HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2009-06-16COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
FOR THE
CITY OF KITCHENER
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD JUNE 16, 2009
MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. M. Hiscott, B. McColl & A. Head
OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. von Westerholt, Senior Planner, J. Lewis, Traffic
Technologist, Ms. D. Gilchrist, Secretary-Treasurer, Ms. Lisa
Garovat, Administrative Clerk and Ms. D. Saunderson,
Administrative Clerk.
Mr. M. Hiscott, Vice Chair, called this meeting to order at 9:38 a.m.
MINUTES
Moved by Mr. A. Head
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment, of May 19, 2009, as
mailed to the members, be accepted.
Carried
UNFISINSED UNBUSINESS
MINOR VARIANCE
Submission Nos.: A 2009-024
Applicant: Jose and Ivete Neto
Property Location: 31 Troy Street
Legal Description: Lot 21, Plan 124
Appearances:
In Support: J. & I. Neto
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to construct
an addition at the rear of the existing dwelling to have a right side yard of 0.51 m (1.67')
rather than the required 1.2m (3.93').
The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services
Department, dated May 11, 2009, advising that the subject property is located at 31
Troy Street and contains a single detached dwelling. The subject property is designated
as Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan and is zoned Residential Four Zone
(R-4) in By-law 85-1.
The applicants are requesting relief from the Zoning By-law to reduce a side yard
setback from the required 1.2 metres to 0.5 metres for a proposed addition at the rear of
the existing house. The applicants are proposing to build the addition in line with the
0.5 metre side yard setback of the original dwelling. The original dwelling was built in
approximately 1915, and would be considered legal non-conforming under Section
5.15.1 [a] (Vacuum Clause) of the Zoning By-law. The rear addition to the dwelling,
which included the attached garage, was constructed in approximately 1996. The
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 112 JUNE 16, 2009
Submission Nos.: A 2009-024. (Cont'd
1.83m by 5.36 metre addition is subject to the current application requires a setback of
1.2 metres; a side yard setback of no less than 0.5 metres is proposed.
With regards to the variance requested, Planning staff offer the following comments
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.
The Low Rise Residential designation recognizes the existing scale of residential
development and allows for a variety of low density residential uses. The proposed
development at 31 Troy Street is consistent with the Low Rise Residential designation;
therefore, the proposed variance meets the intent of the Official Plan.
The purpose of requiring a 1.2 metre side yard setback is to provide sufficient space for
access to all sides of a dwelling on the property as well adequate separation from
neighbouring properties and to allow space for the construction of a foundation. The
addition would require a setback of 1.2 metres to comply with the Zoning By-law. Staff's
opinion is that a setback of 0.5m would allow adequate maintenance access and
separation from neighbouring properties as the proposed addition would have the same
setback as the existing building.
Staff noted on their site visit on May 8, 2009, that the existing side yard operates as part
of the driveway of the adjacent property. Staff confirmed with an individual at 27 Troy
Street that an agreement was made between themselves and the previous owner of 31
Troy Street to allow driveway access to encroach into the side yard to accommodate
vehicular access to the detached garage at 27 Troy Street. A wood-board fence
currently extends from the rear corner of the original dwelling to the front corner of the
detached garage, and will need to be modified and/or replaced to accommodate the
proposed addition.
As the proposed single-storey addition would follow the existing side-yard setback of the
original dwelling, staff does not foresee it causing any undue hardship to the adjacent
property owner. Visually, staff would assume that a single storey dwelling would have a
similar impact on the adjacent property as the existing wood-board fence, with the
exception of the obvious additional height of the roof.
The variance can be considered desirable for the appropriate development and use of
the subject land because it permits a small addition to utilize an outdoor space with little
functionality, and that small addition will maintain aside and rear yard setback
consistent with other components of the existing dwelling. Staff notes that any
permission granted by means of this application only pertains to a single storey addition,
and that should the owner wish to construct a second storey above it at some point in
the future, a minor variance to recognize its encroachment into the side yard would be
required.
Staff notes that the plan that accompanied the application was not drawn onto a copy of
the property survey, and as such, staff cannot confirm the accuracy of the measurement
provided for the side yard setback of the proposed addition at its closest point to the
property line (rear corner). As well, neither the plan nor the application noted whether
the requested setback reduction pertained to the building footprint or to architectural
features such as window sills, chimney breasts, belt courses, cornices, eaves, and other
similar architectural features. Staff notes that Section 5.6.3 of By-law 85-1 permits the
encroachment of such architectural features no more than 0.6 metres into a required
side yard. As such, staff will evaluate the application as being a request to construct an
addition with no part, including foundation, window sills and any roof component
including eaves being closer than 0.5 metres from the side property line.
Staff also notes that a letter of permission from the adjacent property owner will be
required for any encroachment onto the adjacent property during the construction of the
addition, including any encroachment by means of excavation required in order to
construct the foundation.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 113 JUNE 16, 2009
Submission Nos.: A 2009-024, (Cont'd)
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner,
dated May 1, 2009, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Mr. A. Head
That the application of Jose and Ivete Neto requesting permission to construct a single
storey addition at the rear of the existing dwelling to have a right side yard of 0.51 m
(1.67') rather than the required 1.2m (3.93'), on Lot 21, Plan 124, 31 Troy 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
Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
This meeting recessed at 9:35 a.m. and reconvened at 10:06 a.m. with the following members
present: Messrs. M. Hiscott, B. McColl and A. Head.
NEW BUSINESS
MINOR VARIANCE
1. Submission Nos.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
Appearances:
In Support:
Contra:
A 2009-028
Paul Bastajian
920 Armenian Court
Lot 6, Registered Plan 58M-402
L. & P. Bastajian
None
Written Submissions: Petition
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a
covered deck at the rear of the house, to have a rear yard of 1.5m (4.92') rather than
the required 7.5m (24.6').
The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services
Department, dated June 8, 2009, advising that the subject property is located at 920
Armenian Court, which is located west of Pine Valley Drive in the south end of
Kitchener. The property has approximately 9.0 metres of frontage, an area of
approximately 455 square metres, and is developed with a single detached dwelling
which was constructed in 2008. It is zoned Residential Six (R-6) and has an Official
Plan designation of Low Rise Residential.
Relief is being sought from Section 40.2.2 of the Zoning By-law where the applicant is
requesting a minor variance to reduce the required minimum rear yard setback from 7.5
metres to 1.5 metres to allow for the construction of a covered deck in the required rear
yard. Section 5.6.A.4 of the Zoning Bylaw requires that decks, whether or not covered,
which exceed 0.6 metres in height above finished grade level, and are enclosed, must
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 114 JUNE 16, 2009
Submission Nos.: A 2009-028. (Cont'd
be in compliance with the setback provisions required for the dwelling for front, side and
rear yards in all other cases.
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. The intent of this designation is to
accommodate a full range of housing to achieve an overall low density. The proposed
variance will allow the 6.1 metre porch roof to comply, while maintaining the low density
character of the property.
The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law as the purpose of a 7.5 metres rear
yard setback is to provide an outdoor amenity space as well adequate separation from
neighbouring properties. It is staff's opinion that a setback of 1.5 metres would continue
to allow outdoor amenity space to be provided on a structure, rather than on the ground,
and the impact on neighbouring properties is minimal as there are no residential
dwellings adjacent to the rear year of the subject property because the land is City-
owned (Waterford Court Open Space).
The variance is considered minor as there is adequate separation from the proposed
addition to abutting residential properties and as such will likely have minimal impact to
adjacent lands.
The variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land as the proposed
configuration of the building on the lot would be consistent with the established
development within this neighbourhood and no adverse impacts as a result of this
variance are anticipated.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner,
dated June 7, 2009, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Mr. Bastajian presented the Committee with a petition from the neighbourhood
indicating that they have no objections to the construction of the deck. He also noted
that because of the shape of his lot he would need permission from the Committee to
build any kind of deck.
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Mr. A. Head
That the application of Paul Bastajian requesting permission to construct a covered
deck at the rear of the house, to have a rear yard of 1.5m (4.92') rather than the
required 7.5m (24.6'), on Lot 6, Registered Plan 58M-402, 920 Armenian Court,
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
Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 115 JUNE 16, 2009
Submission Nos.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
Appearances:
In Support:
Contra:
A 2009-029
Michael & Manuela Dopson
185 Wilfred Avenue
Part Lot 207, Plan 914
M. & M. Dopson
None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to construct
a double garage with a second storey to have a rear yard (yard opposite from Kenneth
Avenue) of 1.21 m (4') rather than the required 7.5m (24.6').
The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services
Department, dated May 11, 2009, advising that the subject property is located at 185
Wilfred Avenue and contains a single detached dwelling. The subject property is
designated as Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan and is zoned Residential
Three Zone (R-3) in By-law 85-1.
The applicants are requesting relief from the Zoning By-law to reduce a rear yard
setback from the required 7.5 metres to 1.2 metres for a proposed double car garage
with second storey addition and balcony at the rear of the existing house. The
applicants are proposing to build the addition in the place of an existing single car
garage with a rear yard setback of 4.47 metres, as approved by Committee of
Adjustment in 1965.
With regards to the variance requested, Planning staff offer the following comments
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.
The Low Rise Residential designation recognizes the existing scale of residential
development and allows for a variety of low density residential uses. The proposed
development at 185 Wilfred Avenue is consistent with the Low Rise Residential
designation; therefore, the proposed variance meets the intent of the Official Plan.
The purpose of requiring a 7.5 metre rear yard setback is to provide outdoor amenity
space as well as privacy. The rear yard, as per the Zoning By-law definition, has
historically functioned as a side yard due to the way the house is situated on the corner
lot. The 1.2 metre setback in this area would meet the requirements for a side yard.
The front yard, as per the Zoning By-law definition, is fenced and includes a pool
allowing it to provide both privacy and outdoor amenity space. The addition would
require a rear yard setback of 7.5 metres to comply with the requirements of the Zoning
By-law. Staff's opinion is that a 1.2 metre setback would allow for adequate
maintenance access and separation from the neighbouring property which is the
purpose of the 1.2 metres required for a side yard. Since the rear yard functions as a
side yard, staff feels that the reduction of the rear yard setback from 7.5 metres to 1.2
metres can meet the intent of the Zoning By-law. Additionally, sufficient outdoor
amenity space is provided in the front yard where the pool is situated.
As the proposed two storey addition would meet the required setback for a side yard,
and due to the historical use of the rear yard as a side yard, staff does not foresee the
addition causing any undue hardship on the adjacent property owner, and therefore the
impact of allowing this variance is considered to be minimal.
The variance can be considered desirable for the appropriate development and use of
the subject land because it is consistent with the historical use as a side yard. Due to
the way the house is situated on the corner lot, the area designated as the rear yard is
used as a side yard. The neighbouring yard abutting this portion of the property is used
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 116 JUNE 16, 2009
Submission Nos.: A 2009-029. (Cont'd
as a side yard as well and the balcony allows for more outdoor amenity space than a
backyard would provide. The addition will maintain a setback consistent with the
requirements for the area's historical use as a side yard.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner,
dated June 7, 2009, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Mr. McColl questioned staff regarding which side of the house was actually considered
the front yard and which side was the side yard.
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Mr. A. Head
That the application of Michael & Manuela Dopson requesting permission to construct a
double garage with a second storey and balcony to have a rear yard (yard opposite
from Kenneth Avenue) of 1.21 m (4') rather than the required 7.5m (24.6'), on Part Lot
207, Plan 914, 185 Wilfred 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
Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission Nos.: A 2009-030
Applicant: Regional Municipality of Waterloo
Property Location: 440 Manitou Drive
Legal Description: Part Lot 3, Plan 1521, being Parts 9, 10, 11,
Reference Plan 58R-6301
Appearances:
In Support: K. Oporski
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to provide 4 off-
street parking spaces for the wastewater sludge treatment plant rather than the required
31 off-street parking spaces.
The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services
Department, dated June 8, 2009, advising that the subject property is located at 440
Manitou Drive and contains a water treatment plant. The subject property is designated
as Heavy Industrial in the City's Official Plan and is zoned Heavy Industrial Zone (M-4)
and Hazard Land Zone (P-3) in By-law 85-1.
The applicant is requesting relief from the Zoning By-law to reduce the number of
parking spaces from the required 31 spaces to five (5) spaces; one (1) being abarrier-
free space, and four (4) being standard-sized parking spaces. With regards to the
requested variance, Planning staff offer the following comments 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.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 117 JUNE 16, 2009
Submission Nos.: A 2009-030. (Cont'd
The Heavy Industrial designation permits uses not allowed in other industrial areas
because they may be obnoxious due to noise, vibration, emission or odour and allows
for a variety of industrial uses. The proposed development at 440 Manitou Drive is
consistent with the Heavy Industrial designation. Therefore, the proposed variance
meets the intent of the Official Plan.
The purpose of requiring one (1) space for each 40.0 square metres of gross floor area
is to ensure there are an adequate number of spaces for the amount of people
occupying the building. As the occupancy of the building will not exceed three people,
public access to the site is restricted, and visitors must obtain a permit from Kitchener
Sewage Treatment Plant management, the required 31 parking spaces would not be
necessary. Staff's opinion is that five (5) parking spaces would be appropriate for the
number of occupants using the building which is the purpose of requiring this number of
spaces.
The proposed parking reduction is a requirement of a Site Plan Approval application for
an addition to the waste treatment plant that would not result in a significant increase in
the number of staff. While the parking area has been mislabelled on the plans
submitted for the Committee of Adjustment application as a "new effluent water tank",
staff has been given plans as part of the Site Plan Application pre-submission process
showing that the five proposed spaces can be accommodated. The variance can be
considered appropriate for the development and use of the subject land because it
allows for parking to accommodate the number of occupants identified by the applicant
to be in use at one time.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner,
dated June 7, 2009, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Mr. Head questioned staff as to what would happen to the Committee's decision in 10 to
20 years if this property was no longer a waster water sludge plant. There was
discussion regarding the property and where the waster water treated there came from.
They also discussed the likelihood of an office building being built in its place in the
future: as a reduction of parking of this kind could be problematic if the use changed.
The Committee members agreed that it would probably be best to add a condition that
the reduction of spaces would be site and use specific.
Mr. Oporski assured the Committee that the treatment plant would be there for quite
some time, they were in the middle of getting approval to build a sister building on the
property and they were simply trying to maintain the number of parking spaces that
were already there. There will never be more then one person working at the plant at
any time as the plants are completely automated and do not required any other
employees.
Moved by Mr. A. Head
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo requesting permission to
provide 5off-street parking spaces for the wastewater sludge treatment plant rather
than the required 31 off-street parking spaces, on Part Lot 3, Plan 1521, being Parts 9,
10, 11, Reference Plan 58R-6301, 440 Manitou Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE
APPROVED, subject to the following condition:
1. This approval is site and use specific and will not apply if any other use of this
property.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 118 JUNE 16, 2009
Submission Nos.: A 2009-030, (Cont'd)
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and
Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission Nos.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
Appearances:
In Support:
Contra:
A 2009-031
Harvey Huber
28 Schweitzer Street
Lot 16, Plan 675
H. Huber
None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a
detached garage to have a height of 6.29m (20.6') rather than the permitted 5.5m
(18.04') and a height to the eaves of 3.96m (12.99') rather than the permitted 3m
(9.84').
The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services
Department, dated June 8, 2009, advising that the subject property is located in the
Bridgeport East community and is zoned Residential Four (R-4) and designated as Low
Rise Residential in the Official Plan. The property contains an existing single family
dwelling. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing home as well as the
detached accessory building and replace it with a new structure.
The applicant is requesting a minor variance to construct a new detached accessory
building that exceeds the maximum height requirements of the Zoning By-law. As such,
the applicant is requesting a minor variance to allow an accessory building to have a
maximum height of 6.29 metres instead of the required 5.5 metres and to have a
maximum height of 3.96 metres to the underside of the fascia rather than the permitted
3.0 metres. The applicant wishes to erect the accessory building to be used to store a
travel trailer, boat and car.
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 as an accessory building to the
single detached dwelling is in keeping with the Low Rise Residential designation of the
Official Plan.
The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law as any residential property is
permitted to have accessory buildings up to a maximum of 15 percent lot coverage.
The proposed accessory building is 148.64 square meters in area which is
approximately 7.8 percent lot coverage. The new accessory building is to be located at
the rear of the property with setbacks of 1.0 metre from the side property lines and 1.0
metre from the rear property line. This meets the minimum requirements of the zoning
by-law.
The impact of the proposed height will be negligible for the dwellings of surrounding
properties given the location of the proposed accessory building. Therefore, staff is of
the opinion that the requested height variance is minor and is appropriate for the
development and use of the land.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 119 JUNE 16, 2009
Submission Nos.: A 2009-030. (Cont'd
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner,
dated June 7, 2009, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Mr. A. Head
That the application of Harvey Huber requesting permission to construct a detached
garage with a ground floor area of 148.64 sq.m., to have a height of 6.29m (20.6') rather
than the permitted 5.5m (18.04') and a height to the eaves of 3.96m (12.99') rather than
the permitted 3m (9.84'), on Lot 16, Plan 675, 28 Schweitzer 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
Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission Nos.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Leaal Description:
Appearances:
In Support:
Contra:
A 2009-032
David Bradshaw
116 Cameron Street North
Part Lot 16, Plan 124
D. Bradshaw
None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to change a
legal non-conforming convenience retail store to a third dwelling unit.
The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services
Department, dated June 10, 2009, advising that the subject property is located at the
northwest corner of the intersection of Cameron Street North and Troy Street in the
Auditorium Neighbourhood of Kitchener. The property contains a two storey brick
building constructed in the early 1900s. The front yard and side yard abutting Troy
Street are entirely paved with asphalt. In addition, the municipal boulevard is paved in
front of the subject property along Cameron Street and Troy Street. The building
contains two dwelling units on the second storey and contains a vacant convenience
retail store on the main floor. The basement is used for accessory storage. Staff
understands that the owner of the property has tried to secure a tenant for the main
floor store without long-term success. The most recent tenant vacated the store in late
2008. The property is designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan and is zone
Residential Four Zone (R-4).
The property is considered legal non-conforming since convenience retail is not a
permitted use in the R-4 Zone and the two dwelling units do not comply with the R-4
regulations for side yard (1.05 metres is provided, whereas 1.2 metres is required) and
rear yard (0.87 metres is provided, whereas 7.5 metres is required). In addition, the
property does not comply with the parking regulations of the Zoning By-law in the
following respects:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 120 JUNE 16, 2009
Submission Nos.: A 2009-032, (Cont'd)
Parking spaces for the store are located within 3.0 metres of the Troy Street and
Cameron Street street lines [6.1.1.1.a)iv)].
The parking for the duplex dwelling is located less than 6.0 metres from the Troy
Street and Cameron Street street lines [6.1.1.1 b)i)].
The driveway width is greater than 5.2 metres on Cameron Street and is more
than 50% of the side lot line abutting Troy Street [6.1.1.1 b)ii)g) and h)].
The owner is now proposing to convert the store into a dwelling unit. The subject
application is requesting permission under Section 45(2)(a)(ii) of the Planning Act to
change the legal non-conforming convenience retail store to a "more compatible" third
dwelling unit within the existing building. Staff notes that, if approved, the resultant
change in use of the property and other associated legal non-conforming characteristics
would continue to be considered as such.
Case law does set out the tests to be applied by the Committee of Adjustment in
considering applications under Section 45(2)(a)(ii). It should be noted that the test to be
applied is not the four-part test for minor variance under Section 45(1) but rather
whether the change in use is similar in purpose to the one previous or is more
compatible in purpose [OMB decision: Tanafara v. Niagara Falls (2000)]. In the subject
case, the applicant has specifically asked the Committee to consider the "more
compatible" scenario. Under this scenario the following question must be answered: is
the proposed use of the property as a three-unit multiple dwelling and associated
characteristics (e.g., parking, landscaping, etc.) more compatible with the R-4 Zone and
surrounding neighbourhood than a store with two dwelling units and associated
characteristics. In addition, staff suggests that the Committee consider whether the
impact of the proposal on surrounding uses is unacceptably adverse.
Staff has reviewed the proposal and offers the following comments in light of the above
noted tests. The proposed third dwelling unit is more compatible with the R-4 Zone and
existing neighbourhood than the existing store for the following reasons.
Generally speaking, convenience retail use generates significantly higher parking
demand than three dwelling units. Keeping in mind that meeting the intent of the Zoning
By-law is not a test for permission applications, but as an example and for comparison,
a store of the area described in the application would require 7 parking spaces, whereas
three dwelling units would require 3 parking spaces under the Zoning By-law. The
owner has agreed to remove the parking and asphalt along Cameron Street, thereby
decreasing the degree of legal non-compliance in this regard.
The challenge for the current legal non-complying side and rear yards is that there is a
lack of useable outdoor amenity space for residents. In and of itself, the addition of a
third dwelling unit would represent an increase in the degree of legal non-compliance
since there would be an increase in the number of households with no increase in
amenity space. However, the owner has agreed to landscape the area where the
parking currently exists off Cameron Street. This area would be used for amenity space
purposes. Therefore, based on this fact, there would be an increase in amenity space
from nearly zero square metres for two households to at least 69 square metres for
three households (i.e., 21 % of the lot).
Based on the permitted uses within the zones of the surrounding neighbourhood, the
proposed three-unit multiple dwelling is more compatible than the existing use. Most of
the surrounding area is zoned R-4 which does not allow any commercial use except for
home business. Although three-unit multiple dwellings are not permitted in the R-4
Zone, the zone does allow semi-detached dwellings, which can be "stacked" to have
total of four units per dwelling. Therefore, the R-4 Zone does support dwellings
containing four dwelling units, whereas the subject proposal, if approved, would allow
three units. The opposite side of Cameron Street, which contains recently constructed
street townhouse dwellings, is zoned R-6 which would allow three-unit multiple
dwellings.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 121 JUNE 16, 2009
Submission Nos.: A 2009-032, (Cont'd)
In the balance, staff is of the opinion that the proposal to establish a legal non-
conforming third dwelling unit in an existing building could be considered more
compatible with the R-4 Zone than the existing legal non-conforming convenience retail
store, provided the below noted additional development related conditions are met.
Generally, these conditions relate to ensuring that the parking situation is improved to
the extent possible, that the physical design of the site and building are modified to be
more compatible with the existing neighbourhood, and that adequate amenity space is
provided for the three dwelling units:
• That Parking Spaces 4 through 6 be removed, with the asphalt being removed
and the land being landscaped. In addition, concrete curbing along the travelled
portion of the street shall be reinstated in areas where parking is removed.
• That the asphalt within the boulevard on Cameron Street and Troy Street be
removed and replaced with landscaping.
• That the owner provide an at-grade porch the design of which shall be approved
by the City's Supervisor of Site Plan Development.
• That the owner submit Building Elevation drawings, which demonstrate how the
proposed elevations will meet the intent of section 5.1 of the City of Kitchener
Urban Design Manual. Without limiting the generality of the forgoing, this may
involve changes to the front fagades and removal of the cantilevered canopy.
• That the owner install a 0.9 metre high wrought-iron style fence (or equivalent)
along the front lot line and side lot line abutting Troy Street, except where parking
is proposed. The purpose of such fence shall be to define the public realm from
the proposed private amenity space.
• That the owner shall submit a landscape plan and implement such plan.
In addition, staff is of the opinion that the proposal does not create unacceptable,
adverse impacts on surrounding properties.
Staff notes that this property is unique in its physical characteristics and current use. It
should also be noted that the subject application is unique in its approach to addressing
the proposed development. Staff advises the Committee that in dealing with such
applications in the future, that each proposal should be reviewed on its individual merits
and that care be taken when considering application of precedent to subsequent cases.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner,
dated June 7, 2009, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Mr. A. Head
That the application of David Bradshaw requesting permission to change a legal non-
conforming convenience retail store to a third dwelling unit, on Part Lot 16, Plan 124,
116 Cameron Street North, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following
conditions:
That the owner shall obtain approval of a site plan application from the City's
Supervisor of Site Plan Development. The said site plan approval shall include,
apart from other standard site plan conditions, the following conditions to be
fulfilled to the satisfaction of the City's Supervisor of Site Plan Development (see
the site plan submitted with Minor Variance Application A2009-032 for specific
references. Plan was prepared by David Thompson Architect Ltd., dated Dec.
15, 2008):
a. That parking spaces 4 through 6 shall be removed, with the asphalt being
removed and the land being landscaped. In addition, concrete curbing
along the travelled portion of the street shall be reinstated in areas where
parking is removed.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 122 JUNE 16, 2009
Submission Nos.: A 2009-032, (Cont'd)
b. That the asphalt within the boulevard on Cameron Street and Troy Street
be removed and replaced with landscaping.
c. That the owner shall provide an at-grade porch the design of which shall
be approved by the City's Supervisor of Site Plan Development.
d. That the owner shall submit Building Elevation drawings, which
demonstrate how the proposed elevations will meet the intent of section
5.1 of the City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual. Without limiting the
generality of the forgoing, this may involve changes to the front fagades
and removal of the cantilevered canopy.
e. That the owner shall install a 0.9 metre high wrought-iron style fence (or
equivalent) along the front lot line and side lot line abutting Troy Street,
except where parking is proposed. The purpose of such fence shall be to
define the public realm from the proposed private amenity space.
f. That the owner shall submit a landscape plan and implement such plan
within one year of approval of the Committee of Adjustment Application
A2009-032, being June 16, 2010.
2. That the owner shall obtain an occupancy permit to convert the convenience
retail store into a dwelling unit.
3. That the owner shall obtain a building permit to convert the convenience retail
store to a new dwelling unit.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
The proposed use of this property as a three unit multiple dwelling and related
characteristics are more compatible with the Residential Four Zone (R-4) and the
surrounding neighbourhood than a store and two dwelling units and related
characteristics.
2. The use of this property as a three unit multiple dwelling and related
characteristics will not impose unacceptable adverse impacts on the surrounding
uses.
Carried
Submission Nos.: A 2009-033
Applicant: Daniel Autunes & Paulina Stalhyra
Property Location: 201 Featherstone Crescent
Legal Description: Lot 38, Registered Plan 58M-428
Appearances:
In Support: D. Autunes
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting legalization of an
existing widened driveway located 6m (19.68') from the intersection of Featherstone
Crescent and Featherstone Street rather than the required 9m (29.52').
The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services
Department, dated June 9, 2009, advising that the subject property is located at the
corner of Featherstone Street and Featherstone Crescent in the south-west area of the
City. It is zoned Residential Four (R-4) with special provision 405 R. There is also a
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 123 JUNE 16, 2009
Submission Nos.: A 2009-033. (Cont'd
small triangular portion of land to the west side of the lot that is zoned Residential Six
(R-6). The Official Plan designation is Low Rise Residential.
The applicants are requesting permission to legalize an existing driveway widening that
is located 6 metres (19.68 ft) from the intersection of the lot lines abutting Featherstone
Crescent and Featherstone Street rather than the required 9 metres (29.52 ft) setback
for driveways.
It is noted that the drawing attached to the application was taken from the building
permit that was issued in 2008. The building permit was issued fora 2-car garage only
and the area to the left of the 2-car garage area was to be used for aworkshop/storage
only. The owner at that time had indicated on the building drawings that a man door
would be put in front of this workshop area. The man door was installed but was
subsequently removed and a garage door was put in its place without a building permit.
It is also noted that the drawing of the original building permit clearly indicates that the
proposed driveway has to be located a minimum of 9 metres from the intersection of the
lot lines. A site visit was conducted on June 5, 2009.
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.
Staff would like to provide some historical context for this regulation, which has been in
place since 2005. Prior to this time, driveways could be widened closer than 9 metres
provided that the access point at the lot line was at least 9 metres from the intersection
of the street lines. Historically, in most of these situations, once the driveway was
widened and was within the 9 metres setback, in was only a matter of time that the
driveway apron (access point) would also be widened as the owner desired a more
functional access to his parking space. Many of these non-complying driveway
widenings from the past may not have been brought to the City's attention and may
continue to exist today. As the City has no knowledge or method to control these
widenings at the access point, the current regulation was created whereby the entire
driveway (including the apron) must be at least 9 metres from the intersection of the lot
lines.
The requested variance does not meet the intent of the Zoning By-law and cannot be
considered minor. The intent of the 9 metre setback for driveways is to ensure that
vehicles entering and exiting the driveway and the garage do not interfere with the
safety of vehicles and pedestrians using the intersection. The requested variance has
an encroachment of one complete parking space into the 9 metre setback, which is one
third of the requirement, and cannot be considered minor or meeting the intent of the
by-law. As noted above, permitting the reduced setback historically resulted in the
access point also being widened to less than 9 metres which could result in traffic
concerns.
The variance does meet the intent of the Official Plan. The property is designated Low
Rise Residential and the use of the property meets the intent of this designation.
The variance could be considered appropriate development of the land. The widened
portion of the driveway is located in front of a garage door that was added without a
building permit. However, the widening does appear to be appropriate use of the land
as it leads to a garage. Since submitting the application, the owner has installed sod
between the sidewalk and the City curb along that portion in front of the garage that was
converted from a workshop. Though the access point of the driveway is located on City
land, it does meet the 9 metre setback requirement. Visually this appears appropriate
for the use of the property. From a safety standpoint, the City's Traffic Division has no
concerns as sight lines are maintained for this particular property.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner,
dated June 7, 2009, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 124 JUNE 16, 2009
Submission Nos.: A 2009-033. (Cont'd
Mr. Autunes provided the Committee with a written submission, photographs of his
property and a neighbourhood petition in support of his application. He advised that
parking on the street is very limited as there are townhouses on the opposite side of the
street; everyone has two cars and only one parking space. He advised that he had
widened the driveway apron, but when requested, he replaced the sod in the widened
portion. When the sod was removed, people did not park between the stop sign and his
driveway. Now that he has replaced the sod, people do park between the stop sign and
his driveway apron which makes it difficult for him to exit his driveway.
Ms. von Westerholt noted that when the house was first constructed, the third bay of the
garage was a workshop and it had a man door. Subsequently, the workshop was
converted into the third bay of the garage and an overhead door was installed. Staff's
main concern is that the driveway apron was widened and the City does not want a
driveway apron widened to a point where it is too close to the intersection.
The Chair questioned whether the City staff could put a no parking sign in from of this
house. Mr. Lewis advised that all across the City, on-street parking is prohibited within
15 m of an intersection, but signs are not always posted. Mr. Lewis made a commitment
to have a no-parking sign installed in front of 201 Featherstone Crescent.
The Chair commented on the staff position, in their written report, that curbing be re-
installed. Mr. Lewis responded that staff want the curbing reinstalled where the
applicant has removed it.
In addressing the Committee's concern about the Building Code requirements for the
overhead garage door, Mr. Autunes advised that he had the house built and the
doorway on the former workshop was constructed to accommodate an overhead door.
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Mr. A. Head
That the application of Daniel Autunes & Paulina Stalhyra requesting legalization of a
widened driveway located 6m (19.68') from the intersection of Featherstone Crescent
and Featherstone Street rather than the required 9m (29.52'), on Lot 38, Registered
Plan 58M-428, 201 Featherstone Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED,
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall makes satisfactory financial arrangements with the Director
of Engineering to reinstall the curbing in order that the 9 metre setback between
the driveway and the intersecting street lines is maintained, as shown on the
drawings submitted with the application.
2. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City, to be registered on
title, wherein the owner acknowledges and agrees to maintain the width of the
driveway access at a minimum of nine metres from intersection of the street lines
of Featherstone Street and Featherstone Crescent, to the satisfaction of the City
Solicitor.
3. That the owner shall obtain a building permit from the City's Building Division for
installation of the new garage door, if required.
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
Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 125 JUNE 16, 2009
7. Submission Nos.: A 2009-034
Applicant: Steven Montgomery
Property Location: 60 Heins Avenue
Legal Description: Part Lot 2 and Part Lot 3, Plan 165
Appearances:
In Support: S. Montgomery
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission for a detached
garage to cover 17.2% of the property rather than the permitted 15%.
The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services
Department, dated June 8, 2009, advising that the subject property is located at 60
Heins Avenue, near Victoria Park, and is developed with a single detached dwelling.
The land is designated as Low Rise Conservation in the City's Official Plan and zoned
Residential Five Zone (R-5). The property is located within the Victoria Park Heritage
Conservation District.
The applicant removed a shared (with 62 Heins) garage in 2008 and is requesting a
variance to erect a new detached accessory building to cover up to 17.2% of the lot
area whereas Section 35.2 of the City's By-law 85-1 permits a maximum of 15% lot
coverage for accessory buildings. The applicant advises that they require a garage
large enough to accommodate two vehicles and a workshop with storage. The proposal
is to erect a 7.3 metre (24 ft.) by 10.2 metre (33 ft.) detached garage in the rear yard
having a total floor area of 74.46 square metres (792 sq. 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 intent of restricting the lot coverage of accessory structures to 15% of the total lot
area of a property is to ensure that the lot is not compromised by an overabundance of
structures and ensuring that sufficient outdoor amenity area is maintained.
City staff is of the opinion that the proposal maintains the general intent of both the
zoning by-law and the municipal plan. The proposed detached garage complies with
both the setback and height requirements of the by-law. The garage is proposed to be
located 0.61 metres (2 ft.) from the rear property line and both side property lines. The
resulting rear and side setbacks would slightly exceed the by-law requirement of 0.6
metres (1.96 ft.). The proposed garage would have a maximum height of 5.5 metres
(18 ft.) which is compliant with the by-law requirement. City staff is of the opinion that a
2.2% increase in the permitted lot coverage for the proposed accessory building, can be
considered minor. On this property a 2.2% increase represents 8.6 m2 on a lot that is
433.2m2.
The proposed garage is considered both desirable and appropriate development of the
property because it will accommodate the storage of vehicles that would otherwise be
visible in the rear yard. That applicant is proposing to construct the garage using high
quality building materials that will provide an improved aesthetic appearance. The
garage will not negatively impact the neighbouring properties as the property adjacent
to the rear yard of the subject property is landscaped as to provide a buffer from the
proposed building. Also, the adjacent property to the west of subject lands (62 Heins)
has a garage similar in nature to the proposed garage for this property.
The property is located within the Victoria Park Heritage Conservation District. The
applicant has submitted a heritage permit application for the construction of a new
garage. The heritage permit application was reviewed and recommended for approval
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 126 JUNE 16, 2009
Submission Nos.: A 2009-034. (Cont'd
by both Heritage Planning staff and the Heritage Kitchener Committee. Council will
consider the recommendations of both Heritage Planning staff and the Heritage
Kitchener Committee on Monday, June 15, 2009. Heritage Planning staff anticipate that
Council will agree with the recommendations of both Heritage Planning staff and the
Heritage Kitchener Committee. As a result, Heritage Planning staff has no concerns
with the proposed minor variance application.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner,
dated June 7, 2009, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Mr. Montgomery began by complimenting staff on the work that both the planning staff
and the heritage planning staff did help him come up with a suitable design for the area.
The property is in a Heritage District and he is very happy with the outcome and he is in
agreement of the staff recommendation.
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Mr. A. Head
That the application of Steven Montgomery requesting permission for a detached
garage to cover 17.2% of the property rather than the permitted 15%, on Part Lot 2 and
Part Lot 3, Plan 165, 60 Heins 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
Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission Nos.: A 2009-035
Applicant: Neville & Margaret Monteith
Property Location: 128 Claremont Avenue
Legal Description: Part Lot 28, Plan 350
Appearances:
In Support: N. Monteith
R. Young
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to construct
a second storey on the existing attached garage to have a westerly side yard of 0.9m
(3') rather than the required 1.2m (4').
The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services
Department, dated June 8, 2009, advising that the subject property is located at 128
Claremont Avenue and is developed with a single detached dwelling with an attached
garage. The subject property has approximately 24.4 metres of frontage on Claremont
Avenue and has an area of approximately 1096.2 square metres. The property is
designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan and zoned Residential Two (R-2) in
the Zoning By-law.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 127 JUNE 16, 2009
Submission Nos.: A 2009-035. (Cont'd
The applicants are requesting relief from Section 36.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to permit a
side yard setback of 0.9 metres rather than the required 1.2 metres in order to construct
a second storey addition to be built above the existing legal non-conforming attached
garage.
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 Low Rise Residential designation recognizes the existing scale of residential
development and allows for a variety of low density residential uses. The proposed
development at 128 Claremont Avenue is consistent in form and use with other
development in the area. The variance requested for the side yard setback maintains
the intent of the Low Rise Residential designation in the Official Plan.
The purpose of the minimum side yard setback is to ensure adequate space remains
between properties. The applicant has requested the variance in order to allow a
second storey to be built onto an existing structure, and will not be altering any of the
existing setbacks. The impact of the second storey is not anticipated to be any different
than the conditions that exist today. The existing surrounding neighbourhood is
developed with full two storey single detached dwellings with attached garages. The
proposed second storey addition is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood and
therefore staff is of the opinion that the variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law.
Staff is of the opinion that the variance is minor because it does not propose to further
reduce any of the existing zoning deficiencies. The deficient setback of 0.3 m (1 ft) has
been in existence since the garage was constructed. The variance is to recognize the
existing situation and to allow a second storey on the existing attached garage;
therefore, staff does not foresee any concerns with approving this requested variance.
The variance is considered appropriate for the development and use of the land. The
proposed addition is consistent with the established development pattern within this
neighbourhood and there are no anticipated adverse impacts as a result of this
variance.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner,
dated June 7, 2009, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Moved by Mr. A. Head
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Neville & Margaret Monteith requesting permission to construct a
second storey on the existing attached garage to have a westerly side yard of 0.9m (3')
rather than the required 1.2m (4'), on Part Lot 28, Plan 350, 128 Claremont 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
Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 128 JUNE 16, 2009
9. Submission Nos.: A 2009-036
Applicant: Finagan Properties Limited
Property Location: 1116 Union Street
Legal Description: Part Lot 25, Plan 789
Appearances:
In Support: P. Finelli
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to locate 2
parking spaces 2.4m (7.87') from the lot line along Union Street rather than the required
3m (9.84'), and permission for the 4th parking space to be located between the fagade
of the building and the street line.
The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services
Department, dated June 8, 2009, advising that the subject property is located at the
northwest corner of the intersection of Lancaster Street and Union Street. The property
contains a building constructed in the mid-1950s which is currently being used as a
legal, four-unit multiple dwelling. The property is designated Low Rise Residential in the
Official Plan and is zoned Residential Six Zone (R-6).
A site plan application for the dwelling was approved in 2004 to convert two bays of the
attached triple vehicle garage into a bachelor dwelling unit, thereby converting a triplex
into a fourplex (Site Plan Application SPR04/38/U/LT). In addition, an associated minor
variance application was approved in 2004 to allow three off-street parking spaces to be
located between the fagade and the street line and with a setback of 2.1 metres rather
than the required 3.0 metres (A2004-072). The application was approved subject to a
condition that a portion of the existing asphalt driveway be removed and replaced with
landscaping within three months of the decision.
Since the issuance of the above noted approvals, the property was sold to the current
owner. While conducting a site inspection of the property, staff noted that the hedge
which was required to be maintained as per the approved site plan has been cut down
completely along Union Street. In addition, the reinstatement of landscaping that was to
be completed in front of parking space #3 was inadequately provided; only three
severely undersized shrubs are in place. It appears that the previous owner did not
comply with the site plan and minor variance approval conditions.
The applicant is now proposing to add a fourth parking space to be located 2.4 metres
from the Union Street street line rather than the required 3.0 metres and to allow this
space to be located between the building fagade and the side lot line abutting Union
Street.
It should be noted that only three parking spaces are required for this four-unit multiple
dwelling under the Zoning By-law since one of the dwelling units is less than 51 square
metres in area. It is understood that the request for a fourth parking space is being
made due to a demand for parking rather than a requirement under the Zoning By-law.
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 since it would facilitate the
provision of adequate parking for the existing four-unit multiple dwelling. In addition, a
review of the Official Plan reveals that there are no road widenings proposed on Union
Street. Therefore, the proposed parking space would not compromise any planned
road widenings.
The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law for the following reasons. The intent
of the zoning is to ensure that an adequate buffer is provided from the street to the
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 129 JUNE 16, 2009
Submission Nos.: A 2009-036. (Cont'd
parking area for aesthetic and safety purposes. Transportation Planning has
commented that they have no concerns with the proposed parking space being created
in the proposed location. Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed 2.4 metre
setback is adequate as long as landscaping is installed along the side lot line abutting
Union Street and maintained at a 0.9 metre height. The purpose of this landscaping
would be to act as a visual barrier to partially screen the parking area from the street
while not creating driveway visibility issues. In this regard, staff is recommending that a
condition be imposed to require that the approved site plan be updated and that an
associated landscape plan be submitted, approved, and implemented.
The variance is minor for the following reasons. Since an approved parking space
already exists within 2.4 metres of the Union Street street line, the addition of another
space with this setback is not significant. The visual barrier should provide adequate
screening from the public realm, as aforementioned.
The variance is appropriate for the desirable development and use of the land for the
following reasons. It is understood that there is a tenant need for a fourth parking
space. The proposal would allow this space to be created. Considering certain site
constraints such as the proximity of the building to the street and limited rear yard area,
location options for parking are limited. The subject proposal represents a way to
accommodate this space with the least intervention.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner,
dated June 7, 2009, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Mr. A. Head
That the application of Finagan Properties Limited requesting permission to locate 2
parking spaces 2.4m (7.87') from the lot line along Union Street rather than the required
3m (9.84'), and permission for the 4th parking space to be located between the fagade
of the building and the street line, on Part Lot 25, Plan 789, 1116 Union Street,
Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall obtain approval of a site plan housekeeping application be
obtained for the addition of a fourth parking space from the City's Supervisor of
Site Plan Development. The revised site plan shall, apart from other standard
site plan conditions, ensure the following:
a. That the proposed fourth parking space is developed in general
conformity with the plan provided with Minor Variance Application A2009-
036, and,
b. That the owner shall submit to and receive approval from the Supervisor
of Site Plan Development of a landscape plan. The landscape plan shall
show the installation of landscaping along the entire side lot line abutting
Union Street, excluding the driveway access and walkway connections to
the municipal sidewalk. The landscape plan shall be fully implemented
within one year of approval of the Committee of Adjustment Application
A2009-036, being June 16, 2010. The landscaping shall be maintained to
a 0.9 metre height for the purpose of partially screening the parking area
from the street while not creating driveway visibility issues.
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 130 JUNE 16, 2009
Submission Nos.: A 2009-036, (Cont'd)
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and
Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
CONSENT
1. Submission Nos.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
Appearances:
In Support:
Contra:
B 2009-023
Sunvest Development Corp./ Integra Homes Inc
166 & 168 Huck Crescent
Lot 28, Reference Plan 58M-435,
being Parts 1 & 2 Registered Plan 58R16486
J. Oliver
None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever 2
semi-detached dwelling units so that each can be dealt with separately. Each lot will
have a width on Huck Crescent of 9m (29.52'), a depth of 30.654m (100.57') and an
area of 275.89 sq. m. (2,969.75 sq. ft.). The use of each of the severed and retained
lands will continue to be asemi-detached dwelling unit.
The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services
Department, dated June 8, 2009, advising that the subject property is located on Huck
Crescent, which is located northeast of the intersection of Ira Needles Boulevard and
Victoria Street South in the west end of Kitchener. The surrounding area is developed
with a diverse mixture of low density residential uses including single detached
dwellings and semi-detached dwellings. The subject property contains asemi-detached
dwelling which is under construction. The dwelling is located on a single lot legally
described as Lot 28, 58M-435. The property is designated as Low Rise Residential in
the Official Plan and zoned Residential Four (R-4).
The applicant is requesting consent to sever the subject property into two lots in such a
way as to allow separate ownership of each semi-detached house. The purpose and
effect of this application is to create a new lot. The severed lot would have a frontage of
9.0 metres and an area of approximately 275 square metres, while the retained lot
would have a frontage of 9.0 metres and an area of approximately 275 square metres.
With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51 (24) of the
Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990. c.P. 13, the uses of both the severed and retained parcels
are in conformity with the City's Official Plan and Zoning By-law 85-1.
Planning staff notes that the Zoning By-law defines asemi-detached dwelling as "a
building divided vertically into two semi-detached houses by a common wall which
prevents internal access between semi-detached houses and extends from the base of
the foundation to the roof line and for a horizontal distance of not less than 35 percent of
the horizontal depth of the building. Each semi-detached house shall be designed to be
located on a separate lot having access to and frontage on a street." Both lots comply
with the regulations of the R-4 Zone.
In addition, the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots are appropriate and
suitable for the use of the properties as semi-detached houses, the lands front on an
established public street, and both parcels of land are currently serviced with
independent and adequate service connections to municipal services. Also, the
resultant lots would be compatible with those in the surrounding area.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 131 JUNE 16, 2009
Submission Nos.: B 2009-023. (Cont'd
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing &
Community Services, dated June 8, 2009, in which they advise that they have no
objections to this application.
Moved by Mr. A. Head
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Sunvest Development Corp./ Integra Homes Inc. requesting
permission to convey a parcel of land have a width on Huck Crescent of 9m (29.52'), a
depth of 30.654m (100.57') and an area of 275.89 sq. m. (2,969.75 sq. ft.), on Part Lot
28, Reference Plan 58M-435, being Part 2, Registered Plan 58R16486, 166 Huck
Crescent, 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 2 full size paper copies of the
plan(s). The digital file must be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's
Digital Design Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of
the municipality.
2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed
lands and the retained lands.
3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal
Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan.
Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the
above-noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision.
Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this
Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being June 16, 2011.
Carried
Submission Nos.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
Appearances:
In Support:
Contra:
B 2009-024
MLV Holdings GP Inc.
2082 Old Mill Road
Part of Lot 11, Beaslev's Old Surve
J. Leonard
F. & L. Gentner
None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a
parcel of land having a width on Old Mill Road of 36.141 m. (118.57'), a depth on the
easterly side of 43.91 m. (144.06'), a depth on the westerly side of approximately
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 132 JUNE 16, 2009
2. Submission Nos.: B 2009-024. (Cont'dl
41.736 m. (136.92'), and an area of 1317.95 sq. m. (14,186.75 sq. ft.). The retained
land will contain the existing house.
The retained land will have a width on Old Mill Road of 31.77 m. (104.23'), a depth of
52.894 m. (173.53') on the easterly side and 74.898 m. (245.72') on the westerly side,
and an area of 4505.06 sq. m. (48,493.64 sq. ft.). The proposed use of the property is
residential.
The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services
Department, dated June 2, 2009, advising that the subject property is located at 2082
Old Mill Road and is legally described as Beasley's Survey Old Pt Lot 11. There is
currently one (1) single detached bungalow dwelling unit on the subject property.
The property is designated as Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan and zoned
Residential 3 (R-3, 319U) in By-law 85-1. The applicant is requesting consent to sever
the property into two lots, each of which will have frontage on Old Mill Road. The
severed parcel has a varied lot depth of 41.74 - 43.91 metres with frontage of 36.14
metres on Old Mill Road. The area of the severed parcel is 0.012 hectares. The
retained parcel would have frontage of 22.52 metres on Old Mill Road, with a varied lot
depth of 52.89 - 74.89 -metres. The area of the retained parcel is 0.041 hectares.
With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51 (24) of the
Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, staff are satisfied that the creation of the severed lot
is desirable and appropriate. The configuration of the severed lands can be considered
appropriate and suitable for the development of the uses permitted in Zoning By-law 85-
1. Therefore the consent is not considered to be premature or pre-determining the
outcome of future planning processes. Both parcels will continue to front onto an
established public roadway and full municipal services are available to both the severed
and retained parcels. The proposed consent is consistent with the Provincial Policy
Statement (PPS) issued under Subsection 3 (1) of the Act, and conforms to or does not
conflict with any applicable provincial plan or policy.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing &
Community Services, dated June 8, 2009, in which they advise that they have no
objections to this application.
Ms. Leonard requested deferral of the Committee's consideration of the application to
allow for an opportunity to discuss with staff their recommended conditions.
Mr. Head questioned staff's request fora Phase 1 and Phase 2 Environmental
Assessment. Ms. von Westerholt stated that the City wants to have clean land with it
receives road widenings or any other land. She advised that it is not appropriate to
receive land and then spend taxpayers money to clean it.
Ms. Leonard advised that a Phase 2 Environmental Assessment is very costly and very
invasive and believes that further discussion with staff on this matter is warranted.
It was agreed by all parties that consideration of this application be deferred to the
Committee of Adjustment meeting scheduled for Tuesday July 31, 2009.
COMBINED APPLICATION
1. Submission Nos.: B 2009-025 & A 2009-037
Applicant: Tony Larson
Property Location: 118 Huber Street
Legal Description: Part Lot 135 to 137, Plan 308
Appearances:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 133 JUNE 16, 2009
Submission Nos.: B 2009-025 & A 2009-037. (Cont'd
In Support: T. Irian
S. O'Neill
Contra: I. McCullough
L. Bond
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a
parcel of land having a width on Kinzie Avenue of 11.2776 m (37'), a depth of 21.3146
m (69.92') and an area of 240.3782 sq. m. (2,587.49 sq. ft.); to be developed with a
single family dwelling. The retained land will have a width on Kinzie Avenue of
18.3001 m (60.03'), a depth of 21.3146 m (69.92') and an area of 390.0612 sq. m.
(4,198.72 sq. ft.) and will contain the existing single family dwelling. The applicant is
also requesting permission for the dwelling on the retained land to have a rear yard of
3.608 m (11.83') rather than the required 7.5m (24.6').
The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services
Department, dated June 4, 2009, advising that the subject property is located at the
corner of Huber Street and Kinzie Avenue. The property is designated Low Rise
Residential in the City's Official Plan, and zoned Residential Four Zone (R-4). The
property currently contains a single detached dwelling. Surrounding land use is a
mixture of residential types including single, semi-detached and multiple dwellings.
The applicant is requesting consent to sever a lot from the rear portion of the subject
lands in order to construct a new single detached dwelling fronting onto Kinzie Avenue.
The existing single detached dwelling will be situated on the retained lands.
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 existing and proposed uses of the lands to be
retained and severed are in conformity with the City's Official Plan.
The nearby neighbourhood contains a mix of dwelling types ranging from single and
semi-detached to mid-rise apartment buildings. Dwelling types along the south side of
Kinzie Avenue, between Huber and Walker Streets, generally contains single and semi-
detached dwellings and three to four storey apartment buildings situated on the north
side. Lot widths for single detached dwellings are 12 metres or slightly less with front
yard setbacks ranging from 5 to 6 metres.
The proposed lot would have a width of 11.27 metres, a depth of 21.3 metres, and an
area of 240.37 m2. The proposed lot width is average for lots in the immediate vicinity;
however, the depth is significantly less than other lots. The owner has submitted a
concept elevation and a conceptual site plan, indicating the style, dimensions and
setbacks for the proposed dwelling. It is the opinion of planning staff that the lot is large
enough to accommodate the proposed dwelling as depicted, while complying with all
minimum setbacks and maximum lot coverage regulations. Conditions with respect to
the approval of a site plan and elevation drawings has been included as a condition of
the consent to ensure the proposed single detached dwelling will be compatible with the
surrounding neighbourhood. Staff note that the owner will be required to obtain a
demolition permit for the veranda and the attached concrete block garage in order to
provide the necessary space for the proposed dwelling. This will also be addressed
through a condition of consent approval. Building staff has advised the owner that due
to the location of a filled in pool, he will be required to submit a soils report prior to the
pouring of the foundation.
The lands to be retained are fully serviced, and services are available for the lands to be
severed; however, the owner will be required to make arrangements with Engineering
Services to extend water and sanitary services to the property line for the future single
detached dwelling.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 134 JUNE 16, 2009
Submission Nos.: B 2009-025 & A 2009-037. (Cont'd
In addition to the consent application, the owner is seeking minor variance approval for
a rear yard setback of 3.608 metres rather than the required 7.5 metres on the retained
lands.
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 Low Rise Residential designation recognizes the existing scale of residential
development and allows for a variety of low density residential uses. Therefore, the
proposed variance meets the intent of the Official Plan.
The intent of the rear yard setback zoning requirement is to ensure there is private
amenity space provided and that there is separation from neighbouring properties.
For corner lots, it is common for the amenity space to be located in a side yard abutting
a street and treat the rear yard as the side yard. The rear yard of the subject lands has
historically functioned as a side yard due to the way the house is situated on the corner.
As such, the new lot line created through the consent will function as the side yard for
the existing home even though under the Zoning By-law it is construed as the rear yard.
For this reason it is the opinion of staff that the intent of the zoning is being maintained.
The variance is considered minor and appropriate for the use of the land as the side
yard abutting Kinzie Avenue replaces the rear yard amenity space and there will be no
visual impactor loss of privacy for neighbouring lands.
Based on the foregoing, staff recommends that the application for minor variance to
allow a rear yard setback of 3.608 metres rather than the required 7.5 metres be
approved subject to the certain conditions.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing &
Community Services, dated June 8, 2009, in which they advise that they have no
objections to this application.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner,
dated June 7, 2009, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Mr. McCollough, the abutting neighbour on Huber Street, submitted photographs of the
subject property, the retaining wall and fence and the edge of his driveway adjacent to
118 Huber Street. He advised that there used to be a pool in the rear yard of the subject
property and when it was removed and filled in, it caused damage to the retaining wall
and fence and his driveway. He requested that the developers be required to remove
or repair the existing retaining wall and his driveway.
Mr. Bond, adjacent property owner on Kinzie Street, advised that a portion of the
driveway at 118 Huber Street is on his property. He requrested that the developer be
required to remove the portion of the driveway that is on his property.
Mr. O'Neill advised that it is their intention to fix the retaining wall, and build a house that
is attractive and is keeping with the neighbourhood.
Following a discussion concerning the best way to insure that the retaining wall is
properly addresses to the satisfaction of Mr. McCollough, and at the same time not
impeding the work of the professional engineer who will be required to prepare the
necessary grading and drainage plan, the Committee proposed that staff recommended
condition 5 (iii) be revised as follows:
"a grading and drainage control plan for the severed lands; which shall take into
consideration the removal or replacement of the existing retaining wall on the lot line
between 118 Huber Street and 71 Kinzie Avenue."
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 135 JUNE 16, 2009
Submission Nos.: B 2009-025 & A 2009-037, (Cont'd)
Submission No. B 2009-025
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Mr. A. Head
That the application of Tony Larson requesting permission to convey a parcel of land
having a width on Kinzie Avenue of 11.2776 m (37'), a depth of 21.3146 m (69.92') and
an area of 240.3782 sq. m. (2,587.49 sq. ft.), Part Lot 135 to 137, Plan 308, 118 Huber
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.
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 2 full size paper copies of the
plan(s). The digital file must be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's
Digital Design Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist.
3. That the owner shall pay to the City of Kitchener acash-in-lieu of parkland
dedication equal to 5% of the value of the land to be severed.
4. That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's
Engineering Services, for the installation of: all new service connections, new
curb and gutter, boulevard landscaping including street trees, and a paved
driveway ramp, on the severed land.
5. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to be
prepared by the City Solicitor and registered on title of the severed lands which
shall include the following:
"That prior to any grading or the application for or issuance of a building permit,
the owner shall submit the following plans, prepared by qualified consultants, to
the satisfaction of and approval by the City's Director of Planning and Chief
Building Official:
(i) a Site Plan showing the proposed location of all buildings (including
accessory buildings and structures), decks and driveways;
(ii) Elevation drawings for all new buildings;
(iii) a Grading and Drainage Control Plan for the severed lands; which shall
take into consideration the removal or replacement of the existing
retaining wall on the lot line between 118 Huber Street and 71 Kinzie
Avenue.
(iv) a Soils Report,
(v) The owner further agrees to implement the approved plans. No changes
to the plans shall be granted except with the prior approval of the City's
Director of Planning."
6. That the owner shall obtain a Demolition Permit for the removal of the veranda
and attached concrete block garage to the satisfaction of the Chief Building
Official.
7. That the owner shall receive final approval of Submission A2009-037.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of
the municipality.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 136 JUNE 16, 2009
1. Submission Nos.: B 2009-025 & A 2009-037, (Cont'd)
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 June 16, 2011.
Carried
Submission No. A 2009-037
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Mr. A. Head
That the application of Tony Larson requesting permission for the dwelling on the
retained land to have a rear yard of 3.608 m (11.83') rather than the required 7.5m
(24.6'), on Part Lot 135 to 137, Plan 308,118 Huber Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE
APPROVED.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
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
Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
ADJOURNMENT
On motion, the meeting adjourned at 11:57 a.m.
Dated at the City of Kitchener this 16th day of June, 2009.
Dianne H. Gilchrist
Secretary-Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment