The City of Kitchener’s Committee of Adjustment meets monthly to assess requests for minor zoning bylaw adjustments. The MHBPNA Development Committee monitors these meetings regarding properties in our neighbourhood.

If anyone from the community wishes to speak out about any of these requests, you can contact the Committee of Adjustment at the link above. If you cannot make the 10am meeting (which is an awkward time for many) you can send something in writing.

Committee of Adjustment meeting for July 19th, 2022

The meeting on Tuesday, July 19th only had the one application from our neighbourhood at 64 Wilhelm. The application was to legalize an existing driveway with no setback so that an additional dwelling unit can be constructed with parking available. There was one neighbour in opposition to the application and he was concerned about two things. The first was that there was a by-law prohibiting the Additional Dwelling Unit on a corner lot but staff explained why he was mistaken, and the second was the shortage of street parking in the area.

The application was approved by the committee and it was pointed out that there would now be sufficient parking for the new dwelling on the property. It was also mentioned that the area is changing and that residents would need to get used to sharing the street parking.

Until next time,

Mark

Committee of Adjustment meeting for Feb. 15/ 2022 @ 10:00am

The comments in red are from our MHBPNA Development Committee and are included to provide context.

A 2022-013 – 41 Moore Avenue

Permission to construct a two story single detached dwelling and detached garage on a vacant lot having a lot width of 4.57m rather than the required 9m; a maximum front yard setback of 39.5m rather than the maximum permitted 4.6m; an a garage located closer to the front lot line than the front face of the principle building; and, a driveway having a width of 8.53m rather than thew permitted maximum of 5.2m.

As noted, the RIENS guidelines do not allow a garage to protrude beyond the front of the house (garages protruding are knows as “snout” houses).    So the positioning of the garage is not in compliance with the bylaw therefore the owner is going to the C of A. This is a totally strange infill at the end of the laneway between Louisa and Wellington.  Its been vacant for years and there have been many attempts to build on this vacant lot – lots of issues to deal with including fire department access but these have all seemed to be resolved.

B 2022-011 – 44 Wilhelm Street

Permission to sever a parcel of land having a width of 7.62m, a depth of 36.61m and an area of 291.4 sq.m. The retained land will have a width of 7.62m, a depth of 38.5m and an area of 306.4 sq.m. The existing single detached dwelling is proposed to be demolished for the construction of a new semi-detached duplexed dwelling.

Things to watch on this concession – the city bylaw indicates that parking cannot be more than 50 percent of the property.   We have seen this happen on Wilhelm and Waterloo Street where the new owners of the semis have paved almost the entire front yard in order to provide additional parking – even though these new builds have garages.  Because they are severing the property into two lots this means the 50% rule applies to each half of the semi.  This bylaw is in place to ensure there is adequate green space in all the new builds to either plant trees which have probably been eliminated due to construction or eliminate the appearance of cars filling neighbourhood front yards.  As the new infill will be duplexes it probably means four cars need to park on the lot but the parking should not be more than 50% of each semi.  My guess is that once these semi’s are built and sold we will end up with a parking lot in front of the build unless the neighbours object to the build.

B 2022-12 & B 2022-013 – 20 & 30 Breithaupt Street

Permission to sever a parcel of land having a width of 11.984m, a depth of 48m and an area of 567.5 sq.m. to be conveyed as a lot addition to the property municipally addressed as 30 Breithaupt Street; and, permission for a partial discharge of mortgage on severed and retain lands. Both parcels are intended for office development.

These amendments are generally some “housekeeping” issues as a result of the BB3 build.  The development committee has taken a look at the “variances” and do not have any concerns.

A 2022-018, A 2022-019 & B 2022-014 – 81 Shanley Street

Permission to sever a parcel of land so each half of a semi-detached dwelling can be dealt with separately. The severed parcel of land will have a width of 8.73m, a depth of 38.01m and an area of 330 sq.m. The retained land will have width of 8.73m, a depth of 38m, and an area of 330 sq.m. Permission is also being requested for a minor variance for the severed lot to permit maximum front yard setback of 6m rather than maximum permitted 4m. Permission is also being requested for the retained land to have a maximum front yard setback of 6m rather than the maximum permitted 4m.

People are commiserating on the loss of historically designed – apparently the last of three “worker cottages” built in Mt. Hope.  Similar to the 44 Wilhelm Street property, the items to watch is how the parking will be handled.   This property has laneway access and is also proposed to have Shanley Street parking.  One of the issues to pay attention to however is the “streetscape”.   RIENS guidelines indicate that the infill should be in line with all the properties on the street i.e. not protrude or impede the view of the adjacent neighbours.  The setback of 6 metres should be endorsed so that it is in line with the property line of all the houses on the block.

Committee of Adjustment meeting on Jan 18, 2022

As previously reported there was only one property from our neighbourhood on the agenda yesterday;  210 Waterloo Street. The applicant is wanting to build a two story addition on the back of the home with an attached deck.

There were two people registered in opposition to the application…the neighbour to the north and the neighbour to the south of the property. C_____, who lives to the north, was concerned about the setbacks already being non-conforming and that the addition would only make things worse. Her other major concern was for her privacy as the new deck is further back on the lot and elevated so it will be looking directly down into her back yard space…she asked for a design change to the deck so that it would be situated differently.

J___ lives to the south of the applicant and mostly wanted to make sure that the side of her property with the retaining wall and her A/C unit would not be affected by drainage from the new addition. She also needed to know that the A/C unit would be accessible for any servicing required and that the applicant would be repairing any damage to her driveway when he removed the existing temporary “carport”.

Scott Hannah, who is a member of the committee and an experienced planner, was concerned that the drawings were created from a GIS Planning system and not an actual survey. He pointed out that if the lot lines were not accurate it could create problems down the road with re-sale and could also create a building code infraction in regard to one of the windows in the new addition.

In the end, the application was approved with two new conditions. The first was that a proper survey was done;  the second was that a privacy screen would be included in the deck plans on the north side. The applicant also assured J___ that all of her concerns would be addressed.

On a personal note, I enjoyed seeing the co-operation that took place with this application as most of the time with these situations we seem to just end up with a winner and a loser. In this case the committee, the applicant and the neighbours all worked together to try and resolve the issues ahead of time.

Until next month, shovel safe,

Mark

Committee of Adjustment agenda for the meeting of October 19, 2021 at 10:00am.

July 20, 2021

Good morning,
I hope that all of you are well.
The meeting yesterday was quite long as a few of the applications were somewhat contentious.
There was only one property in our neighbourhood on the agenda…102 Waterloo Street.
City staff recommended approval, there was no opposition and the vote to approve was unanimous.
I personally was surprised at the lack of opposition…more of these projects to come I expect.
Until next month,
Mark

July 20, 2021

June 15, 2021

May 18, 2021

There were three properties from our neighbourhood on the agenda this morning.

A 2021-037 40 Prueter Ave.  This application was supported by staff and approved unanimously by the committee. There was some concern expressed by the neighbours about landscaping and the retaining wall but it was noted that those details would be taken into consideration when the site plan was completed.

A 2021-039 78 Shanley St.   This application was also supported by staff and approved by all…congratulations Jeff…the house is looking great.

A 2021-042 29 Gruhn St.       Once again, approved by everyone…sort of. There were two people registered to speak in opposition but were no longer still present in the meeting by the time this item came up on the agenda.

April 20, 2021

There were two properties on the agenda this morning that are in our neighbourhood…573 Guelph St. and 81 Waterloo St..

Both applications were recommended by staff for approval and since there was no opposition for either one, both were approved.

February 16, 2021