Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2007-11-20COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 20, 2007 MEMBERS PRESENT: Messers D. Cybalski, B. McColl & A. Head OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. von Westerholt, Senior Planner, Mr. R. Parent, Traffic Analyst, Ms. D. Gilchrist, Secretary-Treasurer, Ms. D. Hartleib, Administrative Clerk. Mr. D. Cybalski, Chair, called this meeting to order at 9:40 a.m. MINUTES Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. A. Head That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment, of October 16, 2007, as mailed to the members, be accepted. Carried UNFINISHED BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE 1. Submission No.: A 2007-084 Applicant: Zbignien & Nikodem Slusarczyk Property Location: 21 Carisbrook Drive Legal Description: Lot 59, German Company Tract, being Part 1, Reference Plan 58R-7276, together with aright-of-way Appearances: In Support: None Contra: None Written Submissions: None As no one was in attendance in support of this application, and as the Planning Division had not reviewed the information the Committee had requested at the October meeting, the Committee agreed to defer its consideration to its meeting schedule for Tuesday January 15, 2008. COMBINED APPLICATIONS 1. Submission No.: A 2007-086 Applicant: GPM Investments Inc. Property Location: 100 Sportsworld Drive Legal Description: Part Lot 8 & 9, Beasley's Broken Front Concession -and- Submission No.: B 2007-035 Applicant: GPM Investments Inc. Property Location: 100 Sportsworld Drive Legal Description: Part Lot 8 & 9. Beaslev's Broken Front Concession COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 251 NOVEMBER 20, 2007 1. Submission No.: A 2007-086 & B 2007-035, tCont'd) Appearances: In Support: None Contra: None Written Submissions: None At the request of the applicant's agent and in consultation with staff, the Committee agreed to defer its consideration of these applications to its meeting scheduled for Tuesday February 18, 2008. This meeting recessed at 9:45 a.m. and reconvened 10:05 a.m. at with the following members present: Messrs. D. Cybalski, B. McColl & A. Head. NEW BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE 1. Submission No.: A 2007-087 Applicant: Deb & Brian Freiburger Property Location: 30 Willow Green Court Legal Description: Lot 739. Registered Plan 1452 Appearances: In Support: R. Sajkunovic Contra: None Written Submissions: P. & G. Livingston The Committee was advised that the applicant has requested permission to construct an attached garage to have an easterly side yard of 0.786m (2.57 ft.) rather than the required 12.m (3.93 ft.). The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated November 1, 2007, in which they advise the subject property is located on the north side of Willow Green Court, to the north of Highview Drive and south of the Forest Heights Community Trail The property is designated as Low Rise Residential and is zoned Residential Three (R-3). The property is currently used for a single detached dwelling, and the applicant is proposing to construct an attached garage. The applicant is requesting a minor variance to reduce the side yard setback requirements from 1.2 m to 0.786 m in order to construct an attached garage onto the existing dwelling. In regards to this application staff have considered 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. This proposal will provide the applicant an opportunity to construct an attached garage with an accompanying secondary entry door. The applicant indicated that in order to accommodate both a garage door as well as an entry door, the variance would be required to meet the minimum size requirements for each. Attached garages are very common on the surrounding area, and the proposed garage would fit in with the character of the neighbourhood. For these reasons, the proposed variance is minor in nature and is desirable for the appropriate development of the subject lands. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 252 NOVEMBER 20, 2007 Submission No.: A 2007-087, tCont'd The purpose of the required side yard setback is to ensure that there will be sufficient space to accommodate maintenance requirements, as well as adequate separation between neighbouring dwellings. The proposed garage will only decrease the setback by 0.432 metres and will still provide adequate space to meet any maintenance requirements. For these reasons, staff is of the opinion that the variance meets the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law. The housing policies of the Municipal Plan indicated that the City supports residents who wish to adapt their housing needs that change over time. In the case of this proposal, the applicant wishes to provide an attached garage that will also accommodate a secondary entry point, the width of which requires the side yard setback to be reduced. Given that there will still be adequate side yard space to allow for maintenance purposes, this application meets the general intent and purpose of the official plan. Staff note that during a site visit, photos were taken and there is currently an existing shed on the subject property at the location of the proposed attached garage. This shed would have to be removed or relocated. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner dated November 7, 2007, advising that they have no concerns with this application. The Committee considered the written submission from neightbourhood residents in opposition of this application. Mr. Sajkunovic advised that there is an existing single family dwelling on this property and the owners would like to construct an attached garage. They intend that the garage will fit in with the existing neighbourhood. He also advised that the owners have reviewed the staff report and are in agreement with the staff recommendation. With respect to the written submission from the neighbourhood residents, Mr. Sajkunovic advised that there will be proper drainage from the garage and water from the sump pump will remain on the applicants' property. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. A. Head That the application of Deb and Brian Freiburger requesting permission to construct an attached garage to have an easterly side yard of 0.786 (2.57') rather that the required 1.2m (3.93'), on Lot 739, Plan 1452, 30 Willow Green Court, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: 1. That the existing shed on the subject property shall be removed or relocated. 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 2007-088 Applicant: Brian Lougheed Property Location: 87 Lewis Crescent Legal Description: Lot 284, Registered Plan 1340 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 253 NOVEMBER 20, 2007 2. Submission No.: A 2007-088, tCont'd) Appearances: In Support: B. Lougheed Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission to construct an attached garage to have a rear yard of 4.29m (16.14 ft.) rather than the required 7.5m (24.6 ft.). The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated November 14, 2007, in which they advise the subject property is located on the north-west corner of Lewis Cres and Manor Drive. The property currently contains a single detached dwelling. The applicant would like to construct an attached garage inline with the dwelling and in the location of the existing driveway, as described in their application. To facilitate the construction of the garage, the owner is requesting a minor variance to allow a 4.29 metre rear yard setback whereas Zoning By-law 85-1 requires a minimum 7.5 metre rear yard setback. 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 subject lands are designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Municipal Plan. This land use designation permits single detached dwellings. The proposed variance meets the intent of the Municipal Plan. The subject lands are zoned Residential Three Zone (R-3) which requires a rear yard setback of 7.5 metres. The purpose of the 7.5 metre rear yard setback is to ensure adequate distance separation between neighbouring dwellings, and to ensure sufficient private amenity space to home owners. As a corner lot, the rear yard of the subject land appears from the street to be a side yard to the neighbouring property on Lewis Crescent and the proposed location of the garage is consistent with the required side yard setback. Also, the subject property has a fenced interior side yard and front yard (along Manor Drive) which appear to meet the owner's need for private amenity space. As such, staff feel that the proposed variance meets the intent of the zoning by-law. Staff feel that the variance is minor in nature and is appropriate for the development and use of the lands. It appears that the owner is already using the area immediately adjacent to the house, in the location of the proposed garage, for parking. Also, the garage addition will not significantly impact the useable private amenity space of the residents. The proposed garage is planned to be inline with the existing dwelling, and should not negatively impact the streetscape. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner dated November 7, 2007, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Mr. Lougheed advised that this property is a corner lot, and this yard functions as a side yard but the by-law considers it to be a rear yard. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. A. Head COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 254 NOVEMBER 20, 2007 2. Submission No.: A 2007-088, tCont'd) That the application of Brian Lougheed requesting permission to construct an attached garage to have a rear yard of 4.29m (16.14') rather then the required 7.5 (24.6'), on Lot 284, Plan 1340, 87 Lewis 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 3. Submission No.: A 2007-089 Applicant: Derek Beyers Property Location: 90 Lang Crescent Legal Description: Part Lot 59, German Company Tract, being Part 1 Reference Plan 58R-9116 Appearances: In Support: D. Beyers Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission to convert a 1 ~/2 storey house to a 2 storey house such that the second storey dormers will have a setback from Lang Crescent of 2.98m (9.77 ft.) rather than the required 4.5m (14.76 ft.), a setback from Springdale Drive for the second storey of 3.33m (10.92 ft.) rather than the required 4.5m (14.76 ft.), and legalization of a covered front porch having a setback from Lang Crescent of 2.38m (7.8 ft.) rather than the required 3m (9.84 ft.). The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated November 8, 2007, advising that the subject property is located at the corner of Lang Crescent and Springdale Drive, in the neighbourhood located north of Bridgeport Road and east of the Conestoga Parkway. The property is designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan and zoned Residential Three Zone (R-3). The subject property contains a 1 ~/2 storey single detached dwelling built in approximately 1935 and a large storage shed. The surrounding area is comprised of mainly one and two storey single detached dwellings built in the 1960s and 1970s. Staff visited the subject property on November 7, 2007. The owner is proposing to add a second storey addition to the dwelling, including two dormers. The addition would result in habitable space being created above a proposed covered porch. Staff had originally asked the applicant to amend the application to request a reduction in the minimum side yard abutting a street setback for the proposed second storey addition from 4.5 metres 3.33 metres. After further review, however, staff determined that the proposed habitable portion of the proposed addition to which the regulation applies (southerly dormer) is approximately 4 metres from the side yard rather than 3.33 metres. Consequently, in order to construct the proposed upper storey addition, staff has determined that the following variances are required: 1. Reduction in the minimum side yard abutting a street setback for the proposed second storey (southerly dormer) from 4.5 metres to 4.0 metres, COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 255 NOVEMBER 20, 2007 3. Submission No.: A 2007-089, tCont'd) 2. Reduction in minimum front yard setback for the proposed second storey (northerly dormer) from 4.5 metres to 2.98 metres, and 3. Reduction in the minimum front yard setback for the proposed porch attached to the dwelling from 3.0 metres to 2.38 metres. 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 and Zoning By-law for the following reasons. The variances would allow development that supports the maintenance and rehabilitation of existing housing stock, which is an objective of the Official Plan. One purpose of the front yard setback and side yard abutting a street setback is to ensure that any future road widenings may be taken without undesirable interference to existing buildings. In this case, Lang Crescent already has a width of approximately 20 metres along this stretch, whereas Schedule D of the Official Plan requires an ultimate width of only 18 metres. In addition, Transportation Planning has advised that there are no corner visibility concerns with respect to the proposed development. The proposed variances are desirable for the appropriate development of the land for the following reasons. As aforementioned, the variances would allow development that supports the maintenance and rehabilitation of the existing housing stock. Although the proposed addition would likely render the dwelling the closest to the street on Lang Crescent, the development would still be compatible in terms of massing, scale, design and relationship of housing to adjacent buildings and streets, especially since this is a corner lot. The proposed variances are minor for the following reasons. The impact on the adjacent property to the rear is negligible since it is zoned Hazard Land (P-3), which strictly limits permitted uses. The impact on the adjacent property to the north is also minor since the building line of the existing subject dwelling is already in front of the building line of the adjacent dwelling. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner dated November 7, 2007, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Mr. Beyer requested permission to amend this application as recommended by staff. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. A. Head That the application of Derek Beyers requesting permission to convert a 1 ~/2 storey house into a 2 storey house such that the second storey, northerly dormer, will have a setback from Lang Crescent of 2.98m (9.77') rather then the required 4.5m (14.76'), a setback from Springdale Drive for the second storey southerly dormer of 4m (13.12') rather they the required 4.5 (14.76'), and permission for a front porch to have a setback from Lang Crescent of 2.38m (7.8') rather then the required 3m (9.84'), on Part Lot 59, German Company Tract, being Part 1, Reference Plan 58R-9116, 90 Lang 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 256 NOVEMBER 20, 2007 3. Submission No.: A 2007-089, 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 4. Submission No.: A 2007-090 Applicant: 2145023 Ontario Inc. Property Location: 541 Queen Street South Legal Description: Lot 327, MCP of Lot 17, German Comgany Tract Appearances: In Support: S. Kay Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission to provide 10 off- street parking spaces for a health clinic, rather than the required 15off-street parking spaces. The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated November 13, 2007, in which they advise that the subject property is located on the on the east side of Queen Street South between the Iron Horse Trail and Mill Street. The applicant is proposing to use the existing building as a health office with a chiropractor and a medical doctor. The proposed use will require 15 parking spaces whereas only 10 spaces can be provided. The property is zoned Commercial Residential Two Zone (CR-2) with Holding Provision 20[Hj to prevent development which might frustrate the Region's ability to acquire the necessary lands and/or to construct the Queen/Benton Diversion. The property is also designated as Mixed Use Corridor in the Mill-Courtland Secondary Plan. The Mixed Use Corridor is intended to be transit supportive development and to serve the needs of the adjacent residential community. It is intended that fewer parking spaces are needed in the Mixed Use Corridor and as a result, a reduction of 5 parking spaces maintains the general intent of the Zoning By-law and the Municipal Plan. The purpose of requiring 1 parking space for every 15 square metres of health office space is to provide adequate parking for staff and customers to the property. Transportation Planning has noted that 12 spaces would be adequate to meet the needs of a facility of this size 85% of the time during peak periods and also that there is a lack of available on-street parking to meet the overflow needs of the business. Given the transit supportive aspects of the mixed use corridor, Planning staff believe that parking demands and need for off street parking will be lessened by customers that utilize the existing public transportation network and by customers that live in close proximity to the Mixed Use Corridor. The health office use should also promote alternative means of transportation by providing bicycle racks on site. As a result, the variances should not significantly impact the neighbouring properties; therefore, the effect of the variances are 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 257 NOVEMBER 20, 2007 4. Submission No.: A 2007-090, tCont'd) Transportation Planning has reviewed this application and can not support the parking variance as proposed. According to the "Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation" manual, a medical facility of this size will have an 85th percentile parking demand of 12 spaces, which means that during peak parking periods, 12 spaces would meet the needs of a facility of this size 85% of the time. There are multiple uses on site (chiropractor and medical doctor) that will attract separate patrons, which further creates concern for parking availability, as Transportation Planning does not feel that "staggered shifts" is a viable solution to the parking concern. Additionally, there is no on-street parking available in this area to handle overflow parking; therefore all parking must be housed on site. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner dated, November 7, 2007, advising that they have no concerns with the reduced parking; however, the applicant should be made aware that if any development application such as a site plan application is required for this property, a 13 foot road allowance widening will be required to be conveyed to the Region of Waterloo along Queen Street. As a result, the proposed sign shown at 2.4 metres from the Queen Street property line should be moved back 3.96 metres from the property line so that an encroachment will not be created in the future. In addition, the Region of Waterloo is proposing to widen Queen Street in this area in 2009. Mr. Parent advised that Transportation Planning staff used the "Institute of Transportation Engineer Parking Generation" to determine the parking demand, at peak times, for the use on this property. The determination is that 85% of the time, the maximum demand for parking for this site will be 12off-street parking spaces. Mr. Kay addressed the Committee asking them to take into consideration that this property is in downtown Kitchener, the property is on a bus route, and some patients will walk to this medical clinic. This medical clinic is operational at this time and the parking lot is functioning well with the 10 parking spaces. Further, there are parking spaces that don't meet the City's criteria but can still be used. With respect to the Region's report concerning a potential road widening, Mr. Kay advised that he has spoken to Mr. B. Page and has been advised that they do not have to go through a full site plan application for this parking lot, so he is not concerned about this potential road widening. Ms. von Westerholt advised that there are several ways to go through a site plan, and a full site plan application may not be required. She requested that no change be made to condition no. 1 as recommended by staff, and that Mr. Page be permitted to decide what will be required. The Chair commented that this situation is only a housekeeping issue for the parking and not a redevelopment of the site, and the City should not require a full site plan application. Mr. Kay requested an amendment to condition no. 2, as requested by staff, that the variance shall apply to a "health office use". Moved by Mr. A. Head Seconded by Mr. B. McColl COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 258 NOVEMBER 20, 2007 4. Submission No.: A 2007-090, tCont'd) That the application of 2145023 Ontario Inc. requesting permission to provide 10 off- street parking spaces for a health clinic rather then the required 15 off-street parking spaces, on Lot 327, MCP of Lot 17, German Company Tract, 541 Queen Street South, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the applicant shall submit any documentation required by the City's Supervisor of Site Plan Development and complete all related site development works prior to June 1, 2008, to the satisfaction of the City's Supervisor of Site Plan Development. No extension to this completion date shall be granted unless approved in writing by the City's Supervisor of Site Plan Development prior to June 1, 2008. 2. That the variance approved in this application shall only be permitted for a health office use on this property. Should the use of this property change, the variance approval will no longer apply and the parking requirements will be revisited accordingly. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried 5. Submission No.: A 2007-091 Applicant: Laurence Hewick Property Location: 904 King Street West Legal Description: Part Lots 300 & 301, Plan 385 Appearances: In Support: L. Hewick Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission to operate a personal service use in a building having a side yard of 0.12m (0.39 ft.) rather than the required minimum of 1.2m (3.93 ft.); a rear yard of 6.1 m (20 ft.) rather than the required 7.5m (24.6 ft.); a lot width of 14.3m (46.91ft) rather than the required 15m (49.2 ft.); with the use not to be located in a multiple dwelling, mixed use commercial- residential, residential care facility or building containing a minimum of 4700 sq. m. (50,592 sq. ft.) designed for office; and the use to occupy 100% of the building rather than the maximum permitted total of 20% of the building. The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated November 14 2007, in which they advise that the subject property is located on north side of King Street West between Pine Street and the City of Waterloo boundary. The zoning is CR-1 (Commercial Residential One) Zone under By-law 85-1 with an Official Plan designation of Mixed Use Corridor. The applicant is requesting permission to operate a personal service use in a building having a side yard of 0.12 m (0.39 ft) rather than the required minimum of 1.2 m (3.93 ft); a rear yard of 6.1 m (20 ft) rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft); a lot width of 14.3 m (46.91 ft) rather than the required 15 m (49.2 ft); with the use not to be located COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 259 NOVEMBER 20, 2007 5. Submission No.: A 2007-091, tCont'd in a multiple dwelling, mixed use commercial-residential, residential care facility or an office building with a minimum of 4700 sq.m.; and the use to occupy 100% of the building rather than permitted 20%. In regards to the variances staff has considered 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 Zoning By-law. The requested building setbacks are for an existing building and they were considered legal non-conforming for the previous use as a photography studio. The proposed use of the building for a personal service (hair salon) is no more onerous a commercial use and will not adversely affect the neighbouring commercial properties. The variance could be considered minor in nature. This portion of King Street is affected by aCity-initiated zone change that will permit personal service use in 100% of the building once it is implemented. Therefore it is the building setbacks in either zone that are the main concern of this request. As stated above, the building is existing and the new use is no more onerous than the previous use for this commercial property; therefore, staff is of the opinion that the request is minor in nature. The variance could be considered appropriate development and use of the land for the following reasons. The proposed commercial use is in keeping with the neighbouring properties and will not appear to adversely affect the enjoyment of the abutting properties. In regards to parking, it is noted that 3 parking spaces are required for a personal service use of 264.8 sq.m. as noted in the application. There are 3 separate parking spaces from the lane at the back of the property which will meet the parking requirement. There is an additional 3 to 4 angle parking spaces at the side of the building but are not considered legal as they can only be accessed by driving over the abutting lot. There is a right-of-way shown on the submitted survey but it does extend to the demarcated parking spaces at the side of the building. The applicant is advised that these spaces cannot be counted as parking provided on site. As well the applicant is advised that an Occupancy Permit is required for the new business. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner dated November 7, 2007, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. A. Head That the application of Laurence Hewick requesting permission to operate a personal service use in a building having a side yard of 0.12m (0.39 ft.) rather than the required 1.2m (3.93 ft.); a rear yard of 6.1 m (20 ft.) rather than the required 7.5m (24.6 ft.); a lot width of 14.3m (46.91ft) rather than the required 15m (49.2 ft.); with the use not to be located in a multiple dwelling, mixed use commercial-residential, residential care facility or building containing a minimum of 4700 sq. m. (50,592 sq. ft.) designed for office; and the use to occupy 100% of the building rather than the maximum permitted total of 20% of the building, on Part Lots 300 & 301, Plan 385, 904 King Street West, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 260 NOVEMBER 20, 2007 5. Submission No.: A 2007-091, tCont'd) 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried 6. Submission No.: A 2007-092 Applicant: Celeste Erckholdt C/O David Revill Property Location: 114 Breithaupt Street Legal Description: Part Lot 153, Plan 376 Appearances: In Support: A. Revill Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission to replace a one storey covered front porch with a setback from Breithaupt Street of 0.36m (1.18 ft.) rather than the required 6m (19.68 ft.), with the stairs from the porch to have a Om setback from Breithaupt Street rather than the required 3m (9.84 ft.). The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated November 9, 2007, in which they advise that the subject property subject property is located on the north side of Breithaupt Street, between Duke Street West and Weber Street West. The property is designated as General Industrial in the Municipal Plan and is zoned General Industrial (M-2). The property is currently used for a single detached dwelling, and the applicant is proposing to construct a new front porch with accompanying staircase. The applicant is requesting a minor variance to reduce the front yard setback requirements for an attached porch from 6.0 metres to 0.36 metres, and also to reduce the front yard setback requirements for a staircase from 3.0 metres to 0 metres. In regards to this application staff have considered 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 front porch is intended as a replacement for an old porch that has recently been removed for safety reasons. The original porch extended to within 0.36 metres of the front lot line, and the accompanying staircase encroached slightly onto City-owned land. The applicant has indicated that the proposed replacement porch will serve to provide a safe means of egress from the residence, and would also restore the streetscape presence previously enjoyed by the property. Photos were submitted that show several other single detached residences with similar porches immediately to the east of the subject property. The applicant has contacted the City Legal Services with respect to obtaining an Encroachment Permit to recognize the staircase that is proposed to protrude slightly onto City-owned land. Given that the proposed variance will allow the applicant to replace a porch that previously existed on the property, and the porch will be in keeping with surrounding residential uses, the proposed variance is therefore minor in nature and is desirable for the appropriate development of the subject lands. The purpose of the required front yard setback is to provide pleasing streetscapes and opportunities for landscaping in front yards for residential dwellings. However, in COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 261 NOVEMBER 20, 2007 6. Submission No.: A 2007-092, tCont'd) the case of the subject property, this dwelling and dwellings to the east are all legal non-conforming uses in a General Industrial Zone that have existed prior to the passing of the zoning by-law. The dwellings along Breithaupt Street in this area are all located very close to the street with front porches and stairs that are either at or encroaching beyond the property line. Furthermore, the proposed variance is merely allowing the applicant to re-construct a porch that had been previously existing but had to be removed because of safety concerns. For these reasons, staff is of the opinion that the variance meets the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law. According to the Municipal Plan, the subject property is designated General Industrial. Single detached dwellings shall be permitted in mixed industrial-residential areas that are designated as General Industrial. Given that the surrounding area consists of a mixture of industrial and residential uses, this application meets the general intent and purpose of the official plan. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner dated November 7, 2007, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Mr. A. Head Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of Celeste Erckholdt requesting permission to replace a one storey covered front porch with a setback from Breithaupt Street of 0.36m (1.18 ft.) rather than the required 6m (19.68 ft.), with the stairs from the porch to have a Om setback from Breithaupt Street rather than the required 3m (9.84 ft.), on Part Lot 153, Plan 376, 114 Breithaupt Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, with the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain an Encroachment Permit, satisfactory to the City's Legal Services, for the encroachment of the proposed staircase onto the City owned right-of-way at the front of the property. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried 7. Submission No.: A 2007-093 Applicant: Laurie and Harry Diwakar Property Location: 553 Lancaster Street West Legal Description: Part Lots 23 & 24, Plan 577 Appearances: In Support: L. Diwakar Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission for an existing building, to contain a dwelling unit and a home business, to have a right side yard of 0.52m (1.7 ft.) rather than the required 1.2m (3.93 ft.) and to provide the 3 required COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 262 NOVEMBER 20, 2007 7. Submission No.: A 2007-093, tCont'd) off-street parking spaces for the dwelling and home business in tandem rather then being accessible independently. The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated November 14, 2007, in which they advise that the subject property is located on west side of Lancaster Street West between General Drive and Lang Crescent. The zoning is C-2 (Neighbourhood Shopping Centre) Zone with Special Use Provision 2000 under By-law 85-1 with an Official Plan designation of Mixed Use Corridor. The applicant is requesting permission for an office and retail use in an existing building to have a right side yard of 0.52 m (1.7 ft) rather than the required 1.2 m (3.93 ft) and to provide the 3 required off-street parking spaces for the dwelling and the business in tandem rather then being independently accessible. It is noted by staff that public notice of the variance stated that the business is a home business. While the person operating the office and retail business is living in the building, the Zoning By-law does not permit retail as a home business. However, this property is located in a Commercial zone which permits office and retail as uses in their own right and there is a special provision in the zoning that permits the single family dwelling. Therefore to clarify, the uses for the property are one dwelling unit and an office and retail business. In addition, after consultation with the Traffic Division and the applicant, staff notes that the parking variance should be changed to "request permission for two parking spaces to be arranged in tandem and one parking space to be located 0.6 metres from the front lot line rather than the required 3 metres". Regarding the requested variances staff has considered 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 for the building setback meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent is to ensure that the location of the building will not adversely affect the abutting properties. The side yard setback for the residential use is legal non-conforming. The residential use of the building will continue and the new use for an accessory office and retail business will occupy 21% of the total building area. The business use will not have an adverse affect on the use of the building in this commercial area. Therefore it is staff's opinion that the intent of the Zoning By-law is being met. In regards to the parking variance, the Traffic Division does not support the original request for three tandem parking spaces. However there is an existing paved area in front of the building which would accommodate one parking space and it is requested that the variance be amended to permit one of the parking spaces in front of the building. This would result in the space in front of the building being located 0.6 metres from the front lot line rather than the required 3 metres for commercial parking spaces. This would meet the intent of the Zoning By-law with respect to parking as the parking space would not be used continuously for parking as the applicant has stated that clients' visits are not frequent. As well there is an existing parking space in front of the building for the residential purposes and the streetscape would not be negatively impacted by any additional parking space. The variance could be considered minor in nature and use of the land for the following reasons. The business is an accessory use to the person who lives in the building. The business is for the sale of cloth diapers and accessories. There will also be online sales as well as some walk in traffic. Two parking spaces are required for the business and can be accommodated on site with separate access. The third parking space is for the owner of the business who will not be using her vehicle while clients are at the property. Permitting the third space to be in tandem is considered minor. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 263 NOVEMBER 20, 2007 7. Submission No.: A 2007-093, tCont'd) The variance could be considered appropriate use of the land. The building is on the west side of Lancaster which is zoned C-2 (Commercial) from Lang Crescent to Bridge Street and the commercial use is therefore in keeping with the uses surrounding the property. Based on the above comments, Planning staff recommends that the application be approved provided the first tandem space is used for the residential component of the property. Transportation Planning has reviewed this application and can not support the variance as proposed, given that the nature of the business is short term retail, and could result in patrons being blocked in and inconvenienced. Transportation Planning would support 2 spaces in tandem and 1 additional space parallel to the tandem spaces (in front of the building), as long as the first tandem space was used for the residential component of the property. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner dated November 7, 2007, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Mr. A. Head Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of Laurie and Harry Diwakar requesting permission for an existing building containing a dwelling unit, and an office and retail use to have a right yard of 0.52m (1.7') rather then a side yard of 12m (3.93'), to permit 2 of the required parking spaces to be arranged in tandem and one parking space to be located 0.6m (1.96') from the front lot line rather than the required 3m (9.8'), on Part Lot 23 & 24, Plan 577, 553 Lancaster Street West, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, with the following condition: 1. That the owner shall ensure that the first tandem parking space shall be exclusively used by the residential component for this property. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried 8. Submission No.: A 2007-094 Applicant: Lotco Limited/Ritz Homes Property Location: 389 Robert Ferrie Drive Legal Description: Lot 101. Registered Plan 58M-384 Appearances: In Support: P. Mouradian R. Sajkunovic Contra: None COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 264 NOVEMBER 20, 2007 8. Submission No.: A 2007-094, tCont'd) Written Submissions: F. & R. Woodhall L.&MPhu C. Morton & L. Stearns-Morton S. & P. Bevan J. & M. Warren The Committee was advised that the applicant requests legalization of a house under construction to have a setback from Robert Ferrie Drive (side yard abutting a street) of 4.47m (14.66 ft.) rather than the required 4.5m (14.76 ft.), the attached garage to have a setback from Robert Ferrie Drive (side yard abutting a street) of 5.39m (17.68 ft.) rather than the required 6m (19.68 ft.), and a rear yard (yard opposite Marigold Court) of 7.32m (24 ft.) rather than the required 7.5m (24.6 ft.). The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated November 2, 2007, in which they advise that the subject property is located at the intersection of Robert Ferrie Drive and Marigold Court in the Doon South community. The property is zoned Residential Four (R-4) and designated as Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan. The property is being developed with a single detached dwelling for which the foundation has been poured and surveyed. The survey of the foundation identified the setback deficiencies and the need for Committee of Adjustment approval. The applicant is requesting three minor variances: to allow a single detached dwelling to have a side yard abutting a street of 4.47 metres rather than the required 4.5 metres, to allow a side yard abutting a street of 5.39 metres for that portion of the building used to accommodate off-street parking rather than the required 6.0 metres and to have a rear yard setback of 7.32 metres rather than the required 7.5 metres. 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 for the following reasons. The subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan which permits single detached dwellings. The minor reductions in building setback will not have any effect on the designation and as such, the intent of the Official Plan is maintained. The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law for the following reasons. The purpose of the 4.5 metre building setback in a side yard abutting a street is to maintain continuity along the streetscape and provide adequate separation between the public space and buildings. The 6.0 metre setback for that portion of the building used to accommodate off-street parking is to ensure there is adequate room for a vehicle to locate on the driveway without impacting the public right-of-way. In this particular case both variances for a reduction to the side yard abutting a street are minimal and will not impact the streetscape in any way. Visually the shortfall in setback would not be noticeable. The purpose of the 7.5 metre rear yard setback is to ensure there is adequate outdoor amenity space on the property. Again, the variance requested is negligible as the reduction will not impact the usability of the outdoor amenity space. Therefore, the intent of the By-law is maintained. The variance is minor for the following reasons. The property is being developed with a single detached dwelling for which the foundation has been poured. The resulting minor deficiencies in setback do not warrant the removal of the existing foundation and further, the minor reductions to setback for the building, garage and rear yard will not adversely affect any other property or the public right-of-way. The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land for the following reasons. The single detached dwelling is a permitted use and the reduction in setback will not create any undue hardship for the property owner or any adjacent COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 265 NOVEMBER 20, 2007 8. Submission No.: A 2007-094, tCont'd) property owner. Staff feels that legalization of the existing situation is the most appropriate course of action. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner dated November 7, 2007, advising that they have no concerns with this application. The Committee considered the written submissions from neightbourhood residents in opposition of this application. Moved by Mr. A. Head Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of Lotco Limited/Ritz Homes requesting legalization of a house under construction to have a setback from Robert Ferrie Drive (side yard abutting a street) of 4.47m (14.66 ft.) rather than the required 4.5m (14.76 ft.), the attached garage to have a setback from Robert Ferrie Drive (side yard abutting a street) of 5.39m (17.68 ft.) rather than the required 6m (19.68 ft.), and a rear yard (yard opposite Marigold Court) of 7.32m (24 ft.) rather than the required 7.5m (24.6 ft.), on Lot 101, Registered Plan 58M-384, 389 Robert Ferrie Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried CONSENT 1. Submission Nos.: 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 As no one appeared in support of this application, and as the applicant has not yet received final approval of the zone change for this property, the Committee agreed to defer its consideration of this application to its meeting scheduled for Tuesday January 15, 2008. 2. Submission No.: B 2007-036 Applicant: Cindy & Lawerance Witen Property Location: 63 Lydia Street Legal Description: Part of 162. Registered Plan 414 Appearances: In Support: C. & L. Witen COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 266 NOVEMBER 20, 2007 2. Submission No.: B 2007-036, tCont'd) Contra: D. Voight T. Coberan Written Submissions: L & P Hallman The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission to sever a parcel of land having a width of 9.507m (31.19 ft.), a depth of 12.7m (41.66 ft.) and an area of 116 sq. m. (1,248.65 sq. ft.) to be conveyed as a lot addition to 100 Chapel Street. The retained land will have a width on Lydia Street of 9.421 m (30.9 ft.), a depth of 28.04m (91.99 ft.), an area of 265 sq. m. (2,852.52 sq. ft.) and contains an existing one storey brick house. The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated November 7, 2007, in which they advise that the subject property is located at 63 Lydia Street near the northwest corner of Lydia Street and Chapel Street. The property currently contains a single detached dwelling which was likely constructed in the 1920's. The property is zoned R-5, 1290 and is designated Low Rise Conservation `A' in the Official Plan. Existing yard setbacks including the front yard and side yards can be considered legal under the Vacuum Clause of the zoning by-law. The applicant would like to sever a portion of the rear yard measuring 12.17 m by 9.507 m and convey the lands as a lot addition to 100 Chapel Street. The retained lands (63 Lydia St) while smaller, will still exceed the minimum required lot area (235 sq. m. required, 264 sq. m. provided) and rear yard setback (7.5 m required, 9.1 m provided). The proposed lot addition will help to increase the depth of the rear yard of 100 Chapel Street, which is currently only 5.26 m, (legalized by the Committee of Adjustment in 1985). Planning and Traffic staff conducted a site visit on Friday October 26th, 2007. The owner and applicant were in attendance at this meeting along with the owner of 61 Lydia Street. Concerns were raised by the owner of 61 Lydia Street with regards to the provision of the required off-street parking space in the rear yard and future impacts to the existing right-of-way. The subject property currently contains a single detached dwelling which requires one parking space. This parking space is currently provided in the rear yard and would continue to be located in the rear yard should the proposed severance be approved. A fence has already been constructed in the location of the proposed property line, and staff feel that there is sufficient space to accommodate a legal off-street parking space (2.6 x 5.5 m) within the new rear yard. The neighbouring property owner raised concerns that there is limited space should a future owner or tenant requires parking for more than one vehicle. Staff note that only one off-street parking space is required by the zoning by-law for a single detached dwelling. However, the R-5 zoning permits more intensive uses on the property including home businesses and duplexes. Staff caution the owner that if additional parking spaces are required, alternative parking arrangements may need to be explored. There is also a shared right-of-way registered on title of the subject lands which extends 1.07 m (3.5 feet) on either side of the property line between 61 and 63 Lydia, and extends about 24.5 m from front property line (approximately the length of the shared driveway -shown on the Severance Sketch). The proposed conveyance will not impact the right-of-way, which shall remain on title and will continue to provide access to parking in the rearyard of both properties. Staff also considered whether the required parking space measuring 2.6 x 5.5 m (8.5 x 18 feet) could be accommodated in the rear yard without encroaching on the right-of-way. Staff feel that the required space can be accommodated in the rearyard; however, the owner will need to extend the existing hard surface area by about 0.6 m beyond the existing width. This will allow for the 1.07 metre right-of-way and 2.6 metre wide parking space (a total width of 3.67 m from the property line). The parking space should COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 267 NOVEMBER 20, 2007 2. Submission No.: B 2007-036, tCont'd) have a minimum length of 5.5 m with adequate hard surface space for ingress and egress. 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, the lands front established public streets, and are compatible in size with the lots in the surrounding area. The size of the proposed parcels will be suitable for the uses as permitted by the R-5 zone and will help to eliminate the existing rear yard deficiencies at 100 Chapel Street. Both parcels of land are currently serviced with independent and adequate service connections to municipal services. 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. 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. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Planning, Housing & Community Services, dated November 7, 2007, in which they advise that they have no objection to this application. The Committee considered the written submission from neightbourhood residents addressing their concerns regarding the provision of parking on the subject property. Mr. Witen advised that they own 100 Chapel Street and when the subject property became available, they purchased it with the intent of lengthening their property at 100 Chapel Street. This application doesn't take anything away from 63 Lydia Street except part of the back yard. Mr. T. Coberan addressed the Committee advising that the biggest concern is reducing the size of the back yard at 63 Lydia Street. In doing so, 61 Lydia Street shares, and only has a mutual driveway with that property. A fence has been erected and it restricts parking at 61 Lydia Street. There is only a small garage at 61 Lydia Street, and in the past there was always adequate parking at 63 Lydia Street, now there is no provision for parking. Mr. D. Voight, owner of 61 Lydia Street, stated that he only has 8' to park, and there is always a problem to park there. He state that his garage abuts the side lot line between the two properties and is too small to accommodate a car. He has been parking in front of his garage, partly on the neighbour's property, which has never been a problem in the past. Now this new arrangement for parking at 63 Lydia Street causes him a problem. Mr. Witten responded that they have widened the driveway so that parking at 63 Lydia Street can move farther away from the lot line between the two properties. The Chair confirmed that the easements for the mutual drive will remain in place. Mr. McColl commented that if the neighbour wants to increase his parking area, he must do so on his own property. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. A. Head That the application of Cindy Witen requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a width of 9.507m (31.19') by a depth of 12.7m (41.66') and an area of 116 sq.m. (1,248.65 sq.ft.) as a lot addition to 100 Chapel Street, on Part Lot 162, Plan 414, 63 Lydia Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 268 NOVEMBER 20, 2007 2. Submission No.: B 2007-036, tCont'd) 1. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvements charges. 2. That the owner shall provide the Secretary-Treasurer with a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (microstation) format, as well as two full size paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file must be submitted in accordance with the City of Kitchener's Digital Design Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist. 3. That the land to be severed in this application shall be added to the abutting land at 100 Chapel Street, and title shall be taken in identical ownership, with all subsequent conveyances or transactions complying with subsections 50 (3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act. 4. That the owner shall increase the width of the rear yard hard surface area on the retain land, to a minimum of 3.67 (12') in width to accommodate the 1.07 (3.5') right-of-way and one legal off-street parking space having a minimum size of 2.6m (8.5') by 5.5m (18'), to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. 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 November 20, 2009. 3. Submission No.: B 2007-037 Applicant: Peter Vos Property Location: 628 New Dundee Road Legal Description: Part Lot 1. Beaslev's New Survey Appearances: In Support: K. Barisdale P. Vos J. Redmond Contra: None Carried Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission to sever a parcel of land having a width on New Dundee Road of 76.966m (252.51 ft.), a depth of COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 269 NOVEMBER 20, 2007 3. Submission No.: B 2007-037, tCont'd) 287.104m (941.94 ft.), and an area of 3.1964ha (7.86 ac.), together with an easement, across the New Dundee frontage of the retained land, having a width of 65.376m (214.48 ft.) by a depth of 10m (32.8 ft.) and an area of 653.76 sq. m. (7,037.24 sq. ft.), for servicing. This land is to be developed as part of a residential subdivision. The retained land will have a width on New Dundee Road of 65.376m (214.48 ft.), a depth on the easterly side of 124.94m (409.9 ft.) and will have an area of 0.7942 ha (1.96 ac.). The use of this property will continue as farm house/agricultural. The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated November 12, 2007, in which they advise that the subject property is located on the north of New Dundee Road, directly opposite Reichert Drive. The severed lands will form part of a Plan of Subdivision for Monarch Developments and will be developed through the subdivision process. The retained lands contain the homestead of Pieter Vos. The proposal is to sever the lands associated with the Plan of Subdivision known as 30T-07202, which has been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board (O.M.B.). The lands subject to the Plan of Subdivision are designated Limited Service Residential in the City of Kitchener's Official Plan and are currently zoned Agricultural Zone 1. The applicant is proposing to sever a parcel of land for future development as part of the subdivision and is also proposing an easement for servicing to the subdivision lands in order to facilitate the future development of these lands. The severed parcel has 76.99 metres of frontage on New Dundee Road and has an area of 3.19 hectares. The retained parcel has an area of 0.79 hectares and width of 65.37 metres. In addition, the applicant is proposing an easement across the frontage of the retained lands for future servicing associated with the development of the severed lands as a plan of subdivision. The easement has a length of 65.37 metres and a depth of ten metres for an area of 653. 7 square metres. Section 3.1.1.4 of the Municipal Plan permits development on lands on individual septic systems so long as the maximum density does not exceed 2.5 units per hectare. In addition, Section 3.1.1.5 v) requires that development proposals within the Limited Service Residential Designation be accompanied by Ecological Studies, grading and tree saving plans and servicing and water supply studies. As part of the Plan of Subdivision submitted, the applicant has conducted and provided the necessary environmental impact reports and in addition has provided a brief geotechnical report which indicates that the lot can be serviced with individual septic services and individual water supply. The Engineer from Naylor Engineering indicated that as a condition of the severance the location of the existing sewage system should be verified in order to ensure that the system is wholly contained on the retained lands and that the minimum 3.0 metre setback to the proposed boundary as set out in the Ontario Building Code is maintained. The subdivision will surround the retained lands once fully developed. As such the creation of a lot with the existing homestead on the retained lands would not impede the further development of the adjacent lands known as the Monarch Lands 30T- 07202. However, given that the proposed plan of subdivision has been appealed to the OMB and the proposed retained lands form part of the plan of subdivision, it would appear that the consent could not proceed independently until the appeal at the OMB has been dealt with, as staff would not wish to predetermine the outcome of the Plan of Subdivision through approval of this consent. The subject lands are zoned A1-Agricultural One and the proposed residential lot known as the retained lands meets the minimum lot size requirements for a residential lot, which is 0.4 hectares. The proposed lot is almost double this in size. With respect to the easement it is intended to facilitate the future development of the subdivision. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 270 NOVEMBER 20, 2007 3. Submission No.: B 2007-037, tCont'd) 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, staff is satisfied that the creation of the severed parcel is both desirable and appropriate. Planning staff notes that the severed lands will be subject to Subdivision Approval. Therefore the consent is not considered to be premature or pre-determining the outcome of future planning processes. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Planning, Housing & Community Services, dated November 7, 2007, in which they advise that they have no objection to this application. Ms. Barisdale addressed the Committee advising that she read the Development & Technical Services Department report, and she is concerned about their recommended deferral. Mr. Redmond addressed the Committee and provided an overview of the Vos family's contribution over time, to the Doon South community. He stated that this application represents rational planning for the long term use of land, and implements good planning processes. Mr. Vos will sell an appropriate amount of property to complete this last stage of the development of this area. Ms. vonWesterholt advised that if all the work in this area was near completion then it would be appropriate to proceed with this application, but the work is not near completion. She stated that it would not be appropriate to have a decision today that may predetermine the outcome of the appeals before the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB).She advised that if there were no appeals before the OMB, staff would not hesitate to recommend approval of this application. The appeals before the OMB will likely be heard in March 2008. Further, in addition to the appeals before the OMB, there is no community plan in this area. Mr. McColl commented that because the appeals to the OMB will be heard very shortly, this application should be deferred until the appeals have been decided. Mr. Redmond questioned the benefit or detriment of deferring this application. He stated that a decision on this application is very important. It is this Committee's responsibility to review applications on their planning merits. He questioned what the application would preclude or not preclude. To decide on this application does nothing to prevent the environmental issues from being addressed, or the subdivision. This Committee has the authority to make a decision with legitimate conditions; such as storm water management, fencing, etc. Mr. Redmond stated that staff's claim of prematurity and getting to completion of the planning process is a delay tactic on the part of the City. The Chair advised Mr. Redmond that the Committee takes offence to his statement to staff. Mr. Head put forward a motion to defer consideration of this application until the meeting scheduled in March 2008. The Committee agreed to defer its consideration of this application until its meeting scheduled for Tuesday March 18, 2008. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 271 NOVEMBER 20, 2007 ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 11:25 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 20th day of November 2007. Dianne H. Gilchrist Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment