis are provided in Table 2. of the Parking Study. Typically, other campuses calculate parking requirements based on the number of students and/or staff. Applying the required rates of other campuses to the number of staff and students expected to attend the Health Sciences Campus results in a total parking supply ranging between 145 and 192 spaces. Transportation Planning staff have reviewed this Parking Study and concur with the general approach and methodology of the parking rationale in terms of determining appropriate parking rates for the components of the Health Services Campus and as discussed above are willing to accept a minimum of 215 parking spaces. Therefore, staff feel that the proposed variance to allow 227 spaces will meet the by-law's intent to ensure sufficient parking is provided on site to accommodate the use. Second, being located in Kitchener's downtown, the Health Sciences Campus is well served by alternative modes of transportation including walking, cycling and public transit. As outlined in the Parking Study the campus: • Has good access to Grand River Transit routes including the I-Xpress. In addition, beginning in 2008 a Grand River Transit U-pass will be available to all University of Waterloo students. • Is accessible by bicycle and bicycle parking will be provided for visitors, students and staff to accommodate 56 bicycles which exceeds the requirements of the Urban Design Manual by 37%. • Iswell-situated to support pedestrian travel. Staff feel that the above noted Transportation Demand Management Measures, help to support the requested variance by providing viable transportation options to visitors, staff and students. Therefore, staff feel that the intent of the downtown parking regulation, which recognizes that while parking should be provided in downtown areas, it need not be provided at the same rate as in non-downtown areas, is maintained. Minor Nature and Appropriateness Staff feel that the variance requested is minor in nature and is appropriate for the development and use of the lands. The Health Sciences Campus is located in an urban environment which has good access to public transit, walking and cycling facilities which provide alternative means of transportation for students, staff and visitors to the campus. Staff also note that as the campus is further developed, and as additional lands become available, additional parking will be able to be accommodated on the site. Preliminary design concepts show that at full build out of COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 175 AUGUST 21, 2007 10. Submission No.: A 2007-059 tCont'd) the campus has the potential to include in excess of 500 parking spaces; however, due to present soil conditions, fewer spaces can be accommodated. Finally, the Parking Study demonstrates that 227 parking spaces will meet the needs of Buildings A and B including the public clinic, as such planning staff feel that the requested variance is both appropriate and minor in nature. Based on the foregoing, the proposed variance meets the intents of the Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law, is minor in nature, and is appropriate for the development and use of the lands. Planning staff recommend that the application be approved to allow a minimum of 227 parking spaces rather than 361 parking spaces for the University of Waterloo Health Sciences Campus Buildings A and B. Transportation Planning has reviewed this application and provides the following comments: We concur with the general approach and methodology of the parking rationale in terms of determining appropriate parking rates for the components of the Health Services Campus. In reviewing the comparative parking requirements and adjustment factors, we have the following interpretation of the applied parking rates. Institute of Transportation Engineers It is our assessment that the 85% "effective supply" applied to the ITE trip rates does not relate to the actual 85% effective operational capacity of a parking lot, and therefore should not be deducted. We concur that the averaged 85th Percentile ITE rates of 0.34 (Suburban location) and 0.19 (Urban location) are appropriate (as opposed to the highest ITE rate), however we do not agree that this rate should be further reduced to 85% to reflect an effective capacity. In our experience, parking lots are not designed to an 85% operating capacity with 15% of the spaces considered to be "excess" (and therefore not required), but rather are designed to 100% of the requirement which incorporates a buffer to account for vehicles which are entering, exiting, circulating, improperly parked, snow cover, etc. University of Waterloo Given the density of available student accommodations (U of W campus residences, private student housing), it is our assessment that the U of W parking demand would be weighted in a lower ratio compared to the Health Sciences Campus. Cambridge School of Architecture The parking rates are considered to have relatively comparable characteristics as the subject campus, perhaps with the exception of the co-op program and high ratio of students living within walking distance (85%) of the Cambridge campus. McMaster University As noted in the report, the master plan for this campus protects for the existing ratio of parking supply (0.335 spaces per student), less 15% to account for Transportation Demand Management strategies. However it is not known if this rate satisifies the actual demand, and the 15% TDM factor is considered high compared to the local TDM targets. In applying the 2016 Regional 7% target for reduction in auto trips to the McMaster ratio of 0.335 spaces per student, the rate of 0.311 results in an increased requirement of 11 spaces (10 spaces for Phase 1, and 1 space for Phase 2 School). COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 176 AUGUST 21, 2007 10. Submission No.: A 2007-059 tCont'd) 90th Percentile We do not support the rationale for a further reduction of the parking rates to 90%, as the ITE rates represent a point at which 85% of the sampled values fall at or below, and the McMaster rate represents a measured existing condition. Based on the adjustments relative to the ITE and McMaster parking ratios, and the 90th percentile as described above, the parking requirement is 215 spaces. The parking rates and usage would be reviewed and adjusted as required at the time of future development phases on the property. The primary concern is that there is no alternative parking opportunities available within a reasonable walking distance to compensate for a parking shortfall on the site, and the municipality is not in a position to provide for a parking overflow demand. As such, it is imperative that the amount of parking be maximized on the lands currently developable on the property. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated August 1, 2007 in which they advise that all Region of Waterloo requirements for this property will be addressed at the site plan stage. Ms. Moore displayed a concept drawing of the site, including parking. With respect to the parking requirement for the entire site, Ms. Moore noted that there is no existing by-law for educational institutions in downtown Kitchener. She stated that the parking for the first building is sufficient; however, there is a parking deficiency for building 2. She advised that the parking by-law doesn't take into consideration that a professor may be in more than 1 part of the building during the day, or that many students use public transit. With respect to the clinic, Ms. Moore advised that the clinic requires 55 parking spaces and these spaces will be specifically designated for the clinic. The clinic will have a gross floor area of 800 sq. m., and it will be a referral clinic which is teaching based. Ms. Moore requested that this application be amended to show that 227 parking spaces will be provided. The Chair commented that there is a shortage of parking in this area of the downtown and there is no opportunity to develop additional municipal parking. Ms. Moore responded that the current proposal is a short term solution until the University of Waterloo accepts additional land. Moved by Ms. C. Balcerczyk Seconded by Mr. M. Hiscott That the application of L. P. Holdings Inc. requesting permission to provide 227 off- street parking spaces for the University of Waterloo campus for buildings A and B, rather than the required 361 spaces, on Lot C, Part Lots 1-3 & 7-18 & Part Lots A & B, Plan 420, & Part Lot 488, Plan 375, 521 King Street West, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: 1. That this decision applies to Buildings A and B only, and expires immediately upon the development of additional buildings on this university campus. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 177 AUGUST 21, 2007 10. Submission No.: A 2007-059 tCont'd) 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. Hiscott questioned whether the applicant has requested that the City of Kitchener pass a by-law for downtown education campuses. He encouraged City staff to pass such a zoning by-law. 11. Submission No.: A 2007-060 Applicant: Mehmet & Demet Faif Property Location: 271 Westheights Drive Legal Description: Lot 465, Registered Plan 1353 Appearances: In Support: M. Raif Contra: None Written Submissions: N. Stead L. Neil & J. Parker S. Searam J. & M. Barnes M. Kuntz C. Mason J. Dyson A. & M. Morgan B. & D. Couch The Committee was advised that the applicants request permission for a driveway having a width of 7.47m (24.5') rather than a driveway equal in width to the garage, which is 5.97m (19.58'); permission to locate off-street parking within 6m (19.68') of the street, and permission not to provide the required 1 parking space for the home business. The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated August 6, 2007, in which they advise that the subject property, municipally known as 271 Westheights Drive, is located on the west side of the street. The property currently contains a single detached residence with an attached garage. The applicant has requested permission to permit a driveway width of 7.47 metres whereas the by-law would only allow a driveway width equal to the width of the garage (5.97m) as per Section 6.1.1.1 b) ii)c) and has also requested that the off- street parking requirement be located from within the 6.0 metres from the street line, where as the by-law requires that the parking space be situated outside of the 6.0 m as per Section 6.1.1.1 b) (i). In addition, the applicant has requested that the parking requirement for his home business as per Section 5.13.2 (i) be eliminated. The subject lands are designated `Low Rise Residential' in the City's Official Plan and are zoned `Residential Zone 3 (R-3)', according to Zoning By-law 85-1. Both the designation in the Official Plan and the zoning of the subject property permit the residential use as well as a home business to be located on the subject lands. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 178 AUGUST 21, 2007 11. Submission No.: A 2007-060 tCont'd) The subject property and residential use thereof meets the intent of the Official Plan, which is to allow residential uses to occur on these lands. With respect to intent of the Zoning By-law, the subject lands are currently zoned R-3 Residential Three, which allows residential uses. In addition, the General provisions Section of the Zoning By- law establish standards for parking requirements, driveway widths and the location of off street parking as well as the parameters under which a home business may be established in a residence. The residential use is consistent with the R-3 zone. Section 5.13 allows home businesses subject to certain criteria, including the provision of adequate parking for the business as prescribed by Section 5.13.2. The applicant has requested that this requirement be waived, as his business does not generate visitors to the site. He picks up the TV's for repair and works out of his garage. As the garage is attached to his home, this is acceptable to the Zoning By-law. This could be supported, as the applicant has indicated that he has no patrons coming and going from his business and does not require the space, and he has conducted his own business at the site without complaint for the last 12 years. However, as the garage is intended to provide on-site parking for the residence, an additional variance was required in order to allow the applicant to provide on site parking within the 6.Om setback from the property line thereby using his driveway for the required parking space. Since his driveway is 7.8 m long he would not be able to provide the parking behind the 6.Om setback. This situation too, could be supported as it could still meet the intent of the By-law to provide parking on site as opposed to having parking spill over onto the street, where parking is available year round. Section 6.1.1.1 b) (ii) c) restricts the width of the driveway to not exceed the width of the garage. This was a recent City initiative to help ensure that neighbourhoods have some landscaped outdoor amenity space in their front yards. The applicant intends to accommodate all his parking needs on his own property and this can only be accomplished by allowing the widened driveway. As supporting information, the applicant provided photos showing numerous existing driveways in the area that are also wider than the garage and thus do not conform to the by-law. In this regard, the concern over allowing this variance and the precedence it could set is of concern to staff. As this was a recent initiative of the City, the by-law requirement regarding the widened driveway should be adhered to, as the impacts of allowing this to proceed could be significant and would therefore not be considered minor. With respect to the criteria for granting a minor variance in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, the use of subject lands conforms to the City's Official Plan and generally meets the intent of the Zoning By-law with respect to the residential use. The variance requested to not require the parking for the home business could be considered minor as no patrons come to the site. The request to allow parking to occur within the 6.0 m setback would also be considered minor as no impacts from this are anticipated for adjacent lands and parking is accommodated on site. The request to allow the widened driveway should not be considered minor as it may set a precedence and goes against the recent initiative of the City. The variance for the home business parking requirement and the provision of onsite parking within the 6.0 m is desirable as the site continues to be used in an orderly manner. The home business is not visible from the street, and does not draw additional traffic to and from the site and the off street parking for the residence can be accommodated on site and is therefore also desirable and appropriate for the use of the land. The variance to allow the widened driveway, despite evidence that numerous similar situations exist, staff feels that by allowing this would not be minor and would open the floodgates to similar applications despite recent City initiatives to discourage this. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 179 AUGUST 21, 2007 11. Submission No.: A 2007-060 tCont'd) This variance can not be supported as submitted. If however, the applicant were to remove the additional 1.57 metres of driveway and replace it with an alternate material, then a more visually pleasing front yard will be achieved and the intent of the by-law will be maintained. Based on the foregoing, Planning Staff recommends that application A2007-060 to allow the off street parking requirement to be located within the 6.Om from the property line as prescribed by Section 6.1.1.1 b) (i) be approved. That the requirement for off street parking for a home business as per Section 5.13.2 (i) not be required and that the variance there from be approved. That the variance to permit a driveway width to exceed the width of the garage, in this case to exceed 5.9 metres and to be permitted to extend to 7.47m be denied and that the following condition be fulfilled: 1. That the1.5 metre widened driveway portion be removed and replaced with a decorative alternative material to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated August 1, 2007, in which they advise that they have no concerns with this application. The Committee considered the written submissions from neighbourhood residents in support of this application. Moved by Mr. M. Hiscott Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk That the application of Mehmet & Demet Faif requesting permission for a driveway having a width of 7.47m (24.5') rather than a driveway equal in width to the garage, which is 5.97m (19.58'); permission to locate off-street parking within 6m (19.68') of the street, and permission not to provide the required 1 parking space for the home business of repairing televisions, on Lot 465, Registered Plan 1353, 271 Westheights Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owners shall remove a 1.5 metre widened portion of the driveway and replace it with a decorative alternative material, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried 12. Submission No.: A 2007-061 Applicant: Ishwar Hardayal Property Location: 915 Glasgow Street Legal Description: Lot 55, Registered Plan 1625 Appearances: In Support: B. Bamerni I. Hardayal COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 180 AUGUST 21, 2007 12. Submission No.: A 2007-061 tCont'd) Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicants request permission to enclose an existing covered deck having a rear yard of 4.39m (14.4') rather than the required 7.5m (24.6'). The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated August 8, 2007, in which they advise that the subject property is located at the southern side of Glasgow Street, between Fischer Hallman Road and Northforest Trail in the planning community of Highland West. A site visit was conducted on August 14, 2007. Designated as Low Rise Residential in the Municipal Plan, the property is zoned Residential Three (R-3) and is located in a neighbourhood adjacent to institutional and commercial zones. The owner intends to enclose an existing covered deck already having a deficient rear yard setback as required by Zoning by-law. The enclosed space is intended to be used as an extension of the living room. The applicant is requesting the following minor variances: 1. a 4.39 metre rear yard whereas s37.2 of the Zoning by-law 85-1 requires a 7.5 metre rear yard. 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 reason. The Low Rise Residential designation encourages mixing and integration of different forms of housing, provided that a overall low intensity of use is achieved. Although additional habitable area is provided by the enclosed deck, it will not exceed the maximum lot coverage of 45 percent. Planning Staff are of the opinion that the density of the area would still be maintained. As such, the variance conforms to the rationale of the Municipal Plan. The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law for the following reasons. The intent of the current requirement of back yard is to provide adequate outdoor amenity space for the subject property, and to ensure that there is sufficient distance between adjacent buildings where privacy of the inhabitants is protected. The existing deck of the subject land is encroaching 3.11 metres into the required rear yard setback. Staff feel that the 4.39 metre rear yard provision is sufficient to function properly as an outdoor amenity space. Therefore, Staff feels that adequate amenity space is provided for the subject property. Given that the subject land backs onto a property with a rear yard of over 20 metres, Planning Staff is of the opinion that there is sufficient separation between the two neighbouring buildings. Staff also believes that the addition will have little impacts on the community trail to the left of the subject property. To the right of the subject land there is a single detached home with a deck of comparable size and height. Currently it appears that the decks and backyards on both properties will be most frequently used from May to October. Although the variance will allow year-round use of the covered deck on the subject land, it would cause limited effects to the adjacent property due to low activity at the rear of the abutting property in winter. As such, Planning Staff feel that the reduced back yard provision would not appear to adversely affect the enjoyment and privacy of the abutting properties. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 181 AUGUST 21, 2007 12. Submission No.: A 2007-061 tCont'd) Similarly, the variance would not have any adverse impacts on the adjacent properties and therefore is considered as minor in nature. Finally, since the variance maintain the existing use as a single detached dwelling; Staff feels that the variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land. Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that the application be approved. The Committee considered the comments of the Building Division in which they advise that a building permit is required to enclose the existing deck. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated August 1, 2007, in which they advise that they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Mr. M. Hiscott Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk That the application of Ishwar Hardayal requesting permission to enclose an existing covered deck having a rear yard of 4.39m (14.4') rather than the required 7.5m (24.6'), on Lot 55, Registered Plan 1625, 915 Glasgow Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: 1. That the variance as approved in this application shall apply to enclosing the existing deck only, as shown on the plans 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 13. Submission No.: A 2007-062 to A 2007-067 Applicant: 970722 Ontario Inc. Property Location: 2044-2066 Bleams Road Legal Description: Lots 102 to 107, draft elan of subdivision 30T-05201 Appearances: In Support: N. Horne Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission for 6 new lots in a draft plan of subdivision, which will have frontage on Melinda Street, to have lot areas of 395 sq. m. (4,251.88 sq. ft.) rather than the required 411 sq. m. (4,424.11 sq. ft.). The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated August 8, 2007, in which they advise that the subject properties are located on a plan of subdivision 30T-05201, on the east side of the proposed Melinda Street. The properties are zoned Residential Three (R-3) with special COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 182 AUGUST 21, 2007 13. Submission No.: A 2007-062 to A 2007-067 tCont'd) provision 453R, and are designated as Low Rise Residential in Kitchener's Municipal Plan. The six noted variance applications concern six lots along a portion of Melinda Street. The lots specifically in question for this minor variance report are lots 102, 103, 104, 105, 106 and 107 of the Eby Estates Draft Plan of Subdivision 30T-05201. The applicant requests a minor variance in respect to the minimum lot area as set out under Section 37.2.1 of Zoning By-Law 85-1. Requiring that the minimum lot area of a single detached dwelling, duplex dwelling and residential care facility be at least 411 square metres, the applicant has asked that this regulation be relaxed to permit the lots to be of an area of 395 square metres each. This follows the imposition of special regulation 453R on these lots which reduced lot width from the required 13.7 metres to 12.2 metres. However, the accompanying lot area reduction necessary was not included in this special regulation. As a result, minor variances for minimum lot area for lots 102, 103, 104, 105, 106 and 107 of draft plan 30T-05201 are needed and have been requested. In considering the requested variances to the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law, staff must examine whether these minor variances would meet the four tests as set out in the Planning Act: that is, (1) be desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building, or structure; (2) maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law, (3) maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and lastly, (4) be minor. Firstly, given that the minimum lot width had been altered from 13.7 metres to a smaller 12.2 metres, this gives an indication that the overall intent is to create smaller and narrower lots. Correspondingly reducing the minimum lot area from 411 square metres to 395 square metres would be appropriate in this instance. Regarding the intent and purpose of the by-law, Section 37.2.1 of Zoning By-Law 85- 1 dictates that the lot area be maintained at 411 square metres. This is the result of concerns over lots that could be too small, and which would not have adequate amenity space. However, given that the overall intent of the recent special provision is to reduce lot size, a small reduction in lot size does not constitute a breach in the intent and purpose of the by-law. The Official Plan speaks to the importance of increasing housing supply consistent with needs, and to support a high quality of life in residential neighbourhoods. While there are no specific policies regarding the size of residential lots, the Official Plan discusses broadly about ensuring a continuous supply of designated residential land that meets the demand for new housing of all types. The requested variances would not contradict the intent and purpose of the Kitchener Official Plan. Lastly, considering that the area is not developed yet, and is still in a state of planning and construction, the impacts on surrounding uses cannot be adequately or accurately assessed. The extent of the variances' impacts is unknown and could only be speculated, but would appear to be miniscule as lands are relatively undeveloped in the area. Determining whether something is "minor", of its potential impacts on others, requires that adjacent properties must be considered. As the lot area of each property decreases some 16 square metres, it is assumed that this will have some impact on the reasonable enjoyment of each subject lot. Nonetheless, a reduction in lot area of 16 square metres does not seem to constitute a large or character-altering change to these lots. Further, since there are no people living there currently and no buildings in place, there would be no basis for comparison of 411 square metres to 395 square metres. As a result, these requested variances can be seen as minor. As such, Planning staff recommends that these applications for minor variance to be approved. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 183 AUGUST 21, 2007 13. Submission No.: A 2007-062 to A 2007-067 tCont'd) The Committee noted the comments of Transportation Planning in which they advise that they have reviewed these applications and have no concerns regarding the proposed reductions in lot area, provided that the driveway widths comply with zoning requirements. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated August 1, 2007 in which they advise that they have no concerns with these applications. Ms. Horne advised that she has reviewed the staff report and is in agreement with it. Submission No. A 2007-062 Moved by Mr. M. Hiscott Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk That the application of 970722 Ontario Inc .requesting permission for a new lot in a draft plan of subdivision, which will have frontage on Melinda Street, to have a lot area of 395 sq. m. (4,251.88 sq. ft.) rather than the required 411 sq. m. (4,424.11 sq. ft.), on Lot 102, Draft Plan of Subdivision 30T-05201 (Melinda Street) 2044-2066 Bleams Road, 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 Submission No. A 2007-063 Moved by Mr. M. Hiscott Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk That the application of 970722 Ontario Inc .requesting permission for a new lot in a draft plan of subdivision, which will have frontage on Melinda Street, to have a lot area of 395 sq. m. (4,251.88 sq. ft.) rather than the required 411 sq. m. (4,424.11 sq. ft.), on Lot 103, Draft Plan of Subdivision 30T-05201 (Melinda Street) 2044-2066 Bleams Road, 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 184 AUGUST 21, 2007 13. Submission No.: A 2007-062 to A 2007-067 tCont'd) Submission No. A 2007-064 Moved by Mr. M. Hiscott Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk That the application of 970722 Ontario Inc .requesting permission for a new lot in a draft plan of subdivision, which will have frontage on Melinda Street, to have a lot area of 395 sq. m. (4,251.88 sq. ft.) rather than the required 411 sq. m. (4,424.11 sq. ft.), on Lot 104, Draft Plan of Subdivision 30T-05201 (Melinda Street) 2044-2066 Bleams Road, 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 Submission No. A 2007-065 Moved by Mr. M. Hiscott Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk That the application of 970722 Ontario Inc .requesting permission for a new lot in a draft plan of subdivision, which will have frontage on Melinda Street, to have a lot area of 395 sq. m. (4,251.88 sq. ft.) rather than the required 411 sq. m. (4,424.11 sq. ft.), on Lot 105, Draft Plan of Subdivision 30T-05201 (Melinda Street) 2044-2066 Bleams Road, 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 Submission No. A 2007-066 Moved by Mr. M. Hiscott Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk That the application of 970722 Ontario Inc .requesting permission for a new lot in a draft plan of subdivision, which will have frontage on Melinda Street, to have a lot area of 395 sq. m. (4,251.88 sq. ft.) rather than the required 411 sq. m. (4,424.11 sq. ft.), on Lot 106, Draft Plan of Subdivision 30T-05201 (Melinda Street) 2044-2066 Bleams Road, 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 185 AUGUST 21, 2007 13. Submission No.: A 2007-062 to A 2007-067 tCont'd) 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 Submission No. A 2007-067 Moved by Mr. M. Hiscott Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk That the application of 970722 Ontario Inc .requesting permission for a new lot in a draft plan of subdivision, which will have frontage on Melinda Street, to have a lot area of 395 sq. m. (4,251.88 sq. ft.) rather than the required 411 sq. m. (4,424.11 sq. ft.), on Lot 107, Draft Plan of Subdivision 30T-05201 (Melinda Street) 2044-2066 Bleams Road, 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 14. Submission No.: A 2007-068 Applicant: Jozo Ilic Property Location: 161 Ottawa Street South Legal Description: Lots 189 to 194 & Part Lot 188, Plan 262 Appearances: In Support: J. Clinckett Contra: D. Lloyd G. Myer T. Grube Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicants request legalization of the location of an existing building to be used as multi-unit residential to have a left side yard 0.137m (0.45') rather than the required 3m (9.84'), a front yard setback from Ottawa Street of 0.967m (3.17') rather than the required 3m (9.84'), a building height of 10.97m (36') rather than the permitted 10.5m (34.44'), and permission for a portion of the building, at the corner of Ottawa Street and Bedford Road, to be located within the 7.5m (24.6') visibility triangle. The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated August 14, 2007, in which they advise that the subject property is located at the corner of Ottawa St S and Bedford Rd. The building is currently vacant as the owner prepares for renovations to a multiple residential use. The building was previously used for industrial purposes. A site visit by staff was made on July 23rd, 2007. The Official Plan designation is Medium Density Commercial Residential and the zoning is Commercial Residential Two (CR-2) under By-law 85-1. The proposed use COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 186 AUGUST 21, 2007 14. Submission No.: A 2007-068 tCont'd) fora 16-unit multiple residential building is permitted by both the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. The applicant is requesting minor variance approval to legalize the existing building location for a multiple residential use to have a left side yard of 0.137 m (0.45 ft) rather than the required 3 m (9.84 ft), a front yard setback from Ottawa St of 0.967 m (3.17 ft) rather than the required 3 m (9.84 ft), a building height of 10.97 m (36 ft) rather than the permitted 10.5 m (34.44 ft), and permission for a portion of the building at the corner of Ottawa St and Bedford Rd to be located within the 7.5 m (24.6 ft) visibility triangle. 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 variances meet the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law for the following reasons. The intent of the Official Plan designation is to recognize existing multiple dwellings and to encourage the opportunity for development for multiple residential. The conversion of this building from an industrial use to multiple residential is in keeping with the intent of the both the Official Plan and Commercial Residential zoning. The variances are minor for the following reasons. The original building has existed since the 1950's, with additions in later years. The request for the reduced side yard is for an existing wall which will become the exterior wall for the garage. The garage wall abuts a city laneway and this would not appear to have an adverse impact for the neighbouring properties. In regards to the reduced front yard variance, it is noted that setback from Ottawa St did comply to the Zoning By-law prior to a Regional road widening in the 1990's which reduced the setback and also resulted in the existing building being located within a corner daylight triangle. The variances recognize an existing situation and no complaints or concerns have been received to date. Also, as Ottawa St is an arterial road and the building is to be used for residential purposes Section 5.24 of the Zoning By-law will require the builder to install central air conditioning and double glazed windows. This will ensure that the noise level from the Ottawa St arterial road is reduced within the dwelling units. The variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land for the following reasons. The properties to the south, east and northeast are used for residential purposes and the proposed residential use is therefore more compatible with the surrounding residential uses than the former industrial use of the property. Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that the application be approved subject to Site Plan approval. Transportation Planning has reviewed this application and has no concerns with the proposed variances, but recommends that the proposed plan be subject to site plan control. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated August 1, 2007, in which they advise that Region of Waterloo requirements for the development of these lands are being addressed through the site plan approval process. The Committee considered the report of the Grand River Conservation Authority, dated August 3, 2007, in which they advise that they have no objection to this application to legalize the location of an existing building. Information currently available to them indicates that the subject property is located in the Regulated Flood Allowance of Schneider Creek. They advised that any new development or site alteration, including the addition or removal of fill on the subject property within the COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 187 AUGUST 21, 2007 14. Submission No.: A 2007-068 tCont'd Regulation limit will require the prior issuance of a permit from the Grand River Conservation Authority. Mr. Clinckett advised that this is an existing industrial building. He noted that the building is currently ~/2' away from an existing public lane, and the building setback is 3.17' due to the fact that the Region took a road widening in the 1990's. He also advised that the Region has reduced their required daylighting triangle to 12'. Mr. D. Lloyd addressed the Committee advising that he has several questions and concerns. In response to these, Mr. Clinckett advised that this will be a 16 unit residential building consisting of 1 and 2 bedroom units. With respect to the concern about adequate outdoor space, Mr. Clinckett advised that the lower units will have 60' by 40' decks, and there will be a court yard on the second level. Further this building will probably be occupied before next summer. Mr. T. Grube posed several questions about this application, and Mr. Clinckett responded. He stated that the roof will be a pitched roof which requires a greater height. With respect to these units being subsidized housing, Mr. Clinckett advised that to the best of his knowledge this development is not being built under any special program for subsidized housing. Mr. G. Myer addressed the Committee advising that his major concern is that this building has changed hands 4 times. He also questioned soil testing noting the problem with contamination when oil tanks were removed at the corner of Dundas & Ottawa. He noted that this subject property was a tool & dye factory and they put contaminants into the ground. He questioned whether soil testing has been done. He stated that the current owner advised that the soil testing came back fine. However, the previous owner advised that clearing up the contamination would be too expensive. Mr. Myer stated that he wants everyone in the area to know if there is contamination on this site. Mr. Grube again questioned this development and Mr. Clinckett responded that these will be apartment units with patios along Bedford Road. The second floor units will be the same as the first with the exception that there will be 2 additional units over the garage. With respect to Mr. Myers concerns over contamination, it was noted by the Committee that the Region has made no mention in their comments that this is a contaminated site. Mr. Myer recommended that someone should make the Region aware of the Huber of barrels of cutting fluid that have been poured under this building. Mr. Parent suggested that the Region would not take land for a road widening if it was contaminated. With respect to approval of the site plan, Ms. vonWesterholt advised that is a separate process from the Committee of Adjustment process. She noted that the City of Kitchener has a policy that neighbours can be invited to site plan meetings. Moved by Mr. M. Hiscott Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk That the application of Jozo Ilic requesting legalization of the location of an existing building to be used as multi-unit residential to have a left side yard 0.137m (0.45') rather than the required 3m (9.84'), a front yard setback from Ottawa Street of 0.967m (3.17') rather than the required 3m (9.84'), a building height of 10.97m (36') rather than the permitted 10.5m (34.44'), and permission for a portion of the building, at the corner of Ottawa Street and Bedford Road, to be located within the 7.5m (24.6') visibility triangle, on Lots 189 to 194 & Part Lot 188, Plan 262, 161 Ottawa Street South, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 188 AUGUST 21, 2007 14. Submission No.: A 2007-068 tCont'd) 1. That the owner shall obtain approval of a site plan for the subject development from the City of Kitchener. 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 15. Submission No.: A 2007-071 Applicant: MHBC Office Ltd. Property Location: 540 Bingeman Centre Drive Legal Description: Part Lots 122 & 123, German Company Tract, being Parts 2 & 3, Reference Plan 58R-15289 Appearances: In Support: P. Grespan B. Hermsen Contra: None Written Submissions: Bingemans The Committee was advised that the applicants request permission to use 100% of this building for an office that is not associated with a permitted B-3 (Business Park) use rather than the permitted 25%, and permission for the total floor area of the building to equal half the area of the lot rather than the permitted 40% of the lot. The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated August 6, 2007, in which they advise that the subject property, municipally known as 540 Bingeman Centre Drive, is located on the south side of the street and is the second lot to the west from the intersection of Bingeman Centre Drive with Lackner Blvd. Business Park uses are located on adjacent lands to the west and east, while more traditional industrial uses are located further to the west and east of the property. The applicant has requested permission to increase the maximum allowable gross floor area for office use from 25% to 100 % of the building with a maximum Floor Space Ratio of 0.5. The subject lands are designated `Business Park' in the City's Official Plan and are zoned `Business Park Zone (B3)', Special Policy 3380 and 416 R according to Zoning By-law 85-1. Both the designation in the Official Plan and the zoning of the subject property permit business park uses while the 416R zone requires that the owner obtain a construction and fill permit from the Grand River Conservation Authority. The Business Park designation caters to the needs of technical and /or scientific business such as computer, electronic, data processing, and research and development firms. Further, they provide for additional office commercial and service uses not permitted in other industrial areas and concentrate at these planned locations. The Official Plan in policy 5.3.7 indicates that certain key locations on the perimeter of the Business Park which are at intersections of Primary, Secondary or COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 189 AUGUST 21, 2007 15. Submission No.: A 2007-071 tCont'd Trunk Roads will be planned to perform more of a service function by concentrating a range of commercial and support operations which primarily serve the needs of the industrial community. These key locations allow for the free standing industrial administrative offices, offices, health offices and health clinics, exhibition facilities, and all uses within Service Commercial Districts. The applicant would qualify as a scientific or technical firm as planning would be consistent with a technical field. In addition, the property is located close to the intersection of Bingeman Centre Drive and Lackner Blvd, and would therefore meet the locational criteria for allowing offices as set out in the Official Plan and would therefore meet the intent of the Plan. With respect to intent of the Zoning By-law, the subject lands are currently zoned B-3 Industrial Business Park, which allows uses such as computer, electronic or data processing, financial establishments, health offices, industrial administrative offices, research and development establishments, scientific, technological or communications establishment, and surveying, engineering and planning and design business. These uses are permitted to occupy 100 % of the gross floor area of their respective buildings without restrictions to the Floor Space Ratio. The applicant has requested that office use in general should be permitted at this location. With respect to the criteria for granting a minor variance in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, the use of subject lands conforms to the City's Official Plan and generally meets the intent of the Zoning By-law, which currently provides for a wide range of service industrial type uses including office and accordingly an increase in the percentage of occupied space within the proposed building will continue to be in keeping with regulations applying to other more specific types of office uses permitted in the B-3 zone. The variance requested could be considered minor in nature as a wide range of office uses are already permitted in the B-3 zone and are permitted to occupy100% of the building, therefore by allowing non-specific office use at this site, which is at the entrance (gateway) to the business park, the overall impact would be minor. The office use would not occur in areas where more traditional industrial uses are prominent, but rather would only be permitted at this site due to its location at the entrance of the park and at the intersection of 2 streets. The Official plan already permits service uses at these locations, so the office use is not considered a large deviation from the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning by-law and would therefore be considered minor. The variance proposed is desirable and appropriate for the use of the land as the additional office uses proposed would not compromise the intent of the Official Plan or the zoning by-law given that it is desirable to locate service type uses at the entrances to the Business Park. Based on the foregoing, Planning Staff recommend that the application to allow general office uses to occupy 100% of a building at this entrance site to the business park be approved for a maximum floor space ratio of 0.5. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated August 1, 2007, in which they advise that further comments on this property may be provided at the site plan stage. The Committee considered the written submission from Bingemans in support of this application. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 190 AUGUST 21, 2007 15. Submission No.: A 2007-071 tCont'd) Mr. Grespan advised that the owner has reviewed the staff report and is in agreement with it The Chair suggested that the floor space ratio should not include accessory offices but only general office use. Moved by Mr. M. Hiscott Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk That the application of MHBC Office Ltd. requesting permission to use 100% of this building for an office that is not associated with a permitted B-3 (Business Park) use rather than the permitted 25%, and permission for a floor space ration of 0.5 rather than the permitted 0.4, on Part Lots 122 & 123, German Company Tract, being Parts 2 & 3, reference Plan 58R-15289, 540 Bingeman Centre Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That general office use, which is not deemed to include accessory offices, industrial administration offices or any other ancillary office use already permitted in the zoning by-law, shall be permitted to a maximum floor space ratio of 0.5. 2. That the owner shall receive approval of a site plan for the subject property from the City of Kitchener. 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 16. Submission No.: A 2007-073 Applicant: Norman Emptage Property Location: 86 York Street Legal Description: Part Lot 285. Plan 385 Appearances: In Support: N. Emptage Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission to construct an uncovered front porch with a setback from York Street of 1.95m (6.39') rather than the required 4.5m (14.76'). The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated August 14, 2007, in which they advise that the subject property is located on the west side of York Street between Union Blvd and Mt Hope St and the use of the single family dwelling has existed since 1928. The Official Plan designation is Low Rise Conservation and the zoning is Residential Five (R-5) under By-law 85-1. A site visit by staff was made on July 23rd, 2007. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 191 AUGUST 21, 2007 16. Submission No.: A 2007-073 tCont'd) The applicant is requesting permission to construct an uncovered front porch with a setback from the front lot line (York St) of 1.95 m (6.39 ft) rather than the required 4.5 m (14.76 ft). 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 and Zoning By-law for the following reasons. The intent is to ensure adequate setback of accessory structures such as the proposed uncovered porch. The variance request will maintain a sufficient setback for landscaping and this will maintain an aesthetically pleasing streetscape with the surrounding dwellings. The variance is minor for the following reasons. The requested reduction is setback is from the front lot line to the portion of the porch that is over 0.6 metres above grade. There are two steps in front of the porch that do not require a setback because they are less than 0.6 from grade. The proposed porch covers a small footprint in the front yard and is appropriately sized in relation to the front door. The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land for the following reasons. The design of the porch will permit the owner to construct an exit from the front door that meets current building code requirements and still maintain an aesthetically pleasing streetscape for the neighbourhood. Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that the application be approved. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated August 1, 2007, in which they advise that they have no concerns with this application. Mr. Emptage advised that he has reviewed the staff report and is in agreement with it. Moved by Mr. M. Hiscott Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk That the application of Norman Emptage requesting permission to construct an uncovered front porch with a setback from York Street of 1.95m (6.39') rather than the required 4.5m (14.76'), on Part Lot 285, Plan 385, 86 York Street, 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 192 AUGUST 21, 2007 CONSENTS 1. Submission No.: B 2007-024 Applicant: Augusto & Fernanda Cardoso Property Location: 290 East Avenue Legal Description: Lot 34, Plan 697 Appearances: In Support: A. & F. Cardoso Contra: M. Nummel P. Mount Written Submissions: T & I Grinfelds C. & B. Goosen T. English P. Mount & N. Muller The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission to sever a parcel of land to have a width on Pandora Avenue of 14m (45.93') by a depth of 18m (59'), and an area of 259 sq. m. (2,787.94 sq. ft.), for the purpose of constructing a new single detached dwelling. The retained land will have a width on East Avenue of 31.9m (104.65') by a depth of 28.7 m (94.16'), and an area of 916 sq. m. (9,860.06 sq. ft.), which will contain the existing single detached dwelling. The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated August 14, 2007, in which they advise that the subject property is located at the southeast corner of Pandora Avenue and East Avenue, just north of the Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Complex. The property is designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan and is zoned Residential Four Zone (R-4). The property has a frontage of 15.78 metres and an area of 730 square metres. The property currently contains a single detached house built in approximately 1950. The owner is requesting consent to sever a portion of the lot at the rear of the property and to construct a single detached dwelling on the new lot. A site inspection was conducted on August 1, 2007 by City Planning staff. The severed lot would have a frontage of 14 metres on Pandora Avenue, a depth of 18 metres, and an area of 259 square metres. The retained lot would have a frontage of 15.8 metres on East Avenue and an area of at least 453 square metres. It should be noted that although the sketch submitted with the application, shows a 7.5 metre rear yard setback for the retained lot, through calculations using survey data, it appears that slightly less than the required minimum rear yard is provided (approx. 7.06 metres to 7.26 metres). Staff is satisfied that the proposed severance line could be slightly altered to ensure that the retained lot maintains a minimum 7.5 metre rear yard setback, in accordance with the Zoning By-law. Apart from this observation, based on the figures provided on the application, both lots would comply with all applicable zoning regulations. Although, the proposed lots could be made to conform to the Zoning By-law, it is questionable as to whether the severed lot of the proposed dimensions and area would be compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood. The severed lot would be proportionally shallow and wide. Compared with most, if not all lots in the surrounding neighbourhood, the lot would be very shallow, and average in terms of width. Staff examined the surrounding neighbourhood to determine if any lots exist with a similar lot area and configuration to the proposed severed lot. Certain lots on Brubacher Street and Samuel Street were found to have similar lot areas. It should be noted, however, that all these lots have a configuration much different than what is proposed, in that the lot width is shorter than the depth. In addition, many of the characteristics of these properties do not comply with the current Zoning By-law (e.g., COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 193 AUGUST 21, 2007 1. Submission No.: B 2007-024 tCont'd) non-conformity of the rear and side yard setback) and are considered to be legal non- conforming. Also, most if not all of these examples had either no garage or a detached garage in the rear yard. The owner has verbally advised through a City volunteer translator that she plans to build a 1.5 storey single detached dwelling with an attached garage on the retained lands in order for her and her husband to retire in. Although the owner has a house configuration in mind, no scale house plans have been prepared. When the owner provided a neighbourhood example of a house that could be built on the lot, the house was found to be wider than the proposed lot. Staff has concerns that a house in the style that the owners wish to build may not be able to feasibly be constructed on the proposed lot. In addition, staff has concerns that if the lot is severed as proposed, a house compatible with those in the neighbourhood may not be able to be constructed. In order to ensure that a house may be built on the proposed lot that is compatible with the neighbourhood and desirable to the owners, staff recommends that the application be deferred until such time as scale house drawings are provided to the City for further analysis and consideration. Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that the application be deferred. Transportation Planning advised that they have reviewed this application and 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 & Community Services, dated August 1, 2007, in which they advise that the owner should enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to include a noise warning clause on all offers to purchase and deeds or rental agreements for both the severed and retained lands. The Region of Waterloo recommends approval of this application subject to the following condition: That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to include the following noise warning clause on all offers to purchase and deeds or rental agreements for both the severed and retained lands: "Due to its proximity to East Avenue, projected noise levels on this property exceed the Noise Level objectives approved by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and may cause concern to some individuals" Although the Committee offered to defer its consideration of this application, as recommended by staff, Mr. and Mrs. Cardoso advised of their decision to withdraw this application rather than to defer it. 2. Submission No.: B 2007-025 Applicant: Kevin Smith Property Location: 26 Fourth Avenue Legal Description: Lot 81, Plan 254 Appearances: In Support: K. Smith Contra: None Written Submissions: None COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 194 AUGUST 21, 2007 2. Submission No.: B 2007-025 tCont'd) The Committee was advised that the applicants requests permission to sever a parcel of land having a width on Fourth Avenue of 8.125 m (26.65') by a depth of 40.374m (132.46') and an area of 311.6 sq. m. (3,354.14 sq. ft.), to be developed with 1semi-detached dwelling unit. The retained land will have a width on Fourth Avenue of 12.636m (41.45') by a depth of 40.374m (132.46') and an area of 497.2 sq. m. (5,351.99 sq. ft.). The existing house on the retained land will become a semi- detached dwelling unit. The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated August 8, 2007, in which they advise that the subject property is located on the westerly side of Fourth Avenue between Kingsway Drive and Connaught Street. The property is developed with a single detached dwelling. The owner of the property has been issued a building permit to construct an addition to the southerly side of the existing single detached dwelling. The applicant is requesting consent to create a new lot for a semi detached house. Staff of the Planning Division and Building Division are recommending deferral of this consent application until such time that the construction of the addition is complete to verify zoning compliance for asemi-detached dwelling. Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that the application be deferred. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing & Community Services, dated August 1, 2007, advising that they have no objection to the approval of this application. At the request of Planning staff, the Committee agreed to defer its consideration of this application until Tuesday September 18, 2007, to allow them to meet with the owner to determine exactly what is to be built on the severed land, and to determine compliance with the zoning by-law. 3. Submission No.: B 2007-026 to B 2007-029 Applicant: Dave & Tammy Straus Property Location: 492 Zeller Drive Legal Description: Part Lot 119, German Comgany Tract Appearances: In Support: D. & T. Straus Contra: None Other: P. Grespan Written Submissions: Hallman Construction Limited The Committee was advised that the applicants request permission to sever 4 lots for residential construction each to have a width on Zeller Drive of 15.24m (50') by a depth of approximately 45.725m (150') and each to have an area of 696.8 sq. m. (7,500.53 sq. ft.). The retained land will have a width on Zeller Drive of 27.576m (90.47') by a depth of 45.725m (150') and will have an area of 1,260.7 sq. m. (13,570.5 sq. ft.), which will contain the existing single detached dwelling. The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated July 24, 2007, in which they advise that the subject property is located on the east side of Zeller Drive near the intersection of Eden Oak Trail and Zeller Drive. The property has recently been rezoned to Residential Four Zone (R-4) in anticipation of the severance of 4 new residential lots. The property is designated COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 195 AUGUST 21, 2007 3. Submission No.: B 2007-026 to B 2007-029 tCont'd) as Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan. The site is currently a single lot with one single family dwelling and is approximately 89 metres by 46 metres. The applicant is proposing to sever four additional lots for single family dwellings with lot widths of 15.242 metres. Staff are pleased to see some larger lot development along this section of roadway as the proposed surrounding lots are in the 9 to 10 metre lot width range. The existing residential building will remain on site and the existing pool and shed will be removed. The retained lot has been developed with a single detached dwelling and the lots to be severed are currently vacant. The retained and proposed parcels would continue to meet the Zoning By-Law requirements. The subject lands are adjacent to and surrounded by the Hallman plan of subdivision. Hallman has prepared a comprehensive set of design guidelines for development, which is in addition to the City `s Urban Design Guidelines. As such, staff will be applying a corner lot priority provision for parcel 1 of the proposed severance. The applicant should also be made aware of the re-naming of Zeller Drive to "Old Zeller Drive", which is a condition of the Hallman Subdivision Agreement. Staff anticipates the re-naming by-law to occur within the next 3 to 6 months. Staff visited the site on August 1, 2007. 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 parcels are in conformity with the City's Municipal Plan, and the lands front on an established public street. The proposed lots will have frontage on proposed "Old Zeller Drive". The uses of the severed and retained lands are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) issued under Subsection 3 (1) of the Act, and they conform to or do not conflict with any applicable provincial plan or plans. It is the opinion of staff that the properties meet Official Plan policy and Zoning By- Law regulations and are considered to be proper and orderly development. That applications B2007-026 to B2007-029 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. 2. That the owner provide 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 one full size paper copy of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist. 3. That the owners 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. 4. That the owners shall receive final approval of Zone Change Application ZC06/24/Z/JB receive final approval. 5. That the owners shall remove the existing (utility shed and pool). 6. That the owners shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services, for the installation of all new service connections to the severed lands. 7. That the owners shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping including street trees along proposed "Old Zeller Drive" and 3 trees along Eden Oak Trail, and paved driveway ramps on the severed lands. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 196 AUGUST 21, 2007 3. Submission No.: B 2007-026 to B 2007-029 tCont'd) 8. That the owners shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to be prepared by the City Solicitor to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning and Director of Engineering Services, and registered on title. Said agreement shall include the following special conditions: a. Submission of a Grading Plan, to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering Services, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for the severed lots. b. Submission of a Tree Management Plan to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for the severed lots. c. That no building permit shall be applied for or issued for parcel 1, identified on a severance plan prepared by Metz and Lorentz Ltd., dated September 5, 2006 for Part Lot 119, German Company Tract, until building elevation drawings have been submitted and approved for said parcel to the satisfaction of the City's Manager of Development Review. The intent is to ensure that consideration has been given to the design treatment along both road frontages for the dwelling, including such items as the provision of porches, porticos, poured in place stairs, bay or boxed bay windows or other projections; fencing; secondary door entries; windows, enhanced window treatments, enhanced building materials such as brick, stone or combinations and/or landscaping. d. That the following noise warning clause be included for the retained lands: "Due to its proximity to proposed Old Zeller Drive, projected noise levels exceed the Noise Level Objectives approved by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and may cause concern to some individuals " e. That the following noise warning clause be included in all offers of purchase and sale, deeds and /or rental agreements for the lands to be severed. "Due to its proximity to proposed Old Zeller Drive, projected noise levels exceed the Noise Level Objectives approved by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and may cause concern to some individuals. Moreover, this dwelling has been fitted with a forced air-ducted heating system suitably sized and designed to permit the future installation of a central air conditioning system by the occupants" The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing & Community Services, dated August 1, 2007, advising that they have no objections to the approval of these applications. The Committee considered additional comments from the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing & Community Services, dated August 20, 2007, in which they advise that Policy 2.2.1 of the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement provides for the protection of groundwater resources. As previously indicated, the subject lands are situated within a Sensitivity 2 Wellhead Protection Area as designated on Map 4 of the Regional Official Policies Plan. Water Resources Protection staff has indicated concerns with how stormwater management will be addressed. As a result, staff will need to review and approve both a lot grading and drainage control plan and a stormwater management plan for the severed and retained lands. Policies 10.2.1.1 and 10.3.1.1 of the Regional Official Policies Plan require new developments to be on full municipal services. As a result, the existing dwelling a and proposed dwellings will be required to be on full municipal services. Any existing COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 197 AUGUST 21, 2007 3. Submission No.: B 2007-026 to B 2007-029 tCont'd) private wells and septic systems must be decommissioned in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. They recommended approval of these applications subject to the following conditions: 1. That a stormwater Management Plan and a Lot Grading and Drainage Control Plan shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Housing and Community Services. 2. That any existing private wells and septic systems shall be decommissioned in accordance with applicable laws and regulations to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Housing and Community Services. The Committee considered the written submission of Hallman Construction requesting that the Committee impose a condition of approval that the owners pay Hallman Construction Limited for their share of the services and road ways improved by Hallman. With respect to the letter from Hallman Construction Limited, Ms. vonWesterholt stated that the costs of roads and services are usually born by the developer who develops first. Mr. P. Grespan addressed the Committee respecting the request outlined in the letter from Hallman Construction Limited. He advised there is a precedent for subsequent subdividers to pay a share of these hard services costs. He explained that these services have just been installed, including Hydro. The cost per lot is approximately $20,000, which is half the frontage cost. He advised that MTE consultants would be able to provide justified costs. The price of $20,000 includes hard servicing costs only, and not service connections. Mr. Grespan stated that Hallman Construction has to accept maintenance for the road, as it hasn't yet been assumed by the City of Kitchener. With respect to stormwater management for the proposed lots, Mr. Grespan advised that it will have to drain into the first stormwater management pond constructed in this subdivision by Hallman. Mr. Strauss responded by asking that the City certify the costs submitted by Hallman Construction. Submission No. B 2007-026 Moved by Mr. M. Hiscott Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk That the application of Dave & Tammy Straus requesting permission to sever a parcel of land for residential construction to have a width on Zeller Drive of 15.24m (50') by a depth of approximately 45.725m (150') and an area of 696.8 sq. m. (7,500.53 sq. ft.), on Part Lot 119, German Company Tract, 492 Zeller Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owners shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 198 AUGUST 21, 2007 3. Submission No.: B 2007-026 to B 2007-029 tCont'd) 2. That the owners 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 size paper copy 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. 3. That the owners 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. 4. That the owners shall receive final approval of Zone Change Application ZC06/24/Z/J B. 5. That the owners shall remove the existing utility shed and pool. 6. That the owners shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services, and Hallman Construction Limited, as administered by the City for review and collection, for the installation of all new service connections to the severed lands. 7. That the owners shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping including street trees along proposed "Old Zeller Drive" and 3 trees along Eden Oak Trail, and paved driveway ramps on the severed lands. 8. That the owners shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to be prepared by the City Solicitor to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning and Director of Engineering Services, and registered on title. Said agreement shall include the following special conditions: a. Submission of a Grading Plan, to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering Services, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for the severed lots. b. Submission of a Tree Management Plan to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for the severed lots. c. That no building permit shall be applied for or issued for parcel 1, identified on a severance plan prepared by Metz and Lorentz Ltd., dated September 5, 2006 for Part Lot 119, German Company Tract, until building elevation drawings have been submitted and approved for said parcel to the satisfaction of the City's Manager of Development Review. The intent is to ensure that consideration has been given to the design treatment along both road frontages for the dwelling, including such items as the provision of porches, porticos, poured in place stairs, bay or boxed bay windows or other projections; fencing; secondary door entries; windows, enhanced window treatments, enhanced building materials such as brick, stone or combinations and/or landscaping. d. That the following noise warning clause shall be included for the retained lands: "Due to its proximity to proposed Old Zeller Drive, projected noise levels exceed the Noise Level Objectives approved by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and may cause concern to some individuals " e. That the following noise warning clause be included in all offers of purchase and sale, deeds and /or rental agreements for the lands to be severed. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 199 AUGUST 21, 2007 3. Submission No.: B 2007-026 to B 2007-029 tCont'd) "Due to its proximity to proposed Old Zeller Drive, projected noise levels exceed the Noise Level Objectives approved by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and may cause concern to some individuals. Moreover, this dwelling has been fitted with a forced air-ducted heating system suitably sized and designed to permit the future installation of a central air conditioning system by the occupants". 9. That the owners shall submit and receive approval from the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Housing & Community Services of a stormwater management plan and a lot grading and drainage plan for the severed and retained lands. 10. That the owners shall decommission any existing wells and septic systems on the severed and retained lands, in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Housing and Community Services. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. 2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. 3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being August 21, 2009. Carried Submission No. B 2007-027 Moved by Mr. M. Hiscott Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk That the application of Dave & Tammy Straus requesting permission to sever a parcel of land for residential construction to have a width on Zeller Drive of 15.24m (50') by a depth of approximately 45.725m (150') and an area of 696.8 sq. m. (7,500.53 sq. ft.), on Part Lot 119, German Company Tract, 492 Zeller Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owners shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. 2. That the owners 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 size paper copy 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 200 AUGUST 21, 2007 3. Submission No.: B 2007-026 to B 2007-029 tCont'd) 3. That the owners 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. 4. That the owners shall receive final approval of Zone Change Application ZC06/24/Z/J B. 5. That the owners shall remove the existing utility shed and pool. 6. That the owners shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services, and Hallman Construction Limited, as administered by the City for review and collection, for the installation of all new service connections to the severed lands. 7. That the owners shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping including street trees along proposed "Old Zeller Drive" and 3 trees along Eden Oak Trail, and paved driveway ramps on the severed lands. 8. That the owners shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to be prepared by the City Solicitor to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning and Director of Engineering Services, and registered on title. Said agreement shall include the following special conditions: a. Submission of a Grading Plan, to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering Services, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for the severed lots. b. Submission of a Tree Management Plan to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for the severed lots. c. That no building permit shall be applied for or issued for parcel 1, identified on a severance plan prepared by Metz and Lorentz Ltd., dated September 5, 2006 for Part Lot 119, German Company Tract, until building elevation drawings have been submitted and approved for said parcel to the satisfaction of the City's Manager of Development Review. The intent is to ensure that consideration has been given to the design treatment along both road frontages for the dwelling, including such items as the provision of porches, porticos, poured in place stairs, bay or boxed bay windows or other projections; fencing; secondary door entries; windows, enhanced window treatments, enhanced building materials such as brick, stone or combinations and/or landscaping. d. That the following noise warning clause shall be included for the retained lands: "Due to its proximity to proposed Old Zeller Drive, projected noise levels exceed the Noise Level Objectives approved by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and may cause concern to some individuals " e. That the following noise warning clause be included in all offers of purchase and sale, deeds and /or rental agreements for the lands to be severed. "Due to its proximity to proposed Old Zeller Drive, projected noise levels exceed the Noise Level Objectives approved by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and may cause concern to some individuals. Moreover, this dwelling has been fitted with a forced air-ducted heating system suitably sized and designed to permit the future installation of a central air conditioning system by the occupants" COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 201 AUGUST 21, 2007 3. Submission No.: B 2007-026 to B 2007-029 tCont'd) 9. That the owners shall submit and receive approval from the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Housing & Community Services of a stormwater management plan and a lot grading and drainage plan for the severed and retained lands. 10. That the owners shall decommission any existing wells and septic systems on the severed and retained lands, in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Housing and Community Services. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. 2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. 3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being August 21, 2009. Carried Submission No. B 2007-028 Moved by Mr. M. Hiscott Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk That the application of Dave & Tammy Straus requesting permission to sever a parcel of land for residential construction to have a width on Zeller Drive of 15.24m (50') by a depth of approximately 45.725m (150') and an area of 696.8 sq. m. (7,500.53 sq. ft.), on Part Lot 119, German Company Tract, 492 Zeller Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owners shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. 2. That the owners 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 size paper copy 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. 3. That the owners 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. 4. That the owners shall receive final approval of Zone Change Application ZC06/24/Z/J B. 5. That the owners shall remove the existing utility shed and pool. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 202 AUGUST 21, 2007 3. Submission No.: B 2007-026 to B 2007-029 tCont'd) 6. That the owners shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services, and Hallman Construction Limited, as administered by the City for review and collection, for the installation of all new service connections to the severed lands. 7. That the owners shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping including street trees along proposed "Old Zeller Drive" and 3 trees along Eden Oak Trail, and paved driveway ramps on the severed lands. 8. That the owners shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to be prepared by the City Solicitor to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning and Director of Engineering Services, and registered on title. Said agreement shall include the following special conditions: a. Submission of a Grading Plan, to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering Services, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for the severed lots. b. Submission of a Tree Management Plan to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for the severed lots. c. That no building permit shall be applied for or issued for parcel 1, identified on a severance plan prepared by Metz and Lorentz Ltd., dated September 5, 2006 for Part Lot 119, German Company Tract, until building elevation drawings have been submitted and approved for said parcel to the satisfaction of the City's Manager of Development Review. The intent is to ensure that consideration has been given to the design treatment along both road frontages for the dwelling, including such items as the provision of porches, porticos, poured in place stairs, bay or boxed bay windows or other projections; fencing; secondary door entries; windows, enhanced window treatments, enhanced building materials such as brick, stone or combinations and/or landscaping. d. That the following noise warning clause shall be included for the retained lands: "Due to its proximity to proposed Old Zeller Drive, projected noise levels exceed the Noise Level Objectives approved by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and may cause concern to some individuals " e. That the following noise warning clause be included in all offers of purchase and sale, deeds and /or rental agreements for the lands to be severed. "Due to its proximity to proposed Old Zeller Drive, projected noise levels exceed the Noise Level Objectives approved by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and may cause concern to some individuals. Moreover, this dwelling has been fitted with a forced air-ducted heating system suitably sized and designed to permit the future installation of a central air conditioning system by the occupants" 9. That the owners shall submit and receive approval from the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Housing & Community Services of a stormwater management plan and a lot grading and drainage plan for the severed and retained lands. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 203 AUGUST 21, 2007 3. Submission No.: B 2007-026 to B 2007-029 tCont'd) 10. That the owners shall decommission any existing wells and septic systems on the severed and retained lands, in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Housing and Community Services. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. 2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. 3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being August 21, 2009. Carried Submission No. B 2007-029 Moved by Mr. M. Hiscott Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk That the application of Dave & Tammy Straus requesting permission to sever parcel of land for residential construction to have a width on Zeller Drive of 15.24m (50') by a depth of approximately 45.725m (150') and an area of 696.8 sq. m. (7,500.53 sq. ft.), on Part Lot 119, German Company Tract, 492 Zeller Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owners shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. 2. That the owners 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 size paper copy 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. 3. That the owners 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. 4. That the owners shall receive final approval of Zone Change Application ZC06/24/Z/J B. 5. That the owners shall remove the existing utility shed and pool. 6. That the owners shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services, and Hallman Construction Limited, as administered by the City for review and collection, for the installation of all new service connections to the severed lands. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 204 AUGUST 21, 2007 3. Submission No.: B 2007-026 to B 2007-029 tCont'd) 7. That the owners shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping including street trees along proposed "Old Zeller Drive" and 3 trees along Eden Oak Trail, and paved driveway ramps on the severed lands. 8. That the owners shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to be prepared by the City Solicitor to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning and Director of Engineering Services, and registered on title. Said agreement shall include the following special conditions: a. Submission of a Grading Plan, to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering Services, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for the severed lots. b. Submission of a Tree Management Plan to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for the severed lots. c. That no building permit shall be applied for or issued for parcel 1, identified on a severance plan prepared by Metz and Lorentz Ltd., dated September 5, 2006 for Part Lot 119, German Company Tract, until building elevation drawings have been submitted and approved for said parcel to the satisfaction of the City's Manager of Development Review. The intent is to ensure that consideration has been given to the design treatment along both road frontages for the dwelling, including such items as the provision of porches, porticos, poured in place stairs, bay or boxed bay windows or other projections; fencing; secondary door entries; windows, enhanced window treatments, enhanced building materials such as brick, stone or combinations and/or landscaping. d. That the following noise warning clause shall be included for the retained lands: "Due to its proximity to proposed Old Zeller Drive, projected noise levels exceed the Noise Level Objectives approved by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and may cause concern to some individuals " e. That the following noise warning clause be included in all offers of purchase and sale, deeds and /or rental agreements for the lands to be severed. "Due to its proximity to proposed Old Zeller Drive, projected noise levels exceed the Noise Level Objectives approved by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and may cause concern to some individuals. Moreover, this dwelling has been fitted with a forced air-ducted heating system suitably sized and designed to permit the future installation of a central air conditioning system by the occupants" 9. That the owners shall submit and receive approval from the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Housing & Community Services of a stormwater management plan and a lot grading and drainage plan for the severed and retained lands. 10. That the owners shall decommission any existing wells and septic systems on the severed and retained lands, in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Housing and Community Services. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 205 AUGUST 21, 2007 3. Submission No.: B 2007-026 to B 2007-029 tCont'd) It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. 2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. 3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being August 21, 2009. Carried 4. Submission No.: B 2007-030 Applicant: 1639824 Ontario Inc. Property Location: 686 Victoria Street North Legal Description: Part Lots 47 & 48, Plan 763 -and- Submission No.: A 2007-072 Applicant: 1639824 Ontario Inc. Property Location: 680 Victoria Street North Legal Description: Lot 46, Plan 763 Appearances: In Support: G. White R. Dyck Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that through Submission No. B 2007-030, the applicant requests permission to sever a parcel of land having a width of 1.83m (6') by a depth of 60.83m (199.57'), to be conveyed as a lot addition to 680 Victoria Street North. The Committee was also advised that through Submission No. A 2007-072, the applicant requests permission to construct a loading dock addition, at 680 Victoria Street North, with an easterly side yard of 0.6m (1.96') rather than the required 3m (9.84'), and permission to locate off-street parking within 1.04m (3.41') of Victoria Street rather than the required 3m (9.84'). The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated August 6, 2007, in which they advise that the subject property is located on the north side of Victoria Street immediately west of the bridge crossing Highway 8 and is part of the Central Frederick planning community. The property is designated `Arterial Commercial Corridor' in the in the Central Frederick Secondary Plan and is zoned C-6 Arterial Commercial in the Zoning By-law. The sites contain the former TSC store and the existing Factory Shoe store. The surrounding uses on both sides of Victoria Street are largely comprised of arterial commercial uses that COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 206 AUGUST 21, 2007 4. Submission No.: B 2007-030 & A 2007-072 cater to vehicular traffic. The applicant is requesting consent to sever a 1.83 metres strip from the 686 Victoria St. (Factory Shoe) site and add it to the 680 Victoria (former TSC) site in order to facilitate the construction of a new loading facility for the 680 Victoria property on its easterly side. A minor variance is required for the 680 Victoria Street property to allow the sideyard setback for the easterly side yard to be reduced from 3 metres to 0.6 metres, in order to facilitate the relocation of the loading dock to the east side of the building. In addition, a variance to allow a reduction in the parking setback from the road from 3.0 metres to 1.04 metres in order to accommodate additional on site parking is also required. Section 6.1 of the Zoning By-law requires 1 parking space for each 27 sq. metres of building area, resulting in the need for 69 spaces for the site. The applicant has provided 67 spaces including 2 handicapped spaces. The by-law requires the provision of 69 spaces plus the 2 handicapped spaces. This would suggest that the site has a shortfall of 4 spaces including the handicapped spaces. However, the site plan submitted shows the spaces at a width of 2.75 metres, which is wider than the minimum of 2.6 metres, and if the spaces were reconfigured, the parking requirements for the site could be accommodated without the need for additional variances. 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 Official Plan, the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots are appropriate and suitable for the existing uses and any proposed use of the lands, 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. Also, the resultant lots will be compatible in size with the lots in the surrounding area. With respect to the criteria for granting a minor variance in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, the use of subject lands conforms to the City's Municipal Plan and generally meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The applicant's intention to relocate the loading facility will improve mobility on the site and is therefore desirable and an appropriate use of the subject lands. No negative impacts to adjacent lands are anticipated from this proposed redevelopment of the site. However with respect to maintaining the intent of the zoning by-law several things should be considered. Firstly, the intent of the setback from the road for the parking is to allow for the provision of enhanced landscaping along this commercial corridor. If the requested reduction were allowed, then this objective would be compromised. In order to allow the required number of parking spaces on site, the landscaping may have to be compromised. It is questionable whether this meets the intent of the By-law and or whether this is desirable for the orderly redevelopment of this site. One has to take consideration that the site has its limitations, as much of the situation is existing and this is a redevelopment and not a new development. Secondly, conversations with Regional staff revealed a desire for the consolidation of the access for these two properties in order to reduce the number of driveways immediately before the bridge. In addition, road widenings for Victoria Street may be required and this may result in additional reduction in the setback from the road and may impact parking at a later date. The Region indicated that the widening may be a reduced widening, as this portion of Victoria Street tapers toward the bridge. The Region also indicated that consolidation of the driveways may be challenging due to grade differences. In light of these comments, it may be desirable to consolidate the entrances to the sites in order to improve movement of traffic at an already congested portion of Victoria Street. There are significant grade differences between the two sites and the COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 207 AUGUST 21, 2007 4. Submission No.: B 2007-030 & A 2007-072 possibility of consolidating the entrances should be investigated further at the site plan approval stage. The intent of the Zoning By-law with respect to the landscape strip could still be maintained through the provision of some landscaping on site, while recognizing that this site is a redevelopment and that future road widenings may occur at this location. In addition, the by-law intends for sites to be developed with adequate parking and should the applicant provide the required parking, the landscape strip will have to exist in a reduced size. Since the subject property is so close to the bridge and congestion already occurs in the area along Victoria Street, adequate movement on the site through the provision of sufficient parking should help alleviate some of this congestion. If through the Site Plan Approval process, the two access points should be consolidated if feasible, then site congestion as well as road congestion at the bridge could also be improved and this would be desirable, despite the loss of some landscaping. In conclusion, the variance meets the four tests and based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that the applications for consent and minor variance be approved as follows: That application B 2007-030 be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner pay to the City of Kitchener acash-in-lieu contribution for park dedication equal to 2% commercial of the value of the lands to be severed. 2. That the owner make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services, for the installation of all new service connections to the severed lands and/or retained lands. 3. That the lands to be severed be added to the abutting lands and title be taken into identical ownership as the abutting lands. The deed for endorsement shall include that any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed shall comply with Sections 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended. 4. That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. 5. That the owner provide 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 one full size paper copy of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist. And that application A 2007-072 for a reduction in side yard setback from 3.0 metres to 0.6 metres, be approved. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing & Community Services, dated August 1, 2007, advising that they have no objection to the approval of this application. Mr. Dyck advised that they are in agreement with the staff recommendation. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 208 AUGUST 21, 2007 4. Submission No.: B 2007-030 & A 2007-072 Submission No. B 2007-030 Moved by Mr. M. Hiscott Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk That the application of 1639824 Ontario Inc. requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having a width of 1.83m (6') by a depth of 60.83m (199.57'), to be conveyed as a lot addition to 680 Victoria Street North, on Part Lots 47 & 48, Plan 763, 686 Victoria Street North, 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 2% commercial of the value of the lands to be severed. 2. That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services, for the installation of all new service connections to the severed lands and/or retained lands. 3. That the lands to be severed shall be added to the abutting lands and title be taken into identical ownership as the abutting lands. The deed for endorsement shall include that any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed shall comply with Sections 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended. 4. 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. 5. 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 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 August 21, 2009. Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 209 AUGUST 21, 2007 4. Submission No.: B 2007-030 & A 2007-072 Submission No. A 2007-072 Moved by Mr. M. Hiscott Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk That the application of 1639824 Ontario Inc. requesting permission to construct a loading dock addition with an easterly side yard of 0.6m (1.96') rather than the required 3m (9.84'), and permission to locate off-street parking within 1.04m (3.41') of Victoria Street rather than the required 3m (9.84'), on Lot 46, Plan 763, 680 Victoria Street North, 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 5. Submission No.: B 2007-031 Applicant: Attila Man & Lorena Man Property Location: 85 & 87 Lancaster Street West Legal Description: Part Lot 286, Registered Plan 378 Appearances: In Support: A. Mann Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the 2 parcels of abutting land were purchased by the same owner, and have merged together as 1 parcel of land. The owner now wishes to separate them back into 2 separate parcels of land. The land to be severed (85 Lancaster Street West) will have a width on Lancaster Street of 10.058m (32.99') by a depth of 43.11 m (141.43') and an area of 419.53 sq. m. (4,515.93 sq. ft.). The land to be retained (87 Lancaster Street West) will have a width on Lancaster Street of 16.76m (54.98') by a depth of 43.56m (142.91') and an area of 602.59 sq. m. (6486.43 sq. ft.). The severed land will contain the existing 2 storey house, and the retained land will contain the existing duplex. The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated August 9, 2007, in which they advise that the subject properties are located on the western side of Lancaster Street West, between Louisa Street to the north and Wellington Street North to the south. The properties are zoned Residential Six (R-6), and are designated as Low Rise Residential in Kitchener's Municipal Plan. A site visit was conducted on August 14, 2007. 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, the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots are appropriate and suitable for the existing uses and any proposed use of the lands, 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. Also, the resulting lots will be compatible in size with other lots in the surrounding area. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 210 AUGUST 21, 2007 5. Submission No.: B 2007-031 As such, Planning staff recommends that this application for severance to be approved. That application B2007-031 for a consent between 85 and 87 Lancaster Street West be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. 2. That the owner provide 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 one full size paper copy of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing & Community Services, dated August 1, 2007, recommending approval of this application subject to the following conditions. 1. That the owner enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to include the following noise warning clause on all offers to purchase and deeds or rental agreement for both the severed and retained lands: "Due to its proximity to Lancaster Street (Regional Road No. 29) projected noise levels on this property exceed the Noise Level Objectives approved by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and may cause concern to some individuals." 2. That the owner convey a ten (10) foot road widening along the entire frontage of Lancaster Street (Regional Road No. 29) to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Along with a registerable deed for the road allowance widening, the applicant must provide a mylar copy of the registered reference plan, at no cost to the Region. In response to a question from the Committee, Ms. vonWesterhot advised that if the Region takes a road widening along Lancaster Street, the setback of the buildings from the street will be considered legal non-conforming. Moved by Mr. M. Hiscott Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk That the application of Attila and Lorena Man requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a width on Lancaster Street of 10.058m (32.99') by a depth of 43.11 m (141.43') and an area of 419.53 sq. m. (4,515.93 sq. ft.), on Part Lot 286, Registered Plan 378, 85 Lancaster Street West, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owners shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. 2. That the owners 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 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 211 AUGUST 21, 2007 5. Submission No.: B 2007-031 3. That the owners shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to include the following noise warning clause on all offers to purchase and deeds or rental agreement for both the severed and retained lands: "Due to its proximity to Lancaster Street (Regional Road No. 29) projected noise levels on this property exceed the Noise Level Objectives approved by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and may cause concern to some individuals." 4. That the owners shall convey a ten (10) foot road widening along the entire frontage of Lancaster Street (Regional Road No. 29) to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Along with a registerable deed for the road allowance widening, the owners must provide a mylar copy of the registered reference plan, at no cost to the Region. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. 2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. 3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being August 21, 2009. Carried ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 12:30 p.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 21St day of August 2007. Dianne H. Gilchrist Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment