HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2008-03-18COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
FOR THE
CITY OF KITCHENER
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD MARCH 1$, 200$
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. C. Balcerczyk and Messers D. Cybalski and B. McColl
OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. von Westerholt, Senior Planner, Mr. R. Parent, Traffic
Analyst, Mr. H. Gross, Director of Project Administration &
Economic Investment, Ms. D. Gilchrist, Secretary-Treasurer, Ms.
D. Hartleib, Administrative Clerk.
Mr. D. Cybalski Chair, called this meeting to order at 9:35 a.m.
MINUTES
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk
That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment, of February 19, 2008,
as mailed to the members, be accepted.
Carried
UNFINSHED BUSINESS
CONSENT
1. Submission No.: B 2007-037
Applicant: Peter Vos
Property Location: 628 New Dundee Road
Legal Description: Part Lot 1, Beasley's New Survey
Appearances:
In Support: G. Scheels
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
Following a brief discussion it was generally agreed by all parties that consideration of
this application by the Committee of Adjustment will take place on a date that is
agreeable to the applicant and the City staff.
2. Submission Nos.: B 2008-001
Applicant: South Kitchener Holdings C\O Trammellcrow Company
Property Location: 131 Goodrich Drive
Legal Description: Part Lot 10, Plan 1524 and Lot 4 & Part Lot 3, Plan
1522
Appearances:
In Support: B. Green
M. Fasken
Contra: J. Redmond
Written Submissions: None
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 31 MARCH 1$, 200$
2. Submission No.: B 2008-001 tCont'd)
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to convey a
parcel of land having a width on Wilson Avenue of 298.5m (979.33'), and average depth
of 217.5m (713.58'), and an area of 6.4 ha (15.8 ac.). This land contains an existing
warehouse. The retained land has a width on Goodrich Drive of 621 m (2,037.4'), a
depth of 517m (1.696.19'), and an area of 32.02 ha (79 ac.), and is intended to be used
as a consolidated maintenance facility.
The Committee was provided, this date, with a revised report from the Development &
Technical Services Department, dated March 17, 2008, in which they advise that the
subject property is located on the southeast corner of Goodrich Drive and Wilson
Avenue. The subject lands are in total about 38.5 ha in size and contain the former BF
Goodrich fire manufacturing plant. This site has been identified as the preferred
location for the new Consolidated Maintenance Facility (CMF). The CMF will occupy
slightly less than half of the site; therefore, the current owner intends to develop the
remaining lands with other industrial uses. Once final details regarding the CMF have
been confirmed, the owner expects to submit further consent applications to sever other
lands that are surplus to the City's needs.
At this time, the owner would like to sever a 6.4 ha portion of the lands which currently
contains an existing 30,000 sq. m. warehouse. The subject lands are currently
designated Heavy Industrial and are zoned Heavy Industrial Zone (M-4), which permits
the warehouse use. Staff notes that the owner has applied for a demolition permit to
demolish a portion of the building which straddles the proposed property line. Staff
requires that this portion of the building be removed to the satisfaction of the Chief
Building Official, prior to registration.
While this is a very large site, there are no new public roads required and as such staff
feels that its future development can proceed through a series of severance. However,
in order to ensure that the retained parcels of land will be able to function properly staff
requests that as conditions of consent the owner be required to submit a series of
Master Plans. These plans should address and communicate the overall concept for
the site, an overall Storm Water Management Plan and an overall Servicing Plan.
Previously, the conditions of consent required the preparation of a Scoped
Environmental Impact Statement and preparation of a comprehensive water
management plan on the lands to be retained. However, due to the deferral of this
Consent Application, these conditions have been shifted to the Site Plan Approval
process, as staff thought it wise to register these conditions on title at the first available
opportunity. As of the date this report was signed, preparation of a Site Plan Agreement
was underway, and is expected to be registered on title shortly. The effect of these
conditions remains the same: the owner will be required to complete the Scoped
Environmental Impact Statement and a comprehensive water management plan prior to
issuance of building permits on the lands to be retained.
There are also temporary easements required to sanitary services and for storm water
management as follows:
1. Sanitary Sewers -The retained lands are currently serviced with sanitary sewers
which run under the existing warehouse building (on the lands to be severed).
As part of the development of the CMF and other vacant lands, the owner is
proposing to install new sanitary service connections north of the proposed
property line. Additional easements may be required across the land to be
retained at a later date. Until the plans for the CMF are finalized, the owner
requires temporary easements for the pipes which run under the building. Staff
has considered this proposal, and can support it, provided the easements are
temporary and provided that arrangements are made to cap and decommission
these pipes. As such, special conditions have been added to this consent.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 32 MARCH 1$, 200$
2. Submission No.: B 2008-001 tCont'd)
2. Storm Sewers -Similar to the sanitary sewers, there are currently storm sewers
which run under the existing warehouse building on the lands to be severed, and
as above, staff can support temporary easements for these connections.
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. The size of the
proposed parcels will be suitable for the uses as permitted by the M-4 zone.
Appropriate arrangements have been made and conditions have been included to
address the servicing of the parcels. 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. Based on
the foregoing staff recommends approval of this application, subject to several
conditions.
It was noted that the Committee had previously received a report from the Development
& Technical Services Department, dated March 17, 2008, in which they had
recommended that this application be amended to include temporary easements for
servicing and aright-of-way for access; however, these amendments are no longer
being recommended.
Having received a copy of the first Development & Technical Services Department
report, dated March 17, 2008, recommending this application be amended, Mr.
Redmond stated that the Notice provisions of the Planning Act had not be complied
with. In support of his position, Mr. Redmond submitted a letter from Mr. M. Martins,
Gowlings, Barristers & Solicitors, dated March 18, 2008.
Mr. Green, agent for the applicant, advised that approval for the temporary easements
by the Committee of Adjustment is not required, and the right-of-way for access will be
decided at the site plan stage. He advised that the applicant is not requesting
permission to amend the application at this time.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning Housing &
Community Services, dated January 11, 2008, in which they advise that the Region's
"Protocal For the Review of Development Applications On Or Adjacent to Lands Which
Are Known, Suspected Or Potentially Contaminated" approved by Regional Council on
May 28, 1997, outlines that the granting of provisional consent, by the Committee of
Adjustment, on or adjacent to a known or suspected site will be required to complete a
Record of Site Condition acknowledged by the MOE.
The Region's contaminated sites database identifies the subject property as being a
known contaminated site. As the subject lands are situated within a Sensitivity 2 and 3
Wellhead Protection Area as designated on Map 4 of the Regional Official Policies Plan
(ROPP), the Regional Municipality of waterloo has a direct corporate interest which
would result in the Region requesting a Record of Site Condition imposed on its behalf.
Additionally, the site is also within the Surface Water Intake Protection Zone 2 for the
Hidden Valley Intake which supplies 25 percent of the Region's water supply. The
purpose of Map 4 and the corresponding policies contained in Section 5.2 of the ROPP
is to protect the Region's long term municipal groundwater supplies. In an attempt to
avoid potential future issues with this site under the Clean Water Act, the Region is
conveying this information for the City's consideration and would like the opportunity to
discuss this application in greater detail with City staff before providing final comments.
Transportation Planning staff from the Region of Waterloo and City of Kitchener have
met with the developer and their consultants to discuss the terms of reference of a
transportation study that will be required for this application and for the associated site
plan application. Region of Waterloo Transportation Planning staff are amenable to
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 33 MARCH 1$, 200$
2. Submission No.: B 2008-001 tCont'd)
deferring the implementation of the results of the transportation study to the site plan
application and have no objection to this consent application.
In summary, as there are a number of issues to be dealt with as they relate to
contamination associated with the site, Regional staff is recommending that this
application be deferred until further discussions between the applicant, City and Region
have taken place.
The Committee also considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Planning Housing
& Community Services, dated February 14, 2008, advising that further to their
comments dated January 11, 2008, Regional staff is now in receipt of additional
information relating to this property and now have no objection to Consent Application B
2008-001.
Mr. Redmond stated that the City should be taking a comprehensive approach to the
development of this land which will ultimately be developed into 7 different parcels of
land, and if shared driveways will be required, there is no clear indication of where they
will be located. There will ultimately be 5 internal roadways which will be used mutually,
between these 7 parcels. Further, access easements will have to be registered on title.
Mr. Green submitted the following written statement to the Committee this date:
"I represent South Kitchener Holdings Inc., the owners of the land who propose to
develop the former MichelinBF Goodrich site for industrial uses and has been
developing plans for the reuse of the existing warehouse building on Wilson Ave.
A site plan application was submitted to the city which will result in afree-standing
warehouse building with access and parking off of Wilson Ave. This represents the first
phase of redevelopment of the site. Shared access to Wilson Ave. is proposed with
sufficient parking, enhanced landscaping.
The purpose of the Consent is to provide a separate parcel for the registration of the
Development Agreement and to enable separate services to be brought to the site.
Services to the site were developed prior to the construction of this warehouse building
from Wilson Ave. A surveyor's sketch has been prepared to show the land to be
severed and the proposed easements.
The Planning Report recommends a number of conditions to ensure that temporary
easements are provided over existing services until new service connections are
established for the retained land and that shared access agreements are put in place.
A Master Concept Plan has been submitted to the city which shows how the site might
look at full development. This will provide the basis for the other required master plans
for servicing, storm water management and hydro-geology.
A Traffic Impact Study has been submitted that considers the proposed development of
the severed land with a five year forecast and a ten year forecast that assumes full
build-out of the entire site. No off-site road improvements are required to enable this
severance to proceed. Full development of the site will be dependent on the
construction of Wabanaki Drive which is scheduled for 2009.
The recommendation for approval has considered the proposed re-development of the
existing warehouse building within the context of the ultimate development of the
retained land and with the proposed conditions will provide the city a comprehensive
plan for the re-development of the entire site and in my opinion a plan of subdivision is
not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the site.
The proposed consent embodies the provincial policy which encourages municipalities
to intensify and re-develop urban sites and maintain designated employment land. The
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 34 MARCH 1$, 200$
2. Submission No.: B 2008-001 tCont'd)
proposed consent conforms with the policies and designations of the Regional Official
Plan and Kitchener Municipal Plan and in my opinion represents good planning for the
municipality."
Mr. Green addressed the Committee, displayed a concept plan for this property and
advised of the purpose of this application. He advised that the purpose of this
application is to create a parcel of land around Building "A". There are likely to be future
applications involving this property. With respect to comprehensive development, Mr.
Green advised that an application for site plan approval has been made. One of the
requirements of the site plan process is the submission of an overall concept plan,
which includes identification of the driveways to be shared by Buildings "A", "C" and "D".
The concept plan is a master plan and it has been submitted to the City. He advised
that there will be shared access at different times and development will take place at
different times. This Application for Consent is required in order to register the site plan
agreement and to allow for separate hydro connections.
Mr. Fasken advised that at this time the easements will be temporary and he is
comfortable with this short term arrangement.
With respect to the broader issues, Mr. Green advised that the master concept plan will
be a condition; the traffic impact study has been approved by the City and the Region;
Building "A" already exists, although some demolition is required to make it a
freestanding building. This application will not allow the development of more buildings,
as Wabanaki Drive has to be constructed before Buildings "F", "G" and "H" can be
constructed. Mr. Green stated that this application embodies the provincial policy, and
complies with the Region's and City's Official Plans.
The Chair clarified that the application before the Committee at this time is the original
application as submitted, and at this time there is to be no consideration of a shared
driveway, and there are no required amendments for easements.
Mr. Redmond stated that when he spoke with City staff the prior week, they indicated
that easements were required as part of a comprehensive development. He also stated
that a comprehensive plan approach to this property is appropriate planning procedure.
He stated that an ecological assessment and ahydro-geological assessment have not
been looked at. Further, endangered species have not been considered, and the traffic
impact has only been considered on an incremental basis, and this study has
recommended changes to Wilson Avenue which will impact other businesses.
Respecting heritage and archeological resources, the Ministry has not been contacted.
Mr. Redmond offered the opinion that there are other City Official Plan policies involving
the impact on the downtown and on other economic areas and other Official Plan
policies that have not been addressed. The Committee has to deal with other
subdivision issues when considering Applications for Consent and this Committee
needs to look at long term issues.
Ms. vonWesterholt responded that this application has site plan approval, in principle,
and many of the issues raised by Mr. Redmond have been addressed through the site
plan agreement. This proposal does require temporary easements which don't have to
be approved by this Committee. It is also a recommended condition for this application
that the owner apply to this Committee for aright-of-way, if required.
Mr. Green advised that he takes Mr. Redmond's concerns seriously and they have been
addressed through the site plan process, and they are well understood. Respecting
changes to Wilson Avenue, they will involve restriping the roadway to reduce lanes and
to add a bicycle lane. Respecting impact on the downtown, Mr. Green advised that this
is already an active industrial site with M-2 zoning. This is not a retail centre, and it will
continue to evolve as employment lands.
Mr. Redmond stated that he believes Mr. Green has considered many of the issues but
he has not considered all the things required by the Official Plan.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 35 MARCH 1$, 200$
2. Submission No.: B 2008-001 tCont'd)
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk
That the application of South Kitchener Holdings requesting permission to convey a
parcel of land having a width on Wilson Avenue of 298.5m (979.33'), and average depth
of 217.5m (713.58'), and an area of 6.4 ha (15.8 ac.), on Lot 4 & Part Lot 3, Plan 1522
and Part Lot 10, Plan 1524, 131 Goodrich Drive, Kitchener, Ontario BE GRANTED,
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall make arrangements satisfactory to the City of Kitchener for
the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local
improvement 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 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
parkland dedication equal to 2% of the value of the lands to be severed.
4. That the owner shall submit an overall Master Concept Site Plan for the entirety
of the lands, and obtain approval thereof from the Director of Planning.
5. That the owner shall demolish the existing building that straddles the property
line between the land to be severed and the land to be retained, to the
satisfaction of the City's Chief Building Official and Director of Planning.
6. That the owner shall submit, and receive approval of, an overall Storm Water
Management Master Plan for the entirety of the lands, from the City's Director of
Engineering.
7. That the owner shall submit, and receive approval of, an overall Servicing Master
Plan for the entirety of the lands, from the City's Director of Engineering.
8 That the owner shall submit a draft reference plan showing the proposed
temporary easements for sanitary and storm sewers, to be approved by the
City's Director of Planning and Director of Engineering.
9. That the owners of the lands to be retained and the lands to be severed shall
enter into an agreement, to be approved by the City Solicitor, which will ensure
that the temporary easements for servicing and storm water management and a
joint maintenance agreement for both properties are maintained, and provide
confirmation that said agreement has been registered against the title of both
properties.
10. That the owners of the lands to be retained and the lands to be severed shall
enter into an agreement, to be approved by the City Solicitor, and registered on
title, which will ensure:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 36 MARCH 1$, 200$
2. Submission No.: B 2008-001 tCont'd)
a) that arrangements are made to the satisfaction of the Director of
Engineering Services, to cap and decommission all pipes affected by the
temporary servicing easements as soon as permanent service
connections are available, and that the owner agrees to release interest in
any temporary easements and agrees to apply for and secure from the
Committee of Adjustment, if required, any future easements that may be
required for the retained lands as a result of future service locations and
enter into any required easement maintenance agreements, to the
satisfaction of the City Solicitor; and
b) that prior to Site Plan Approval on the lands to be retained, the owner
agrees to apply to the Committee of Adjustment for a shared right-of-way
over any shared driveways.
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 March 18, 2010.
Carried
3. Submission Nos.: B 2008-002
Applicant: Mike and Donna Milloy
Property Location: 93 Edgehill Drive
Legal Description: Part Lot 8, Beasley's Broken Front Concession, and Part Lot
Appearances:
In Support: None
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant requesting permission to sever a parcel
of land having a width on Edgehill Drive of 17.7m (58.07'), a depth on the easterly side
of 139.3m (457.02'), and on the westerly side of 152.799m (501.3'), and having an area
of 0.17 ha, (0.419 ac.), to be conveyed as a lot addition to 95 Edgehill Drive. The owner
also requests permission to keep aright-of-way over a portion of the severed land.
The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services
Department, dated March 11, 2008 in which they advise that the subject application was
originally scheduled for the February 19, 2008 Committee of Adjustment meeting. At
the meeting, the applicant requested that the Committee defer its consideration of this
application to its meeting of March 18, 2008, to allow her an opportunity to address
certain issues raised by City Staff.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 37 MARCH 1$, 200$
3. Submission No.: B 2008-002 tCont'd)
The applicant submitted a plan on March 11, 2008, prepared by an Ontario Land
Surveyor, demonstrating the approximate location of the septic bed located at 93
Edgehill Drive, the accurate dimensions of the land to be severed, and the accurate
proposed setbacks for the existing structures on both properties.
In order to allow staff time to review the plan, make comments, and prepare a report,
staff are requesting that the application be deferred until the April 15, 2008 Committee
of Adjustment meeting.
The Committee was in receipt of an e-mail from Ms. C. Baycetich, GSP Group, agent
for the applicant, agreeing to a deferral of the application to the Committee meeting of
April 15, 2008.
The Committee agreed to defer its consideration of this application to its meeting
scheduled Tuesday April 15, 2008.
This meeting recessed at 10:15 a.m. and reconvened 10:21 a.m. at with the following
members present: Ms. C. Balcerczyk and Messrs. D. Cybalski, B. McColl.
NEW BUSINESS
MINOR VARIANCE
1. Submission Nos.: A 2008-006
Applicant: Highland Corp.
Property Location: 155 Highland Crescent
Legal Description: Block 74, Registered Plan 1623
Appearances:
In Support: C. Dasil
R. Marti
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant requesting permission to develop a 34
unit townhouse complex with a floor space ratio of 0.75 rather than the permitted floor
space ratio of 0.6.
The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services
Department, dated March 10, 2008, in which they advise that the subject property at
155 Highland Crescent is a 0.7 ha (1.7 ac) parcel on the corners of Highland Road
West, Highland Crescent, and Fieldgate Street, in the planning community of Victoria
Hills. The parcel is currently vacant, and received site plan approval in principal under a
previous owner fora 25 unit development (SP/07/27/H/AP), with a variance for a
reduction in parking spaces from 44 to 31 (A 2007-004). The property is zoned R-6
under Bylaw 85-1, and has an Official Plan designation of Low Rise Residential. A site
visit was made by staff on March 4, 2008.
The current owner is proposing a 34 unit development, and is requesting a minor
variance to allow a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.75 whereas Zoning By-law 85-1
specifies a maximum FSR of 0.6. The Zoning By-law calculates the FSR by dividing the
building floor area by the lot area.
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.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 38 MARCH 1$, 200$
1. Submission No.: A 2008-006 tCont'd)
The variance meets the intent of the Official Plan for the following reasons. The subject
property is designated Low Rise Residential by the Official Plan, which permits a full
range of housing types and favours the mixing and integration of housing. The Low Rise
Residential designation states that "A maximum FSR of 0.6 shall be applied to multiple
dwellings and no residential building shall exceed three stories in height at street
elevation." The purpose of this statement is to control the massing of development,
ensuring that development is "low rise" and is at a low overall intensity of use. The 0.6
maximum FSR stated in the Official Plan is intended to be a guideline, rather than a
strict regulation, and all of the buildings are a maximum of three stories. Staff are of the
opinion that the proposed variance would allow development that would be classified as
"Low Rise Residential" development and would therefore meet the intent of the Official
Plan.
The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law for the following reasons. Along
with controlling the massing of the building as discussed above, the maximum FSR
requirement is partly used to ensure that adequate parking space, landscaping, amenity
space, and other on-site service can be provided. From the plan submitted, it appears
as though all of these issues can be resolved through the site plan approval process, as
the current plan includes adequate parking, a playground area, rear yard amenity areas,
and landscaping. Staff recommends that the variance be conditional on site plan
approval, in order to ensure any issues can be remedied.
The variance is minor for the following reasons. The increase in density would not have
an adverse affect on the surrounding neighbourhood, which has many similarly sized
dwellings. The FSR increase would not represent a change in density that would have a
major impact on the adjacent properties, especially when many of the surrounding
dwellings are at a similar density.
The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land for the following
reasons. Staff feels that the proposed development fits in with the surrounding
neighbourhood of single detached dwellings and medium density residential, and is of
an appropriate use. The stretch of Highland Road from Westmount to Fischer Hallman
has similar densities around it, and the proposed development would fit well into the
neighbourhood. The area is quite close to two of Kitchener's planned intensification
areas and would contribute to the built area intensification requirements of Places to
Grow.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner,
dated March 10, 2008, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Mr. Martins explained the application, noting they propose to develop something a little
different, that he believes will fit in well with the area.
Moved by Ms. C. Balcerczyk
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Highland Corp. requesting permission to develop a 34 unit
townhouse complex with a floor space ratio of 0.75 rather than the permitted floor
space ratio of 0.6, on Block 74, Registered Plan 1623, 155 Highland Crescent,
Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition:
1. That the owner shall receive approval of a site plan for the proposed
development from the City's Supervisor of Site Plan Development.
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 39 MARCH 1$, 200$
1. Submission No.: A 2008-006 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
2. Submission Nos.: A 2008-007
Applicant: Michael Stephen Brown and Bradley Allan Barbour
Property Location: 104 Hawkswood Drive
Legal Description: Part of Block 3, Registered Plan 58M-181, being Part 18,
Reference Plan 58R-12958
Appearances:
In Support: L. Sprott
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant requesting legalization of a single family
dwelling having a front yard setback, at the front left corner, of 4.42m (14.5') rather than
the required 4.5m (14.76').
The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services
Department, dated March 10, 2008, in which they advise that the subject property is
located on Hawkswood Drive, a residential street in the Bridgeport North planning
community. The applicant is seeking to have minor variance approval for a reduced
front yard setback for the existing building. A site visit by staff was made on March 4,
2008. The Official Plan designation is Low Rise Residential and the zoning is
Residential Three (R-3) under By-law 85-1, with the 305R and 307R provisions. The
applicant is requesting minor variance approval to have a front yard setback of 4.42 m
(14.50 ft) rather than the permitted 4.50 metres (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 Official Plan and Zoning By-law for the following
reasons. The intent of Low Rise Residential designation is to have homes of a lower
density and massing, and this existing home is single detached and fits in the
neighbourhood. The intent of the zoning bylaw is to provide proper distance from the
street and to create an attractive streetscape. This property is only over the setback
slightly because of a curve in the road, and otherwise the building meets the front yard
setback and maintains the intent. There is no visible difference in the setback between
this property and its neighbours.
The variance is minor because allowing this setback would not have an adverse effect
on the neighbourhood, and it remedies an existing situation where no complaints have
been received to date. The difference between the requested setback and the
permitted setback is only 8 cm (3.1 inches) and is almost within the tolerance for which
the City of Kitchener would not compel compliance.
The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land because the
building already exists and is the type and in the location that fits in with the surrounding
residential properties.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner,
dated March 10, 2008, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 40 MARCH 1$, 200$
2. Submission No.: A 2008-007 tCont'd)
Ms. Sprott advised that because the front lot line is on an arc, and because the lot
narrows from front to rear, a variance has been created at the westerly corner at the
front of the house. She advised that most of the house does meet the 4.5m setback
requirement from the street.
Moved by Ms. C. Balcerczyk
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Michael Stephen Brown and Bradley Allan Barbour requesting
legalization of a single family dwelling having a front yard setback, at the front left
corner, of 4.42m (14.5') rather than the required 4.5m (14.76'), on Part of Block 3,
Registered Plan 58M-181, being Part 18, Reference Plan 58R-12958, 104 Hawkswood
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 applicati on 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 Nos.: A 2008-008
Applicant: Canuck Properties
Property Location: 4195 King Street East
Legal Description: Part Lot 9, Beasley's Broken Front Concession, being Part
8, Reference Plan 58R-5596
Appearances:
In Support: S. Patterson
H. Perlmutter
Contra: L Burke K. Pettigrew
G. Nicholls R. Nash
D. Nicholls A.W. Van Gastel
J. Crane J. Pinchin
C. Farwell A. Pruski
J. Leat D. Brenton
T. Ball B. McNichol
H. Lorentz S. Melloz
Written Submissions: None
Prior to the Committee's consideration of this application, Mr. B. McColl advised that he
had been involved in neighbourhood discussions on the proposed development of this
property as a carwash, but as soon as he become aware that this application was
coming before this Committee, he ceased his involvement in the neighbourhood
discussions. He also stated that his property does not abut the subject property, and he
does not have a pecuniary interest in this application.
The Committee was advised that the applicant requesting permission to develop this
property with an automatic car wash on a lot having a width of 29.3m (96.12') rather
than the required 38m (124.67') and a lot area of 1,748.8 sq. m. (18,824.54 sq. ft.)
rather than the required 2,250 sq. m. (24,219.59 sq. ft.), and permission to provide a
loading space to have a depth of 9.5m (31.16') rather than the required 10.7m (35.1').
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 41 MARCH 1$, 200$
3. Submission No.: A 2008-008 tCont'd)
The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services
Department, dated March 10, 2008, in which they advise that the subject property is
located on the north side of Deer Ridge Drive, extending from King Street East to Grand
Hill Drive. There are residential properties to the west, underdeveloped commercial land
to the north, and a proposed bank with adrive-through across the street to the south.
The property was originally part of the parcel across Deer Ridge Drive, but was
separated because of expropriation as part of the construction of that road.
The applicant is proposing to construct an automatic car wash, and is requesting relief
from the regulations of the zoning bylaw in order to accommodate this use. There is a
concurrent site plan application SP08/04/K/BB for the car wash. The site plan is
scheduled to be reviewed at the Site Plan Review Committee meeting on March 12,
2008. A site visit was made by staff on March 4, 2008.
The property has C-6 zoning (Arterial Commercial Zone) under Zoning By-law 85-1,
which permits a car wash. The property is designated in the Official Plan as Service
Commercial. This designation no longer exists in the Plan as a result of a restructuring
of Kitchener's commercial policies. The designation for this area was deferred by
Council on August 27, 2001 at the request of residents in order to allow for additional
consultation with neighbourhood residents. There has been no re-designation since that
time so the previous Service Commercial policy under the 1994 Official Plan applies to
the property, which permits the proposed use.
The applicant is requesting minor variance approval to allow a minimum lot width of
29.3 m (96.1 ft) rather than the required 38.0 m (124.7 ft), a minimum lot area of 1748.8
sq m (18,824 sq ft) rather than the required 2250 sq m (23,681 sq ft) and a loading
space of 3.0 m x 9.5 m (9.8 ft x 31.2 ft), rather than the required 3.0 m x 10.7 m (9.8 ft x
35.1 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 variances meet the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-
law for the following reasons. The intent of the Service Commercial designation of the
1994 Official Plan is to provide for a broad range of commercial and industrial uses that
rely on business and exposure from the travelling public. The proposed use for a car
wash is one that relies on drive-by traffic and meets the intent of the Official Plan.
The general intent and purpose of the zoning bylaw is to allow for arterial commercial
development such as carwashes, while ensuring that there is adequate room for
parking, vehicle waiting spaces, buildings, loading and site circulation. As a corner lot,
the lot width is measured along the shorter street frontage, being Grand Hill Drive.
However, for practical purposes the lot has approximately 60 m of developable width
along the Deer Ridge Drive frontage. The proposed site plan appears to meet all of the
requirements for the site elements, so the reductions in lot area and lot width are
acceptable subject to site plan approval. Transportation staff is supportive of the
reduction in the length of the loading space, but recommends that the proposal be
subject to site plan approval.
The effect of the variances is to allow the development of the property on its own
without having to be consolidated with the adjacent lot. This effect is minor because the
proposed site development is functional and acceptable with or without the
consolidation.
The variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land for the following
reasons. The auto-oriented use is similar to many others along King Street near
Sportsworld, and would not have an adverse impact on the neighbourhood as the
volume of traffic should be low. Screening can be provided through site plan control to
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 42 MARCH 1$, 200$
3. Submission No.: A 2008-008 tCont'd)
implement a visual barrier between the residences across Grand Hill Drive and the
carwash building.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner,
dated March 10, 2008, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Mr. Patterson, agent for the applicant, advised the Committee that he is in support of
the staff recommendation. He stated that the intent of this application is to legalize an
undersized lot that was created through the installation of Deer Ridge Drive, and also to
permit a reduced size of the loading dock.
Mr. Burke addressed the Committee advising that he owns property at the corner of
Grand Hill Drive and Wagon Street, which is diagonal to the subject property. He stated
he has great concern about the noise that will be generated from an automatic car
wash. Car washes are usually well used on the nicer days of the year, which will affect
his family's enjoyment of their property. He is concerned that there will be no staff on
site and that the car wash will operate 24 hours a day, every day of the year. He also
anticipated that there will be pollution problems caused by having cars line-up to enter
the car wash. Mr. Burke advised that lighting will also be a problem, as the subject
property is at a higher elevation than his property, and in addition to the lighting of the
property, there will be problems with car headlight because of the location of the
driveway on this property.
Mr. G. Nicholls was in attendance on behalf of the Grand Hill Village Association, in
opposition to this application. He noted the first two tests, outlined in Section 45 of the
Planning Act, which must be met by any Application for Minor Variance, if the
application is to be approved. In reviewing these two tests, Mr. Nicholls referred to the
case of Vincent vs. Degasperis, Ontario Superior Court of Justice on 8 July, 2005,
where Mr. Nicholls quoted the presiding judge as having said "To be a minor variance
according to the definition of `minor' given in the Concise Oxford Dictionary, the
variance must be lesser or comparatively small in size or importance. It therefore
follows a minor variance can be more than a minor variance for two reasons, namely,
that it is too large to be considered minor or that it is too important to be considered
minor."
Mr. Nichols advised that the Grand Hill Village Association is opposed to this
application. He noted that the lot area is 28% less than what the by-law requires and
the lot width is 31 % less, and variances of this magnitude are not minor. Further the car
wash facility will change the environment of the neighbours, and it is not an unimportant
variance. He was of the opinion that the application does not meet the first test.
Respecting the second test a minor variance must meet, Mr. Nicholls quoted from the
judgement of the Ontario Superior Court in Vincent vs. Degasperis as follows: "The
second test includes a consideration of the many factors that can affect the broad public
interest as it relates to the development or use of the land." Mr. Nicholls explained that
the second test deals with desirability for appropriate development, and how the
application affects broad public interests. This application will affect three
neighbourhoods and all of them oppose this development. The application will affect
the broad public interest by way of creating noise and pollution; therefore, the
application does not meet the second test for considering Applications for Minor
Variance as required by the Planning Act, and Mr. Nicholls requested that the
Committee refuse this application.
At this point, Mr. Burke submitted a petition signed by 52 area residents in opposition to
this application.
Ms. vonWesterholt stated that the variances requested are appropriate, keeping in mind
the shape and size of the parcel of land. Further, the lot size is not determined by use.
This development has been through the required site plan process.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 43 MARCH 1$, 200$
3. Submission No.: A 2008-008 tCont'd)
The Chair stated that the Committee must consider the variances requested, and are
not in a position to determine use. Further, matters of site development are considered
through the sit plan approval process.
Mr. Nicholls responded that a 30% reduction is not a minor variance; also, reduction in
size is not the only consideration.
Ms. vonWesterholt stated that the minimum lot area as established in the zoning by-law
is there to achieve consistency throughout the City. However, zoning can not deal with
site specific issues such as irregular lot configurations. The use of this property as a
carwash is permitted and has been permitted since 1994. This property is slated for
arterial commercial use and a carwash is a permitted use in the designation.
Mr. D. Brunton was also in attendance on behalf of the Grand Hill Village Association,
and he addressed the third and fourth tests outlined in the Planning Act that a minor
variance must meet. He first reviewed the 2 tests identified by Mr. Nicholls, noting the
opinion that this variance is not minor and is not in the public interest.
Mr. Brunton then considered the third test being whether approval of the variance would
meet the general intent of the zoning by-law. He noted that staff is of the opinion that
the intent is to maintain minimum lot size and consistency across the City. The
Committee's judgement requires analysis of the zoning by-law regarding general intent.
Mr. Brunton then reviewed the fourth test being that the variance must meet the general
intent and purpose of the Official Plan. Mr. Brunton then quoted from Vincent vs.
Degasparis: "incumbent... to consider each of these requirements and, in its reasons,
set out what may be reasonably necessary to demonstrate that it did so and that, before
any application of variance is granted, it satisfied all of the requirements."
Mr. Brunton then stated that even if all four tests have been satisfied, the statute is a
permissive statute and the Committee may decline an application even if it meets the
four tests.
Ms. J. Leat next addressed the Committee advising of her opposition to this application.
She referred to the City's Official Plan/Municipal Plan, noting the proposed carwash will
be in a mixed use corridor. The Municipal Plan, Part 3 General Land Use Plan, Section
4 Commercial Area states that new developments shall be compatible with surrounding
residential neighbourhoods. She offered the opinion that an automatic carwash
because of noise, lights and a 24 hour operation, is not compatible with a residential
neighbourhood.
Ms. Leat then referred to Part 2 General Policies, Section 6 Urban Design, offering the
opinion that several of these urban design policies, such as "high standard of site
design", "ensure that existing trees of desirable species...Be incorporated into the plans
for new development" and "implementation will be achieved through cooperation
amongst the developers, property owners and residents" have not been met. Ms. Leat
then referred to the City's Strategic Plan asking what its relationship is to the Municipal
Plan.
The Chair questioned whether there would be an objection to this application if the
proposed use was anything other than a carwash. The neighbours generally agreed
that they would not be opposed to a row of retail shops on this property. The Chair
pointed out that any permitted use for this property would require a variance for lot width
and area.
Mr. Nicholls stated that from an overall planning perspective, this property should be
combined with the adjacent lot. He noted that the only access to/from this property is
from Deer Ridge Drive, and this will cause traffic confusion. He stated that the owner
should combine these lots and develop something that is compatible with the
neighbourhood.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 44 MARCH 1$, 200$
3. Submission No.: A 2008-008 tCont'd)
Mr. Patterson noted that if such a proposal was an option, the carwash could be
developed without Committee of Adjustment approval.
Ms. vonWesterholt stated that the term "minor" is subjective and there is no definition in
the Planning Act as to how much is minor. Each application is reviewed on a case by
case basis. Mr. Brunton responded that there clearly is guidance as to what is "minor"
through Vincent vs. Degasperis.
Mr. Patterson advised the Committee that he heard these same concerns from the
residents at a meeting the previous week, and assured that their concerns will be
addressed through the site plan.
The Chair questioned the possibility of landscaping in the areas closest to the
residential neighbours. Mr. Patterson responded that landscaping was discussed at the
site plan meeting, and screening will be provided as well as addressing issues of noise
and lighting. Ms. VonWesterholt advised that the City has stringent requirements for
lighting, landscaping and screening that will address some of the neighbours' concerns.
Ms. D. Nicholls addressed the Committee advising that at the meeting she attended last
week, the applicant stated that they are good neighbours. From her perspective, this
good neighbour wants to pollute the air and water, and they will only employ one person
on a part-time basis. This City's air quality is already the worst in the province. She
stated that if the neighbours don't like the decision this Committee makes, their only
option will be to appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board. She asked that this Committee
stand-up for the quality of life in the City of Kitchener.
Mr. B. McNichol addressed the Committee on behalf of the Pine Grove Neighbourhood
Association, in opposition to this application. He advised that he has lived at his current
address since 1959, and he hoped that the City would restrict commercial zoning to the
north side of King Street. He stated that he lives within 500' of the carwash at the Shell
Station and in the summer he can not use his property because of the noise. He
advised that he has been told that the proposed carwash is a superior type of carwash.
This property is on an angle/raised elevation. When a property is raised, you broadcast
noise and light. This use needs to be buffered, and the lot area pertains to proper
buffering on the site.
Ms. J. Crane advised the Committee that there are already traffic issues involved in
getting in and out of Grand Hill Village. A traffic study was conducted some time ago
but there has been increased traffic and development since that time. Also, she
advised that many properties in this area have private wells and they are concerned
with water treatment for this site. Further, this will be the fourth carwash in the area.
Ms. Crane stated that the neighbours are concerned about business hours, the type of
business and the appearance of the property. She noted that the site plan for this
development has been approved, subject to conditions, and she questioned whether
this is really appropriate development.
Ms. D. Nicholls again referred to the potential for noise problems, noting that a
substantial number of trees will be required in order to buffer noise, and the fact that the
reduced lot area will not allow for this. She also reminded the Committee that in the
City of Kitchener, air pollution is the worst in the province.
Mr. McColl stated that the problems with this property started when these properties
were divided by the road. He stated that regardless of use, other concerns such as
noise, are not considered by this Committee. He stated that the loading dock is not an
issue but the lot width and area are. He stated that the use is not relevant to the
Committee, but it is to the neighbours. There are also traffic, noise and lighting issues.
He advised that he cannot support the lot width and area variance as they do not meet
three of the four tests outlined in the Planning Act. He put forward a motion that this
application be refused.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 45 MARCH 1$, 200$
3. Submission No.: A 2008-008 tCont'd)
Ms. C. Balcerczyk noted that consideration of an Official Plan designation for this
property was in front of City Council in 2001 and nothing has been done about it since
that time. Further, when considering the size of the property, something should have
been done about it at the time this lot was created. She was of the opinion that this
application does not meet the tests in the Planning Act.
Mr. Patterson stated that the applicant has clearly shown through the site plan that all of
the requirements of the zoning by-law and Official Plan have been met.
The Chair stated that this situation was not dealt with properly when this lot was
created. There are buffer requirements to protect the neighbours, and additional land is
needed in order to provide an adequate buffer.
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk
That the application of Canuck Properties requesting permission to develop this
property with an automatic car wash on a lot having a width of 29.3m (96.12') rather
than the required 38m (124.67') and a lot area of 1,748.8 sq. m. (18,824.54 sq. ft.)
rather than the required 2,250 sq. m. (24,219.59 sq. ft.), and permission to provide a
loading space to have a depth of 9.5m (31.16') rather than the required 10.7m (35.1'),
on Part Lot 9, Beasley's Broken Front Concession, being Part 8, Reference Plan 58R-
5596, 4195 King Street East, Kitchener, Ontario, BE REFUSED.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variance requested in this application is not minor in nature.
2. This application is not desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan is not
being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
This meeting was recessed at 11:30 a.m. and reconvened at 11:40 a.m. with the following
members present: Ms. C. Balcerczyk and Messers D. Cybalski and B. McColl.
4. Submission Nos.: A 2008-009
Applicant: Cesar and Angelina Gonzalez
Property Location: 261 Maple Avenue
Legal Description: Part Lot 2, Plan 763
Appearances:
In Support: D. Sewers
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission to construct an
attached garage to have a southerly side yard of 0.61 m (2') rather than the required
1.2m (3.93').
The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services
Department, dated March 10, 2008, in which they advise that the subject property is
located on the west side of Maple Avenue just north of Guelph Street. The property
currently contains a single detached dwelling. The applicant would like to construct an
attached garage extending approximately 2.1 metres beyond the dwelling facade and in
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 46 MARCH 1$, 200$
4. Submission No.: A 2008-009 tCont'd)
the location of the existing driveway. To facilitate the construction of the garage, the
owner is requesting a minor variance to allow a 0.61 metre side yard setback whereas
Zoning By-law 85-1 requires a minimum 1.2 metre side 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 Conservation A by 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 Five Zone (R-5) which requires a side yard
setback of 1.2 metres. The purpose of the 1.2 metre side yard setback is to ensure
adequate distance separation between neighbouring dwellings. The affected side yard
of the subject land abuts an adjacent property zoned Residential 6 Zone (R-6) and the
proposed location of the garage is consistent with all other required yard setbacks for
the subject property. As such, staff feels that the proposed variance meets the intent of
the zoning by-law.
Staff feels 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. Furthermore,
the garage addition will not significantly impact the useable private amenity space of the
residents. The proposed garage is planned to extend approximately 2.1 metres beyond
the fagade of the existing dwelling maintaining the required front yard setback, and
should not negatively impact the streetscape.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner,
dated March 10, 2008, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Upon questioning by the Committee, Ms. vonWesterholt advise that staff consider a
0.61 m side yard is sufficient for maintenance.
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk
That the application of Cesar and Angelina Gonzalez requesting permission to construct
an attached garage to have a southerly side yard of 0.61 m (2') rather than the required
1.2m (3.93'), on Part Lot 2, Plan 763, 261 Maple Avenue, 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 Nos.: A 2008-010
Applicant: Nicolas Vizirtzoglou
Property Location: 104 Centennial Road
Legal Description: Lot 4, Plan 1698
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 47 MARCH 1$, 200$
5. Submission No.: A 2008-010 tCont'd)
Appearances:
In Support: N. Vizirtzoglou
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant requesting legalization of an existing
shed having a side yard of 0.5m (1.64') rather than the required 1.2m (3.93').
The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services
Department, dated March 10, 2008, in which they advise that the subject property is
located at 104 Centennial Road, in the Grand River North planning community near
Victoria Street North and Lackner Boulevard. The property backs onto Kolb Park and
the Grand River, and is used for a landscaping supply depot. The applicant is seeking
approval for a reduced side yard setback for an existing shed on the property. A site
visit by staff was made on March 4, 2008.
The Official Plan designations are General Industrial and Open Space (the proposal is
in General Industrial part), and the zoning is General Industrial Zone (M-2) under By-law
85-1, with the 31 R and 63R provisions.
The applicant is requesting minor variance approval to have a side yard setback for a
shed of 0.5 m (1.64 ft) rather than the permitted 1.2 m (3.94 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 Official Plan and Zoning By-law for the following
reasons. The intent of the Official Plan Designation is to provide for a wide range of
industrial uses that includes storage, and this variance would help to continue the
existing landscaping use by permitting the storage building. The intent of the zoning
bylaw is to provide space between the lot line and the building for maintenance and to
minimize conflicts between uses. The reduced setback will still allow maintenance to the
rear of the sheds, and a fence behind the shed prevents conflicts with the neighbouring
property.
The variance is minor because it would not have an adverse impact on surrounding
lands. The setback is only reduced by about two feet, and it is necessary since the
building has already been constructed.
The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land because the
building already exists and is the type and in the location that fits in with the surrounding
industrial properties.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner,
dated March 10, 2008, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Mr. Vizirtzoglou advised that the shed is adjacent to Kolb Park.
The Committee noted the comments from the City's Building Division that a building
permit is required.
Moved by Ms. C. Balcerczyk
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 48 MARCH 1$, 200$
5. Submission No.: A 2008-010 tCont'd)
That the application of Nicolas Vizirtzoglou requesting legalization of an existing shed
having a side yard of 0.5m (1.64') rather than the required 1.2m (3.93'), Lot 4, Plan
1698, 104 Centennial Road, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the
following condition:
1. That the owner shall obtain building permit # 07 119694 for this shed.
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
6. Submission Nos.: A 2008-011
Applicant: Tyler Lessard and Dawn McPhail
Property Location: 19 Maynard Avenue
Legal Description: Part Lots 177 and 181, Plan 374 and Part Lot 56, Streets
and Lanes
Appearances:
In Support: T. Lassard
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant requesting permission to construct an
addition to the rear of the existing single detached dwelling to extend into the rear yard
beyond the extent of the existing dwelling, whereas the by-law only permits an
extension into a yard to the extent of the existing building; and to permit the gross floor
area of the addition to be 34% of the gross floor area of the existing building, rather than
the permitted 25%.
The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services
Department, dated March 10, 2008, in which they advise that the subject property is a
single family dwelling located in the Civic Centre Neighbourhood. It has been noted as
having heritage significance, and is within the Civic Centre Heritage Conservation
District. The owner is proposing an addition at the rear of the dwelling. A site visit by
staff was made on March 7, 2008.
The Official Plan designation is Low Rise Residential Preservation, under the Civic
Centre Secondary Plan, and the zoning is R-5 under Zoning Bylaw 85-1, with the 1270
provision that limits the scale of additions.
The applicant is requesting minor variance approval to have a side yard setback of 0.7
m (2.3 ft) rather than the permitted 1.2 m (3.9 ft); to permit an addition to the rear of the
structure to extend beyond the extent of the existing dwelling, whereas the bylaw would
only permit an extension into the yard to the extent of the existing building; and to permit
the Gross Floor Area (G FA) of the addition to increase to 34% of the GFA of the existing
building rather than the permitted 25% for an addition.
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.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 49 MARCH 1$, 200$
6. Submission No.: A 2008-011 tCont'd)
The variances meet the intent of the Official Plan for the following reasons. The intent
of the Official Plan designation is to retain the existing single detached character of the
residential neighbourhood and to preserve the existing streetscape. The proposed
addition is at the rear of the building and retains the character of the existing dwelling.
The Low Rise Residential -Preservation designation also only permits minor additions,
which may not be within a required side yard. In this case, the proposed reduced side
yard matches the existing side yard of the rest of the building and maintains the intent of
the Official Plan.
The variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-law for the following reasons. The intent
of the bylaw is to prevent additions that overwhelm the neighbourhood and change the
character of existing dwellings. The proposed addition continues the setback of the
existing dwelling and the lot characteristics (very deep and well-screened) mean that
the addition does not overwhelm neighbouring dwellings. The GFA increase is close to
the existing regulation and can be permitted given the size of the lot.
The variances are minor for the following reasons. The side yard setback matches the
existing dwelling's setback and continues it. The rear yard addition only takes up a small
part of the rear yard and would not have an adverse impact on neighbouring properties,
as it is well screened by a hedge. The increase in Gross Floor Area permitted for an
addition is not a large difference from the permitted number, and is built at a similar
scale to the existing rear part of the building. The variance would not produce an
adverse impact on the Civic Centre Neighbourhood.
The variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land for the following
reasons. The lot is deeper and larger than many surrounding lots, so the addition would
not overwhelm neighbouring properties. The addition maintains the character of the
surrounding neighbourhood.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner,
dated March 10, 2008, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Mr. Lessard explained the application noting that 3 variances are required.
The Committee noted that comments of the City's Heritage Planner that the property is
located in the Civic Centre Heritage Conservation District, and a Heritage Permit may
be required.
Mr. McColl noted that the proposed addition is quite large, but seems to be appropriate
based on the size of the property.
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk
That the application of Tyler Lessard and Dawn McPhail requesting permission to
construct an addition to the rear of the existing single detached dwelling to extend into
the rear yard beyond the extent of the existing dwelling, whereas the by-law only
permits an extension into a yard to the extent of the existing building; and to permit the
gross floor area of the addition to be 34% of the gross floor area of the existing building,
rather than the permitted 25%, on Part Lots 177 and 181, Plan 374 and Part Lot 56,
Streets and Lanes, 19 Maynard Avenue, 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 50 MARCH 1$, 200$
6. Submission No.: A 2008-011 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
7. Submission Nos.:
Applicant:
Property Location
Legal Description:
Appearances:
In Support:
Contra:
A 2008-012
Patricia Horst
3751 King Street East
Part Lot 14, Beasley's Broken Front Concession
M. Horst
None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a
second storey addition on a house, part of which is zoned Existing Use One Zone (E-1)
and the other part of which is zoned Service Commercial Zone (C-6). Permission is
being requested to expand the legal non-conforming use of the portion of the single
dwelling located in the C-6 zone, which will be approximately 17.7 sq. m. (190 sq. ft.) of
the second storey addition. The other variance being requested is for the portion of the
second storey addition, to be located in the E-1 zone, which will have an area equal to
50% of the ground floor area rather than the permitted 25%.
The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services
Department, dated March 10, 2008, in which they advise that the subject property is
located along King Street East, south of the Grand River and north of Highway 8. The
neighbourhood is generally comprised of single detached homes and a few commercial
uses. The applicant is proposing to construct a second storey addition to an existing
single detached dwelling, along with a double garage (the latter is not subject to this
application). Construction of the addition has begun, but has been suspended pending
receiving a building permit and minor variance approval. A site visit by staff was made
on March 4, 2008.
The Official Plan designation of the property is Open Space Zone. The zoning under
By-law 85-1 is split between Existing Use Zone (E-1) on the west side of the property,
and Arterial Commercial Zone (C-6) with the 1 R provision (GRCA related) on the east
side of the property. The house is divided in half by the two zones.
The applicant is requesting minor variance approval to permit a second storey addition
in the E-1 Zone that is ± 50% of the total Ground Floor Area of the portion of the existing
building instead of the required 25%. In addition the applicant is requesting the
expansion of a legal non-conforming use for approximately 17.7 sq m (190 sq ft) of the
second floor addition falling within the C-6 zone. The original proposal was modified to
reflect that the house was divided in half by two zoning designations.
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 for the following reasons. The intent
of the Official Plan designation is to preserve the surrounding environment and natural
features. This proposal has already received a permit from the GRCA in December
2007, and it would not have an adverse impact of the environment.
The variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-laws for the following reason. Under the
E-1 zoning, the intent is to preserve the existing use and character of buildings in the
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 51 MARCH 1$, 200$
7. Submission No.: A 2008-012 tCont'd)
zone. This proposal continues the existing use, and the addition is only for the second
floor and does not increase the footprint of the building. Under the C-6 zoning, the
house is a legal non-conforming use. There are two tests that have been used to for the
enlargements or extensions of legal non-conforming uses:
1) What is the (adverse) impact on neighbourhood?
2) Would the extension or enlargement perpetuate unnecessarily anon-conforming
use?
Regarding the first test, there would not be an adverse impact on the neighbourhood, as
the addition is minor and the property is in a rural setting. Regarding the second test,
the proposed expansion does not perpetuate anon-conforming use unnecessarily
because half the property is in an existing use zone which promotes the preservation of
this use, so it is unlikely the residential use is going to change. The highest and best use
of the property is a single detached dwelling, as the GRCA would be unlikely to support
major expansion or implementation of any major commercial uses due to the floodplain
covering the property. It is reasonable for the dwelling to be able to expand up rather
than out. In addition, the site does not have the required sanitary servicing for a
commercial development, and adding servicing to the area would not be feasible from a
cost perspective. The continuing of this use represents good planning.
The variances are minor for the following reasons. The property is of a significant
enough size that the addition would not adversely affect other properties, and the
addition is relatively small, so there will be no negative impact on the streetscape. The
addition itself does not increase the footprint of the building.
The variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land for the following
reasons. The existing area has many similar single family homes and the proposed
addition would fit in with the neighbourhood. The proposal continues the existing use of
the property, which is the highest and best use considering technical and environmental
restrictions on the site.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner,
dated March 10, 2008, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Mr. M. Horst explained the application noting that the intention is to construct a second
story on the flat roofed portion of the building. He advised that they already have
approval from the Grand River Conservation Authority but do not have a building permit
from the City of Kitchener.
Moved by Ms. C. Balcerczyk
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Patricia Horst requesting permission to construct a second storey
addition on a house where the portion of the addition located in the Existing Use One
Zone (E-1) will be approximately 50% of that portion of the ground floor area rather than
the permitted 25%, and permission to expand the legal non-conforming use of the
portion of the house located in the Service Commercial Zone (C-6) by approximately
17.7 sq. m. (190 sq. ft.), on Part Lot 14, Beasley's Broken Front Concession, 3751 King
Street East, 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 52 MARCH 1$, 200$
8. Submission Nos.: A 2008-013
Applicant: Mohammad Tehrani Yekta
Property Location: 1 Krug Street
Legal Description: Part Lot 29, Subdivision of Lot 2, German Comgany Tract
Appearances:
In Support: J. Konosdi
M. Tehrani
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant requesting legalization of an existing
duplex having 1off-street parking space rather than the required 2.
The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services
Department, dated March 3, 2008, in which they advise that the subject property is
located in close proximity to the intersection of Krug Street and Weber Street East and
is presently being used as a duplex dwelling. The Municipal Plan designates this
property as Low Density Commercial Residential in the King Street East Neighbourhood
Secondary Plan. The zoning of the property is Commercial-Residential One (CR-1)
with Holding Provision 18H. The existing zoning permits the use of the property as a
duplex and Holding Provision 18H allows the use subject to the building existing on
January 24, 1994.
The applicant is requesting a minor variance to legalize an existing duplex having only
one parking space rather than the two parking spaces as required in Section 6.1.2(a).
The applicant purchased the property in November 2007 and was in the process of
applying for a building permit to renovate the existing units. It was through the building
permit application that staff recognized the parking deficiency and advised the owner a
Minor Variance approval would be required if they wished to proceed with the duplex
renovation.
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the
Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following
comments.
The variance meets the intent of the Municipal Plan for the following reasons. The Low
Density Commercial Residential designation is restricted to the following types of
residential uses: single detached dwellings, duplex dwellings, semi-detached dwellings,
lodging houses, home businesses, private home day care, small and large residential
care facilities, and multiple dwellings. The subject property is an existing duplex and
therefore meets the intent of the Municipal Plan.
The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law for the following reasons. The
subject property was built as a single detached dwelling in approximately 1912, at which
time there were no parking requirements. It is situated on a very small lot which does
have a private driveway. The present owner does not know when the property was
converted to a duplex dwelling, as he purchased the property in November 2007.
Zoning By-law 85-1 requires parking for a duplex use at the rate of 1 space per unit.
This is to ensure each tenant has access to a private parking space on site without
impacting the public right-of-way with parking on the street.
The existing driveway can easily accommodate one parking space but is insufficient in
length and width to provide a second parking space either side by side or in tandem.
Staff took into consideration the location of the existing duplex, being in close proximity
to the Downtown, being located on a Grand River Transit route and the fact that there is
one parking space on site to determine that the application meets the intent of the
Zoning By-law. The variance is minor for the following reasons. The subject property is
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 53 MARCH 1$, 200$
8. Submission No.: A 2008-013 tCont'd)
on a Grand River Transit route, within walking distance to the Downtown and can
provide adequate accommodation for one vehicle on site.
The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land for the following
reasons. It is an existing use, for which all other zoning regulations are considered to
comply under Section 5.15 (Vacuum Clause). The owner is investing money to
renovate the existing duplex to provide better quality dwelling units than what were
previously on site while being able to provide one on site parking space. As the subject
duplex is presently vacant during the renovation, the owner has the opportunity to
secure a tenant that would not require a parking space.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner,
dated March 10, 2008, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
The Committee noted the comments of Transportation Planning staff regarding a road
widening, and it was determined that the municipality is not permitted to take a road
widening through an Application for Minor Variance.
Mr. Yetka explained that this property has been used as a duplex since the early 1990's
and he is requesting a reduction from the current parking requirement.
Mr. McColl noted that since this property is in the downtown core and is close to public
transit routes, he is prepared to support this application.
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk
That the application of Mohammad Tehrani Yekta requesting legalization of an existing
duplex having 1off-street parking space rather than the required 2off-street parking
spaces, on Part Lot 29, Subdivision of Lot 2, German Company Tract, 1 Krug 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
CONSENT
Submission Nos.: B 2007-039
Applicant: Maria Bonas
Property Location: 40 Mansion Street
Legal Description: Part Lot 29, Plan 379, being Part 1, Reference Plan
58R-5786 and Part 1, Reference Plan 58R-14098
Appearances:
In Support: N. Weber
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 54 MARCH 1$, 200$
1. Submission No.: B 2007-039 tCont'd)
The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission to convey a parcel
of land having a width of 18.77m (61.45') by a depth of 16m (52') on the southerly side
and 22.77m (74') on the northerly side, and having an area of 363.8 sq. m. (3,196.03
sq. ft.) as a lot addition to 34 Mansion Street. The retained land will have a width on
Mansion Street of 20.1 m (65.94'), a depth of 61.27m (201') and an area of 1,231 sq. m.
(13,253.94 sq. ft.), that contains an existing dwelling and detached garage.
The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services
Department, dated March 12, 2008 in which they advise that the subject property is
located along the west side of Mansion Street, between Ellen Street and Lancaster
Street. There is a single family dwelling and a detached garage located on the property.
The lot is an existing residential use in a built up downtown area. A site visit was made
by staff on March 12, 2008.
The property is currently designated as Medium Density Multiple Residential in the Civic
Centre Secondary Plan. This designation aims to permit some integrated medium
density redevelopment while maintaining the overall residential character of the
neighbourhood. Permitted uses are restricted to existing single detached dwellings,
duplex dwellings, semi-detached dwellings and multiple dwellings as well as some other
uses such as day cares, home businesses, lodging houses and residential care
facilities. The zoning of the property is Residential Eight (R-8) under Bylaw 85-1.
The applicant is proposing to sever a 363.8 square metre portion of the rear of the lands
known as 40 Mansion Street and merge it with adjacent lands to the south known as 34
Mansion Street. The retained lot would be 1231.5 square metres. The use of the lands
would remain single detached residential for both the lands being retained as well as
the lands to the south benefiting from the lot addition. No new uses are being proposed
for the subject lands or the adjacent lands. The owners of 34 Mansion Street will have a
larger, deeper rear yard with increased outdoor amenity area if the lot addition is
approved. In fact the addition of this portion to 34 Mansion Street will return this property
to its original dimensions, as this portion of land was once sold to 40 Mansion Street.
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 lands front on an established public
street, and the servicing for the residential property already exists. The resultant
residential lot will be compatible in size with the lots in the surrounding area.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing &
Community Services, dated March 11, 2008 in which they advise that they have no
objections to this application.
Ms. vonWesterholt explained to Ms. Weber that the road widening, as requested by
staff, will be taken across the Mansion Street frontage of the property.
Moved by Ms. C. Balcerczyk
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Maria Bonas requesting permission to convey a parcel of land
having a width of 18.77m (61.45') by a depth of 16m (52') on the southerly side and
22.77m (74') on the northerly side, and having an area of 363.8 sq. m. (3,196.03 sq. ft.)
as a lot addition to 34 Mansion Street, on Part Lot 29, Plan 379, being Part 1, Reference
Plan 58R-14098, 40 Mansion Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the owner shall make arrangements satisfactory to the City of Kitchener for
the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local
improvement charges.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 55 MARCH 1$, 200$
1. Submission No.: B 2007-039 tCont'd)
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 according to the City of Kitchener's
Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping
Technologist.
3. That the lands to be severed in this application shall be added to the abutting
land municipally known as 34 Mansion Street, and title shall be taken into
identical ownership as the abutting lands, with any subsequent conveyance of
the parcel to be severed complying 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 convey to the City of Kitchener, without cost and free of
encumbrance, a road widening along the property's entire Mansion Street
frontage, in order to achieve an ultimate road width of 18 metres and that a
reference plan shall be deposited showing the widening to the satisfaction of the
Director of Transportation 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 March 18, 2010.
Carried
2. Submission Nos.: B 2008-004
Applicant: Peter and Michelle Schmidhuber
Property Location: 200-230 Woolner Drive
Legal Description: Part Lot 11, Plan 591, and Part of 6.096 m Lane Closed by
Judge's Order
Appearances:
In Support: D. Stewart
G. Wahib
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to convey a
parcel of land having a width on Woolner Drive of 67.6 m (220.8') by a depth of 156.9m
(514.76') and an area of 1.212 ha (2.99 ac), which is intended to be developed with a
residential plan of subdivision. The retained land will have a width on Woolner Drive of
87.8 m (288'), a depth of 152.9 m (501.64') and an area of 1.209 ha (2.98 ac), and will
continue to contain 2 single detached dwellings and 2 sheds.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 56 MARCH 1$, 200$
2. Submission No.: B 2008-004 tCont'd)
The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services
Department, dated March 10, 2008 in which they advise that the subject lands are
located on the northerly side of Fairway Road North (formerly Woolner Drive) between
Lackner Boulevard and Zeller Drive and contain two existing single detached dwellings
which were constructed in 1954 and 1955. The applicant would like to sever the lands
into two parcels. The retained parcel of land would contain the two existing single
detached dwellings, while the severed parcel of land would be vacant and would have
the potential to be developed with a plan of subdivision.
The applicant previously applied to the Committee of Adjustment for the same
severance (B2003-017) along with an application for a minor variance (A2003-022) to
recognize the two single detached dwellings on the lands to be retained, to increase the
resultant lot areas and to reduce the minimum side yard setback requirements. On May
20, 2003 the severance was granted with conditions and the requested variances were
approved; however the conditions of consent were not fulfilled, and consequently the
consent lapsed.
The lands to be retained are currently designated Open Space and are zoned Existing
Use Zone (E-1) with Special Regulation Provision 401 R. The E-1 Zone was applied to
the lands very shortly after the 2003 severance and minor variance applications
received approval (ZC03/08/W/TMW and Report No. DTS 03-088). The purpose of the
zone change was to recognize the two existing single detached dwellings on a lot which
is located in a floodplain. The special regulation permits a minimum lot width of 85
metres; therefore, the proposed lot width of 87.8 metres is sufficient. The land to be
severed is currently designated Low Rise Residential and zoned Agricultural Zone (A-
1). It is expected that a zone change application would accompany any future plan of
subdivision.
Staff reviewed the application and note that the lands to be retained are currently on
septic and well. It is intended that once the lands to be severed have been developed
that the existing dwellings would be required to connect to municipal services via an
easement over the lands to be retained, which would be included as part of a future
plan of subdivision and a condition has been included to ensure this connection is
established. However, staff understands that the septic system is currently located on
the lands to be severed. As such, staff recommends that the application be amended to
include consideration of an easement over the lands to be severed in favour of the
lands to be retained for the existing septic tank bed. The existing septic tank bed that is
located on the proposed severed lands currently services the most easterly dwelling.
Planning staff do not have any concerns with the granting of this easement provided the
retained parcel of land can be municipally serviced through the severed parcel of land
and that the servicing of both the severed and retained lands can be accommodated
through Registered Plan 58M-398.
As conditions of the previous consent, the Region of Waterloo required a road widening
and a noise warning clause. These conditions have been included as part of this
approval; however, formal Regional comments were not available at the time the report
was signed.
With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51 (24) of the
Planning Act, staff is satisfied that the creation of the severed lot is desirable and
appropriate. The uses of both the severed and retained parcels are in conformity with
the City's Municipal Plan and zoning. The configuration of the severed lands can be
considered suitable for the future development of the lands, and should be compatible
with the surrounding neighbourhood. 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 March 11, 2008 in which they advise that the subject site is
situated within a Sensitivity 4 Wellhead Protection Area on Map 4 of the Regional
Official Policies Plan. The purpose of the designation and the associate polices
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 57 MARCH 1$, 200$
2. Submission No.: B 2008-004 tCont'd)
contained in Section 5.2 of the Regional Plan is to protect the Region's long-term
municipal groundwater supplies. When further developing this site, the City and the
applicant are strongly encouraged to recognize the list of uses in Section 5.2 of the
Regional Plan which are not permitted within the Wellhead Protection Areas.
Transportation Planning staff have reviewed the application and noted that at this
location, Fairway Road has an existing road allowance width varying between
approximately 100ft and 66ft. The designated road allowance width in the Region's
Official Plan is 35m (114.8ft). The lands identified as required by the Region of Waterloo
to achieve the 35m road allowance widening from this property are indicated on
reference plan 58R-12917. The severed lands appear to indicate the required road
allowance widening however, the retained lands are showing only a 5.18m (17ft) road
widening which is the maximum the Region of Waterloo can request at no cost from the
applicant. The Region of Waterloo is prepared to accept the lands as shown on Figure 1
- "Proposed Consent Plan" provided by PEIL (Project No: KP-07-2051). However,
another reference plan will need to be created reflecting these widenings. In addition,
the Region of Waterloo would like to commence discussions at this time with the owner
for the conveyance of the remaining road widening from the retained lands. It will be
necessary for the Region's consultant to obtain permission from the owner to enter the
lands to drill boreholes for geotechnical studies.
It has been reviewed that no access is proposed to Fairway Road for the lands to be
severed. The existing access to Fairway Road for the retained lands is acceptable.
A lot grading plan and storm water management report in addition to a boulevard
restoration plan will be required for the lands to be severed. This information can be
submitted at the plan of subdivision stage. Comments from Transit Planning will follow
at the plan of subdivision stage. A transportation noise study will be required at this time
to assess the impact of noise from Fairway Road.
The owner of the severed land will be required to provide the Region of Waterloo with
funds for future street lighting and sidewalk costs (unless collected by the City of
Kitchener) along Fairway Road. These costs will be determined and collected through
the draft plan of subdivision.
In addition, a condition requiring a 1.82m high maintenance fence along Fairway Road
to the standards of the Region of Waterloo will be imposed for the severed land at the
draft plan of subdivision stage. If the noise study determines that a noise wall is required
for these lands, the noise wall will replace the maintenance free fence.
Regional staff has no objections to this application subject to the following conditions:
1. That prior to final approval of this application, the owner convey the road
widenings for both severed and retained lands along Fairway Road as shown on
Figure 1 - "Proposed Consent Plan" provided by PEIL (Project no. KP-07-2051)
to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Along with the 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.
2. That the owner will be required to complete a transportation noise study to
assess the impact of noise from Fairway Road; and if necessary, shall enter into
a development agreement with the Region of Waterloo to provide for
implementation of the approved noise study attenuation measures prior to final
approval.
Ms. vonWesterholt explained that an amendment for the septic system, as outlined in
the staff report is not required, as the easement is to be temporary, and under the
Planning Act, approval would only be required if the easements were to last for 21 years
of more.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 58 MARCH 1$, 200$
2. Submission No.: B 2008-004 tCont'd)
In response to the request for deferral of this application by the Grand River
Conservation Authority (GRCA), Mr. Stewart advised that the floodline, as provided by
the GRCA has been shown on the submitted plan. Further the severed land is above
the regulatory floodline. He noted that apre-submission consultation was held with staff
from the City, Region and Grand River Conservation Authority and through that
process, a Scoped Environmental Impact Study was noted as being required and has
been started. From an historic point of view, the approval sought today was given, but
the decision lapsed.
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk
That the application of Peter and Michelle Schmidhuber requesting permission to
convey a parcel of land having a width on Woolner Drive of 67.6 m (220.8') by a depth
of 156.9m (514.76') and an area of 1.212 ha (2.99 ac), on Part Lot 11, Plan 591, 200-
230 Woolner Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the owner shall make arrangements satisfactory to the City of Kitchener for
the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local
improvement 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 according to the City of Kitchener's
Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping
Technologist.
3. That the owner shall receive approval of a draft reference plan showing the
proposed easement for the septic bed from the City's Director of Engineering.
4. That the owner shall satisfy the 5% park land dedication required under the
Planning Act, based on the area of the severed land, in the following fashion:
a) The owner shall convey to the City of Kitchener without cost and free of
encumbrance, a 606 m2 (6,523 sq ft) block of land at the north-easterly
corner of the proposed retained lands, to the satisfaction of the City's
General Manager of Community Services, concurrently with the
conveyance of the proposed severed land.
b) The owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener,
satisfactory to the City Solicitor, to be registered on title, to defer
conveyance of the remainder of the parkland dedication to the City at
such time as the draft plan of subdivision is registered on the severed
land.
5. That the owner shall provide documentation from the owner of the lands subject
to Draft Plan of Subdivision Application 30T-97015, satisfactory to the City's
Director of Engineering Services, that the servicing of both the severed and
retained lands for storm water management, municipal water, and municipal
sanitary sewer services can be accommodated through Draft Plan of Subdivision
30T-97015.
6. That the owner shall enter into an agreement, to be approved by the City
Solicitor and registered against title to both the severed and retained lands,
containing the following conditions:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 59 MARCH 1$, 200$
2. Submission No.: B 2008-004 tCont'd)
a) That the severed parcel of land must be developed by way of a Draft Plan
of Subdivision Application at which time an Environmental Impact Study
will be required to demonstrate that the development of the severed
parcel of land will not have a negative impact on the natural features or
the ecological function of the adjacent lands/Idlewood Creek.
b) The remainder of the required 5% ~arkland dedication, which is not
satisfied by the conveyance of 606 m block of land at the north-easterly
corner of the land to be retained, will be conveyed to the City, at no cost
and free of encumbrance, concurrently with the registration of a Draft Plan
of Subdivision on the severed land.
c) The owner agrees to provide assurance to the satisfaction of the Director
of Engineering Services that any grading of the proposed severed land is
compatible with the grade of the retained land, and further the owner
agrees to submit a Grading Plan to the Director of Engineering for
approval, prior to Draft Approval of the Plan of Subdivision on the severed
land.
d) The owner agrees that service connections, including storm water,
municipal water and sanitary sewer be provided to the retained parcel of
land at such time as Landgren Court is extended and constructed on the
severed land. Once the retained parcel of land is connected to full
municipal services, the owner of the retained land agrees to quit claim the
easement for septic services from the severed parcel of land.
e) The owner agrees to obtain a building permit for the disconnection of the
on-site septic system, once the retained parcel of land is connected to
municipal services.
f) The owners agree to rezone any remaining A-1 portion of the retained
lands to E-1 through the future plan of subdivision, if necessary.
g) That warning clauses be included in all Offers to Purchase and Sale
Agreements, and/or rental agreements for the severed and retained lands
to read as follows:
"Prospective purchasers and tenants are advised that this property is
located within or in close proximity to one of the flight paths leading into
and out of the Waterloo Regional Airport and that noise from aircraft using
this flight path and directional lighting along this flight path may cause
concern to some individuals."
7. That the owner shall convey to the Region of Waterloo without cost and free
encumbrance a road widening along the Fairway Road frontage of the severed
and retained lands shown on Figure 1 - "Proposed Consent Plan" provided by
PEIL (Project no. KP-07-2051), and shall provide the Region with a mylar copy of
the deposited reference plan.
8. That the owner shall complete a transportation noise study to asses the impact
of noise from Fairway Road, and if necessary shall enter into a development
agreement with the Region of Waterloo to provide for implementation of the
approved noise study attenuation measures.
9. That the owners shall submit to and receive approval from the Grand River
Conservation Authority a Scoped Environmental Impact Study.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 60 MARCH 1$, 200$
2. Submission No.: B 2008-004 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 March 18, 2010.
Carried
3. Submission Nos.: B 2008-005
Applicant: Robert and Betty Hinsperger
Property Location: 632 Trussler Road
Legal Description: Part Lot 129. German Comganv Tract
Appearances:
In Support: V. Schmidt
J. Voss
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to convey a
parcel of land having frontages of 100.518m (329.78') and 44.509m (146.02') on
Trussler Road, by a depth of 224.302m (735.89') on the northerly side and 160.74m
(527.36') on the southerly side, and having an area of 3.866 ha, (9.54 ac.). The existing
and proposed use of the property is agricultural. The retained land will have a width on
Trussler Road of 80.11 m (262.82'), a depth of 95.3m (312.66'), and an area of 0.763
ha. (1.88 ac.). The existing and proposed use of the retained land is residential.
The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services
Department, dated March 10, 2008 in which they advise that the subject property is
located along Trussler Road, between Ottawa Street and the Expressway, at the border
of Kitchener and Wilmot Township. There is a single family dwelling, detached garage,
shed, and barn on the property. The current use of the 4.63 ha (11.44 acre) property is
agriculture. A site visit was made by Staff on March 4, 2008.
The property is currently designated as Agricultural in the Municipal Plan, and is
specified as an "Area Under Study" as per Deferral No. 3a Under Section 17(10) of the
Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990. The area is designated in the Regional Official Plan as "City
Urban Area" and in the Regional Growth Management Strategy as a Future Greenfield
Development Area. The zoning of the property is Agricultural Zone (A-1) under Bylaw
85-1.
The applicant proposes to sever a 3.866 ha (9.55 acre) lot from the farm property and
later join it to one of Activa Holdings Inc. adjacent parcels. The retained lot would be
0.763 ha (1.885 acres).
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 61 MARCH 1$, 200$
3. Submission No.: B 2008-005 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, the uses of both the severed and retained parcels
are in conformity with the City's Municipal Plan, the lands front on an established public
street, and the servicing for the residential property already exists (private). The
resultant residential lot will be compatible in size with the lots in the surrounding area, as
it has a rural character.
The Municipal Plan has policies regarding the severance of land in agricultural areas
that discourage creating new farm lots of less than 40 hectares. However, it also
provides for lot boundary adjustments that do not result in the creation of an additional
lot. The intent of the Plan is to avoid a patchwork of undersized farm lots in rural areas.
This proposal would not result in the creation of an additional lot, and the revised farm
lot would be larger than 40 hectares. The proposed consent meets the intent of the
land severance policies in the Plan.
There are potential issues with the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots. The
severed lot would not meet the minimum lot area requirement for an agricultural use in
the A-1 zoning, as it is proposed to be 3.866 hectares rather than the required 40
hectares, with a lot width of 145 m rather than the required 300 m. However, the
applicant is planning to merge the severed lot with Part Lot 46, German Company Tract
save and except Part 1 on 58R-9463, City of Kitchener (adjacent lands held by Activa).
The resultant lot will be 40.9 hectares and will meet the minimum lot area and lot width
requirements. The remnant lot meets the requirement for both lot area and lot width for
a residential use. Adding a condition that the severed parcel and Part Lot 46 GCT be
merged will ensure that the proposed severance conforms to the zoning bylaw. These
land consolidations will help to prepare these lands for proper and orderly development
in the future.
The remnant lot will have a reduced lot area that will limit the uses permitted on the
property. Agriculture will no longer be a permitted use for the remnant lot. To ensure
that the owners are aware of the new restrictions on the property, a condition will be put
in that the owners of the retained lands acknowledge that they understand agriculture is
not a permitted use, and that they agree to notify future purchasers of the land.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing &
Community Services, dated March 11, 2008 in which they advise that the subject site is
situated within a Sensitivity 4 Wellhead Protection Area on Map 4 of the Regional
Official Policies Plan. The purpose of the designation and the associated policies
contained in Section 5.2 of the Regional Plan is to protect the Region's long-term
municipal groundwater supplies. When further developing this site, the City and the
applicant are strongly encouraged to recognize the list of uses in Section 5.2 of the
Regional Plan which are not permitted within Wellhead Protection Areas.
Transportation Planning staff have reviewed the application and noted that at this
location, Trussler Road has an existing road allowance width of 66 feet and a
designated road allowance width in the Region's Official Plan of 100 feet. Therefore a
(100-66=34/2=17) 17 foot road allowance widening is required from this property. This
widening is consistent with the widening required from the subdivision on the west side
of Trussler Road.
In addition, Transportation Planning staff suggests that due to the proximity to Trussler
Road, it will be necessary for the retained lands to undertake a transportation noise
study to assess the impact of transportation noise from Trussler Road on this property.
Regional staff has no objection to this application subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner convey a seventeen (17) foot road widening along the entire
frontage on Trussler Road (Regional Road 70) to the Regional Municipality of
Waterloo. Along with the registerable deed for the road allowance widening, the
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 62 MARCH 1$, 200$
3. Submission No.: B 2008-005 tCont'd)
applicant must provide a mylar copy of the registered reference plan, at no cost,
to the Region.
2. That prior to final approval of this application, the owner undertakes a
transportation noise study for the retained lands, to assess the impact of the
transportation noise from Trussler Road; and if necessary, shall enter into a
development agreement with the Region of Waterloo to provide for
implementation of the approved noise study attenuation measures prior to final
approval.
The Committee considered the report of the Grand River Conservation Authority
Resource Planner dated March 10, 2008, advising they have no objection to this
application.
Ms. V. Schmidt advised that the purpose of this application is to sever land to be
conveyed to Activa to be developed as a plan of subdivision. She advised that they do
understand the recommended conditions and are opposed to the Region's request for a
noise study. She advised that the house is 30 years old and is located approximately
20m from the street, and no new development for the retained land is contemplated at
this time.
The Committee considered the Region's comments in which they state that they
"suggest" that a transportation noise study be under taken. Given the current use of the
retained land the Committee felt there would be no benefit in undertaking a noise study.
They cautioned the owner's representatives that if the Region decides to appeal this
decision they may have to undertake a noise study anyway.
Moved by Ms. C. Balcerczyk
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Robert and Betty Hinsperger requesting permission to convey a
parcel of land having frontages of 100.518m (329.78') and 44.509m (146.02') on
Trussler Road, by a depth of 224.302m (735.89') on the northerly side and 160.74m
(527.36') on the southerly side, and having an area of 3.866 ha (9.54 ac.), on Part Lot
129, German Company Tract, 632 Trussler Road, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED,
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall make arrangements satisfactory to the City of Kitchener for
the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local
improvement 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 according to the City of Kitchener's
Digital 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
lands specified as Part Lot 46, German Company Tract save and except Part 1
on 58R-9463, City of Kitchener, and title shall be taken into identical ownership
as the abutting lands; with any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be
severed complying with Sections 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O.
1990, c. P.13, as amended.
4. That the owners of the retained land shall acknowledge, in a form/manner
acceptable to the City Solicitor, and registered on title, that they understand
agriculture is not a permitted use on the retained land, and shall agree to notify
future purchasers of this restriction.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 63 MARCH 1$, 200$
3. Submission No.: B 2008-005 tCont'd)
5. That the owners shall convey to the Region of Waterloo, without cost and free of
encumbrance, a 17' road widening across Trussler Road frontage of both the
severed and retained lands, and shall provide the Region with a mylar copy of
the registered reference plan.
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 March 18, 2010.
Carried
ADJOURNMENT
On motion, the meeting adjourned at 12:12 p.m.
Dated at the City of Kitchener this 18th day of March, 2008.
Dianne H. Gilchrist
Secretary-Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment