Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2010-03-16COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD MARCH 16, 2010 MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. C. Balcerczyk and Messrs A. Head and M. Hiscott OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. K. Andrel, Senior Planner, Mr. J. Lewis, Traffic Technologist, Ms. D. Gilchrist, Secretary-Treasurer and Ms. D. Saunderson, Administrative Clerk Mr. A. Head, Vice Chair, ca lled this meeting to order at 10:09 a.m. MINUTES Moved by Mr. M. Hiscott Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk That the minutes of the reg ular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment, of February 16, 2010, as mailed to the members, be accepted. Carried NEW BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE 1. Submission Nos.: A 2010-017 Applicant: Jozo Illic Property Location: 161 Ottawa Street South Leaal Description: Part Lot 188. Lot 189 to Lot 194. Plan 262 Appearances: In Support: J. Clinckett J. Illic Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting legalization of an existing commercial building having a setback from Ottawa Street of 0.967m (3.17') rather than the required 3m (9.84'); a side yard abutting the lane of 1.37m (4.49') rather than the required 3m (9.84'); and, a daylight triangle at the corner of Ottawa Street South and Bedford Road of 3.657m (12') rather than the required 7.5m (24.6'). The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated March 5, 2010, advising that the subject property is located at the corner of Ottawa Street South and Bedford Road. It is currently zoned as Commercial Residential Two (CR-2) under Zoning By-law 85-1 and designated Medium Density Commercial Residential in the Mill-Courtland Secondary Plan in the Official Plan. The existing building on site was previously used for industrial purposes and is currently vacant. In August 2007, the owner received approval from the Committee of Adjustment for the requested variances noted below for a multiple residential use. Since that time, the owner's redevelopment plans have changed and they are now proposing an office use, as permitted under the CR-2 Zone. The owner plans to submit a formal site plan application in the near future. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 40 MARCH 16, 2010 Submission No. A 2010-017 (Cont'd The applicant is requesting minor variance approval to legalize the existing building location to have a left side yard of 0.137 m (0.45 ft) rather than the required 3 m (9.84 ft) for the proposed building with a building height exceeding 10.5 metres, a front yard setback from Ottawa Street South of 0.967 m (3.17 ft) rather than the required 3 m (9.84 ft) and permission for a portion of the building at the corner of Ottawa Street and Bedford Road to be located within the 7.5 m (24.6 ft) corner visibility triangle. In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following comments: The intent of the Official Plan designation is to provide a range of residential uses and the development of non-retail commercial uses fronting onto Ottawa Street South. The applicant is proposing an office use which will meet the intent of the designation. The general intent and purpose of Commercial Residential Two (CR-2) regulations under the Zoning By-law is to ensure there is adequate spacing between abutting properties when considering side yard and front yard setbacks; and, that there are no obstructions located in the corner visibility triangle to avoid difficulty for drivers using the intersection. In this situation the building, which has existed since the 1950's, was considered Legal Non-Conforming for the industrial use. The requested minor variances will be required to legalize the side yard and front yard setback for the new proposed use. The requested variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-law and staff is of the opinion that the requested variances will not cause an impact to the existing neighbouring properties, as no complaints or By-law infractions have been received to date. The requested variances can be considered minor for the following reasons. The original building has existed since the 1950's and there have been multiple additions since that time. The applicant is requesting that the internal side yard setback be reduced from the required 3 m to 0.137 m for an existing wall which will form part of the exterior wall for the garage. The garage wall abuts an existing City laneway which allows for an approximate 4.26 m separation distance between the abutting properties and the existing building. The owner is proposing a building with a building height in excess of 10.5 m and staff perceives that the laneway will provide sufficient spacing between the abutting properties and will not have an adverse impact on the neighbouring properties as a result of the variance. The applicant is also requesting that the front yard setback be reduced from the required 3 m to 0.967 m. It should be noted that the setback from Ottawa Street South did comply to the Zoning By-law prior to a Regional road widening in the 1990's which reduced the setback and also resulted in the existing building being located within a corner daylight triangle. The requested variances recognize an existing situation and therefore staff is of the opinion that they may be considered minor without concerns to the neighbouring properties. The requested minor variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land as they recognize an existing situation and if approved will legalize the existing building allowing it to be redeveloped. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated February 4, 2010, advising that the daylight triangle has already been conveyed to the Region of Waterloo on December 13, 2007, the Region agrees with the owner that the building already exists, and other issues that exist are being dealt with through the Site Plan application. The Committee considered the report of the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) Resource Planner, advising that they have no objection to this application. However, a small portion of the subject property is within the flood plain of Schneider Creek. Consequently, the subject property if regulated by the GRCA under Ontario regulation 150/06 (Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses). Any development within the regulated area of the property will require a Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses permit. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 41 MARCH 16, 2010 Submission No. A 2010-017 (Cont'd Mr. Clinckett advised the Committee that, in 2007, they approved an Application for Minor Variance related to a residential use on this property. Subsequent to that approval, toxic substances were found on site; consequently, the owner is now proposing to develop this property with offices. Moved by Mr. M. Hiscott Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk That the application of Jozo Illic requesting legalization of an existing commercial building having a setback from Ottawa Street of 0.967m (3.17') rather than the required 3m (9.84'); a side yard abutting the lane of 1.37m (4.49') rather than the required 3m (9.84'); and, a daylight triangle at the corner of Ottawa Street South and Bedford Road of 3.657m (12') rather than the required 7.5m (24.6'), on Part Lot 188, Lot 189 to Lot 194, Plan 262, 161 Ottawa Street South, 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 2010-018 Applicant: Kitchener Housing Inc. Property Location: 35 David Street (25 Joseph Street) Legal Description: Lots 1 to 4, Plan 154, & Part Lot 14, Subdivision of Lot 17, German Company Tract, being Part 1, Reference Plan 58R-7510 Mr. A. Head declared a pecuniary interest with this application, as he is a member of the Board of Directors for Kitchener Housing Inc. and did not participate in any discussion or voting with respect to this application. Mr. M. Hiscott chaired the meeting during consideration of this application, which was considered by the remaining two members. Appearances: In Support: K. Kwiatkowski K. Reycroft Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct an apartment building containing 18 dwelling units to have a setback from David Street (side yard abutting a street) of 1.6m (3.8') rather than the required 4.5m (14.76'); and, permission to provide 84 off-street parking spaces for amulti-residential complex containing 118 dwelling units rather than the required 108 off-street parking spaces. The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated March 9, 2010, advising that the subject property is municipally addressed as 25 Joseph Street (also known as 31, 35, 39, & 43 David Street) and legally described as Plan 154 Pt Lots 1 To 4 GCT Sub Of Lot 17 Pt Lot 144 RP58R7510 Part 1. The property is owned by Kitchener Housing and is currently comprised of 116 residential units in 6 buildings, including the former Victoria School building, an apartment building (addition to the school building), as well as the four 4- COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 42 MARCH 16, 2010 Submission No. A 2010-018 (Cont'd unit buildings proposed to be demolished. A minor variance (No.19/91) was previously approved in 1991 to allow for 84 off-street parking spaces where 100 spaces were required and to allow for a building with a side yard setback abutting a street of 5.4 metres where as 10.7 metres was required. The subject property is designated as Medium Density Multiple Residential in the Victoria Park Secondary Plan and zoned Residential Eight (R-8) in the Zoning By-law. The Victoria School property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Though the heritage attributes in the designation apply to the historic school building, the land on which the David Street units are built are also contained within the legal description affected by the Part IV designating by-law. In addition, the subject property is located immediately adjacent the Victoria Park Heritage Conservation District which is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. The owner is proposing to redevelop the area of the property where the four 4-unit buildings are currently located, with athree-storey, eighteen unit apartment building. The proposed redevelopment will also include a future development area to allow for the future twinning of the proposed three-storey building. For all intents and purposes of the requested relief, the owner is requesting relief for the total build out of the site, which includes the future twinning of the proposed 18 unit building. At the time of the total build out, the site will consist of 82 residential dwelling units that have a floor area of greater than 51.0 square metres and 36 residential units that are less than 51.0 square metres in floor area. The owner is requesting relief from Section 6.1.2 of the Zoning By-law to permit a multiple residential development with 84 off-street parking spaces whereas 108 are required, and requesting relief from Section 42.2.6 of the Zoning By-law to permit a multiple dwelling with a side yard abutting a street of 1.6 metres whereas 4.5 metres is required. Requested Parkino Relief 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 Victoria Park Secondary Plan because the Official Plan generally support walkable communities that have access to transit and community amenities such as public amenity areas like Victoria Park, as well as a variety of neighbourhood commercial sites. There is a wide range of commercial retail sites as well as employment opportunities within walking distance of the property. The location of the property is desirable to residents that do not own a personal vehicle due to a restrictive reason or by choice. The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law because the existing underground parking garage and surface parking lot provide an excess off-street parking for the current residents. The intent of the residential parking regulations in By-law 85-1 is to ensure that each unit occupant has access to a parking space. The owner has provided a current parking plan for the property which shows the current usage of the underground and surface parking lot. Currently, the residents are only utilizing 50% of the 84 off-street parking spots. There are currently 17 empty spots in the underground garage and 25 empty spots in surface lot. Based on the current rates as well as the projected usage when the proposed buildings are constructed, there will still be excess of off-street parking. The variance is minor because sufficient off-street parking is already provided on site and the existing parking is not being fully utilized. The owner assigns parking to residents through a lease agreement and the assignment of parking spaces can be easily managed to meet demand. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 43 MARCH 16, 2010 Submission No. A 2010-018 (Cont'd The variance is appropriate for the development because the total required off-street parking spaces required for the current and future residents is currently being provided on site. By reducing parking spaces that are not required by the residents, there will be adequate space for landscaping and shared amenity space for the residents. Requested Side Yard Abutting a Street Relief 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 because new multiple dwellings in the Medium Density Multiple Residential district in the Victoria Park Secondary Plan are intended to be situated and designed to be compatible with the existing development, particularly the single detached dwellings in the interior of the neighbourhood. The intent of the Medium Density Multiple Residential designation is to encourage new development at densities which provide an appropriate transition between low densities found at the centre of residential neighbourhoods and higher density redevelopment sites at the periphery of the neighbourhood. This development will serve as an appropriate transition between the Downtown and the low rise residential neighbourhood in the adjacent Victoria Park Heritage Conservation Area District Plan. The Owner has incorporated several features into the design of the proposed building which include; the reduced setback from David Street, faux front doors, upgraded fagade treatments, and upgraded landscaping plantings which are intended make the proposed building more compatible with the surrounding single-detached dwellings. The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law because the purpose of the side yard setback abutting a street is to maintain an aesthetically pleasing streetscape for the subject property and surrounding neighbourhood. The setback ensures that there is sufficient visibility for vehicles exiting the subject or adjoining property and to provide room for maintenance and any construction work. The proposed building in the second phase will be located outside of the corner visibility triangle and will not negatively affect driver visibility. In this case, the side yard abutting the street will function similarly to that of as a front yard. Variances for reduced front yard setbacks are generally supportable because by reducing a side yard abutting a street allows for a building to be located closer to the street, which helps define the street line and animate the street. Buildings located closer to the street encourage a pedestrian friendly environment. It should be noted that the City owns a strip of land along David Street which was previously provided by the Owner for a future road widening. This strip of land will facilitate any future required road widening without jeopardizing the fagade or the front landscaping treatment of the proposed buildings. The requested variance is minor because the lands on the opposite side of David Street form part of Victoria Park. The development of the lands with a residential building will not act as an invasion of privacy for any adjacent property owner or tenant. The proposed building will not have a negative visual impact on the neighbourhood nor would it affect the enjoyment of the neighbouring property owners. The variance is appropriate for the development because by locating the building closer to David Street, the owner is able to increase the size of an interior courtyard which is used by the residents as a common amenity space. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated February 24, 2010, advising that any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 99-038 or any successor thereof and may require the payment of Regional Development Charges for this development (s) prior to the issuance of a building permit. Ms. Kwiatkowski advised the Committee that she is in support of the recommendation in the staff report; noting that currently they are only using 50% of their existing parking. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 44 MARCH 16, 2010 Submission No. A 2010-018 (Cont'd Moved by Ms. C. Balcerczyk Seconded by Mr. M. Hiscott That the application of Kitchener Housing Inc. requesting permission to construct an apartment building containing 18 dwelling units to have a setback from David Street (side yard abutting a street) of 1.6m (3.8') rather than the required 4.5m (14.76'); and, permission to provide 84 off-street parking spaces for amulti-residential complex containing 118 dwelling units rather than the required 108 off-street parking spaces, on Lots 1 to 4, Plan 154, & Part Lot 14, Subdivision of Lot 17, German Company Tract, being Part 1, Reference Plan 58R-7510, 35 David 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.: A 2010-020 Applicant: 634725 Ontario Inc. Property Location: 924 - 938 King Street West Legal Description: Lots 296 & 297 & Part Lot 295, Plan 385 Appearances: In Support: R. McDermott Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to provide 25 off-street parking spaces for a building containing 19 dwelling units and 1885.8 sq. m. (20,299.24 sq. ft.) of commercial space rather than the required 33 off-street parking spaces. The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated March 4, 2010, advising that the subject property is located on the north side of King Street opposite to Grand River Hospital. There are two separate but joined buildings situated on these lands: 938 King Street (far left) is occupied by a new retail store (carpet sales and antiques) and the rectangular shaped building addressed as 924-936 King Street contains professional and medical offices on the first floor and 18 dwellings units on the second floor. Parking for the subject lands is located at the rear of the property with full access from a rear lane (shown on the aerial photo above) that runs east/west from Pine Street to Union Boulevard. A site visit was conducted on February 23, 2010. The zoning of the property is MU-2 (Mixed Use Two) with special regulation 497R and the Official Plan designation is Mixed Use Corridor. The applicant is requesting permission to provide 25 off-street parking spaces for the existing mixed uses (retail, professional and medical offices and residential) instead of the required 33. This property was subject to a parking variance under application A220/89 whereby the Committee approved a variance for 32 parking spaces instead of 55, with the stipulation that the variance shall not apply to future retail or convenience retail. The recently adopted Mixed Use Corridor zoning allows for retail as a permitted use. Upon receiving COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 45 MARCH 16, 2010 Submission No. A 2010-020 (Cont'd an Occupancy Permit request for the carpet sales and antiques, staff notified the owner that he must obtain a variance to the parking regulations. In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following comments. The variance meets the intent of the Official Plan for the following reasons. The Mixed Use Corridor designation is primarily intended to "allow for intensive, transit supported development" and it generally has strong pedestrian linkages with the surrounding neighbourhoods. A full range of commercial, small-scale retail and residential uses are permitted. Therefore, the uses of professional and medical offices, retail and residential on the subject lands are in conformity with the Official Plan designation. The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law and is considered minor in nature for the following reasons. The purpose of the parking requirement is to ensure sufficient parking is provided for the uses on the property. A breakdown of the various uses on site indicates that a total of 33 parking spaces are required -this includes the retail component as well. Staff have been in discussions with the owner regarding the layout of the parking and it has been determined that the size of the existing parking area can accommodate 25 parking spaces as evidenced by the parking plan that is attached with the application. To ensure 25 spaces are adequate, Transportation Planning staff conducted an informal traffic survey and staff observed that, on any given day, no more than 24 vehicles were on site. Transportation Planning staff are satisfied with the parking layout and the number of parking spaces that can be provided. Staff would like to point out that Planning is currently preparing a "housekeeping" amendment to the Mixed Use zoning that would include a plaza complex parking requirement. Once approved, the parking requirement for the subject lands will be reduced to 28 parking spaces from the current requirement of 33. It should also be noted that King Street is a major transit corridor where regular bus service is provided. As a result, this location offers choice for alternate modes of transportation and should be reflected in relaxed parking regulations. The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land for the following reasons. Firstly, the subject lands function as a mixed use site and the Mixed Use Corridor zoning allows for retail. Secondly, regular bus service is provided along King Street at this location offering choice of transportation modes to and from the subject lands. Thirdly, these factors, in combination with Transportation Planning's acceptance of the proposed parking layout, indicate that that the variance is appropriate for the use of the lands. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated February 24, 2010, advising that any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 99-038 or any successor thereof and may require the payment of Regional Development Charges for this development(s) prior to the issuance of a building permit. Mr. McDermott advised the Committee that he agrees with the most of the staff recommendation, except condition no. 2. He stated that the concern is cost for installation, maintenance and snow removal. Mr. McDermott then noted that the parking lot is adjacent to a lane that gets very little traffic. The Committee discussed the appropriateness of the condition requiring implementation of the parking plan to provided 25 parking spaces including end aisle islands incorporating landscaping. Mr. Hiscott recommended approval of the application with condition no. 2 changed to require implementation of the parking plan showing 25 parking spaced with end of aisle island and parking spaced to be painted on the asphalt. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 46 MARCH 16, 2010 Submission No. A 2010-020 (Cont'd In response to questions from the Committee, Mr. Lewis advised that condition no. 2, as written, implements a City standard that is required of all developments; and, the standard exists to address a safety issue. He advised that staff have worked with the applicant and the plan before the Committee was developed by staff. Transportation Planning is supporting the reduction in parking spaces and narrower aisle widths have also been supported; however, staff can not support the requested change as the raised islands are necessary in order to ensure visibility. Moved by Mr. M. Hiscott Seconded by Mr. C. Balcerczyk That the application of 634725 Ontario Inc. requesting permission to provide 25 off- street parking spaces for a building containing 19 dwelling units and 1885.8 sq. m. (20,299.24 sq. ft.) of commercial space rather than the required 33 off-street parking spaces, on Part Lot 295 & Lots 296 & 297, Plan 385, 924 - 938 King Street West, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: That the owner shall obtain an Occupancy Permit from the City of Kitchener Planning Division. 2. That the owner shall implement the parking plan showing 25 parking spaces, with parking spaces and end of aisles islands at parking spaces 1, 6, 11, 16 and 21, as shown on the plan submitted with this application, to be painted on the asphalt within six months of the date of this decision. 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 Submission Nos.: A 2010-021 Applicant: Richard and Kathryn Forler Property Location: 32 Roy Street Legal Description: Part Lot 4, Plan 401 Appearances: In Support: R. & K. Forler Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to expand the kitchen in the second floor dwelling unit of this duplex, when the by-law does not allow this duplex to be enlarged. The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated March 5, 2010, advising that the subject property is located at 32 Roy Street and contains atwo-storey residential building constructed in approximately 1895, with an attached garage that was constructed in 1937. The building permit on record for the attached garage notes that the house was being converted to a duplex dwelling at that time. The subject property is designated as Low Rise Residential Preservation in the Civic Centre Secondary Plan in the City's Official Plan and is zoned COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 47 MARCH 16, 2010 Submission No. A 2010-021 (Cont'd Residential Five Zone (R5) with Special Use Provision 127U in By-law 85-1. The special use provision notes that a duplex dwelling and multiple dwelling shall only be permitted within a building existing on January 24, 1994. The applicant is proposing to modify the rear portion of the second storey of the building, raising the roofline of the eastern elevation adjacent to the garage roofline by approximately 1.2 metres (four feet) to facilitate and interior kitchen renovation. As the zoning does not permit duplex dwellings within a building constructed after January 24, 1994, staff has determined that the proposed modification to the building requires a minor variance addressing subsection (b) of Special Use Provision 127U. 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 Preservation designation has been applied to areas where it is the aim of this Plan to retain the existing single detached residential character of the neighbourhood. Existing houses and streetscapes are to be preserved wherever possible. The use of the dwelling pre-dates the Secondary Plan designation, and the proposal to modify the roofline at the rear of the building is not adding floor space or altering the existing footprint and as such, staff considers this proposal to meet the intent of the Official Plan designation. The intent of sub-section (b) of Special Use Provision 127U is to avoid having the existing housing stock in the area, to which 127U is applied, removed and replaced with new construction duplexes and multiple dwellings. The dwelling on the subject property and its use as a duplex pre-date the application of the special use provision to which a variance is being requested. While a building alteration is proposed, the addition is being made at the rear of the structure and will not add floor space and/or alter the existing building footprint. Staff feels that the proposal meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The proposed addition to raise the roofline on one side of the second storey at the rear of the structure by approximately 1.2 metres will not have any impact on adjacent residents. The addition will be to provide necessary interior clearance for a refrigerator and stove exhaust fan being relocated to an exterior wall within an existing second floor kitchen. No new windows are proposed that would cause any privacy concern for the immediately adjacent neighbour. The proposed addition will not increase the usability of the site in terms of creating additional units and/or traffic, and its purpose is to facilitate a more functional kitchen space for tenants of the existing second unit. Therefore staff considers the variance to be minor in nature. The variance can be considered desirable for the appropriate development and use of the subject lands because it will allow for a more functional layout of an existing interior kitchen space with a minor exterior alteration at the rear of the structure. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated February 23, 2010, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Mr. & Mrs. Forler advised that they agree with the recommendation in the staff report. Moved by Mr. M. Hiscott Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk That the application of Richard and Kathryn Forler requesting permission to modify the rear portion of the second storey of the existing duplex by raising the roofline of the eastern elevation adjacent to the garage roofline by approximately 1.2 metres (4') when the by-law does not allow duplexes to be enlarged, on Part Lot 4, Plan 401, 32 Roy Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 48 MARCH 16, 2010 Submission No. A 2010-021 (Cont'd) 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 10:40 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 16th day of March, 2010. Dianne H. Gilchrist Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment