T TO:
REPORT
Com
mmittee of Adjustment
A
DATE OF MEETING
G:
Nove
ember 15, 2016
2
SUBMITTED BY:
Julia
ane von We
esterholt, Se
enior Plann
ner - 519-741
1-2200 ext.7
7157
RED BY:
PREPAR
Rich
hard Kelly-R
Ruetz, Plann
ning Studen
nt - 519-741-2200 ext.7074
APPLICA
ATION #:
A 20
016-124
ADDRES
SS:
10 Sims
S
Estate Place
PROPER
RTY OWNER
R:
Grah
hm White
SUMMARIZED
RECOMM
MENDATION:
Approve with conditions
DATE OF REPORT::
Nove
ember 4, 20
016
_______
_________
__________
__________
_________
__________
_________
__________
____
Loc
cation Map: 10 Sims Es
state Place
REPORT
T
Planning
g Commentts:
City Plan
nning staff conducted a site inspe
ection of the
e property o
on Novemb
ber 3, 2016.. The
subject property
p
located at 10 Sims Estate
e Place is d
designated Low Rise R
Residential in the
City’s Offficial Plan and
a zoned Residential
R
Three
T
Zone ((R-3) with S
Special Regu
ulation 472R
R and
369U in Zoning By--law 85-1. There
T
is an
n existing si ngle detach
hed dwelling
g on the su
ubject
property,, which is de
esignated un
nder Part IV of the Onta
ario Heritage
e act and is considered to be
protected
d heritage property.
p
The owner is requesting relief from Special Reg
gulation 472
2R to
permit a reduced westerly
w
side
e yard setba
ack of 3.9 metres to a
accommoda
ate the prop
posed
constructtion of a on
ne-car garag
ge, whereas
s 13 metress is required
d. In additio
on, the own
ner is
requestin
ng relief from
m Special Re
egulation 47
72R to legaliize the frontt yard setbacck of the exxisting
single de
etached dwe
elling at 1.82 metres, whe
ereas 3.5 m etres is requ
uired.
Location
n of the two
o (2) requested varianc
ces at 10 Sim
ms Estate P
Place
(photo no
ot to scale – for contex
xt purposes
s only)
Existing single
e detached dwelling att 10 Sims Es
state Place
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 offers the following comments:
1. The subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan. The
proposed variance meets the intent of the Official Plan, which encourages a range of
housing forms that achieve an overall low density neighbourhood. The changes to the
westerly side yard setback and front yard setback will maintain the low density character of
the property and surrounding neighbourhood. The proposed variances conform to the
designation and it is the opinion of staff that the requested variances are appropriate.
2. The requested variance to legalize the location of the proposed garage at 3.9 metres from
the westerly side yard lot line, whereas 13 metres is required, meets the intent of the
Zoning By-law. Kitchener Heritage Planning Staff have submitted detailed comments in
support of this opinion, which are included in this report. The purpose of a westerly side
yard setback of 13 metres on this property is to preserve the views of the existing single
detached dwelling and surrounding forest, and to maintain enough “breathing room”
between the structure and the townhouse development to the west. The proposed garage
will not interfere with views of the heritage structure, as it will be setback 8.73 metres from
the front lot line, and 4.35 metres from the dwelling, allowing sufficient space to preserve
the views. While the proposed garage will partially obstruct views of the forest, the depth of
the proposed front yard setback for the garage at 8.73 metres is sufficient enough to
minimize the impacts of views on the forest, thus maintaining the general intent of the Bylaw. Furthermore, there will continue to be enough separation between the townhouse
development to the west and the single detached dwelling on the subject lands. A condition
will be added to the recommendation section of this report requiring that the proposed
garage be built in accordance with the dimensions shown on the survey sketch submitted in
support of this application prepared by Black, Shoemaker, Robinson & Donaldson Limited
dated October 25, 2016, to ensure the intent of the Zoning By-law is met.
The requested variance to legalize the front yard setback of the existing single detached
dwelling at 1.82 metres from the front lot line, whereas 3.5 metres is required, meets the
intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of a front yard setback of 3.5 metres is to ensure that
any structure built on the property will not be located closer to the front lot line than the
existing single detached dwelling, the main portion of which is located 3.53 metres from the
front lot line at its closest point. There is an existing enclosed porch on the front of the
existing home which has a setback of 1.82 metres from the front lot line, encroaching 1.68
metres into the required front yard setback. As this is an existing condition, and is already a
component of the existing dwelling, legalizing the reduced front yard setback will meet the
intent of the Zoning By-law, provided that the reduced front yard setback only applies to the
existing single detached dwelling. A condition will be added on this regard in the
recommendation section of this report.
3. The variance can be considered minor as the reduced westerly side yard setback will not
present any significant impacts to adjacent properties and the overall neighbourhood.
The proposed garage would encroach 9.1 metres into the required westerly side yard
setback, preserving views from Sims Estate Place of the existing single detached
dwelling and of the forest in the rear of the lot. The front of the existing single detached
dwelling encroaches 1.68 metres into the required front yard setback and as this is an
existing condition, there will not be any impacts on adjacent properties or to the overall
neighbourhood.
4. The variance is appropriate development for the property and surrounding area. The scale,
massing and height of the proposed garage are appropriate and consistent with the existing
single detached dwelling, and the reduced front yard setback legalizes an existing
condition. Therefore, the proposed variances will maintain the heritage character of the
subject property and continue to be consistent with the character of the surrounding
neighbourhood.
Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that this application be approved subject
to the conditions listed in the recommendations section of this report.
Building Comments:
The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance provided a building permit for the
new detached building is obtained prior to construction. Please contact the Building Division @
519-741-2433 with any questions.
Heritage Comments:
Heritage Planning staff provide the following comments in relation to Committee of Adjustment
Application A 2016-124 made for the property municipally addressed 10 Sims Estate Place.
The subject property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act and is considered
to be protected heritage property as defined in the Provincial Policy Statement (2014).
The property features a stone farmhouse built c.1850 and is commonly referred to as the
Gardener’s House. The farmhouse serves as a physical reminder of the early settlement of the
land by Mennonite pioneering families and of the former rural nature and use of the property.
The structure is also associated with the former Sims Estate, having served as the long-time
residence of the Sims Estate caretaker and gardener. In addition to the farmhouse, the heritage
designation also identifies the natural landscape features as having cultural heritage value,
including the upland forest and wooded valley of Chicopee Creek.
In 2003, the City of Kitchener received Zone Change and Draft Plan of Condominium
applications seeking approval to develop the Sims Estate lands. At the time of the applications,
the Gardener’s House was included in the development proposal and was to be conserved on
its own lot. In addition to a Part IV heritage designation, the City applied site specific regulations
in the zoning by-law as a means of conserving the stone building and its environs. Special
Regulation 472 was applied to the zoning of the Gardener’s House lot as follows (author’s bold
emphasis):
Notwithstanding Section 37.2.1 of the by-law, within the lands zoned R-3 on Schedule
264 of Appendix “A” and described as Part of Lots 118 and 124, German Company
Tract, the minimum lot area shall be 0.13 hectares, the minimum lot width shall be 88
metres, the minimum front yard setback shall be 3.5 metres, the minimum westerly
side yard setback shall be 13 metres and the minimum rear yard setback shall be 2.3
metres.
The yard setbacks established in the special regulation provide a means for preserving the
integrity of the Gardener’s House; its context of setting; and of public views to heritage
attributes. Given the distance between the westerly limit of the property and the Gardener’s
House is approximately 13 metres, the side yard setback effectively serves to prevent the
construction of a new building or structure within that side yard. The intent being to establish
“breathing room” between the stone house and new townhouse development to the west; and to
maintain open and unobstructed views to both the historic house and the upland forest and
wooded valley referenced in the designating bylaw.
In 2016, a Heritage Permit Application (HPA-2016-006) was made for the subject property,
originally seeking permission to construct a double car garage in the westerly side yard.
Heritage staff recommended that the application be refused citing the following concerns:



construction of a garage within the westerly side yard does not conform or appear to
meet the intent of Special Regulation 472 of the zoning by-law, which serves to preserve
the open setting and prevent new construction within the westerly side yard;
the proposed location of the double-car garage will impact views to the upland forest and
wooded valley of Chicopee Creek referenced in the designation by-law and will have an
impact on the context of setting at a critical public vantage point; and
the scale of the proposed double-car garage may compete with, and is not subordinate
to, the modest scale of the stone house, as viewed from Sims Estate Place.
The Heritage Kitchener Committee concurred with heritage staff and recommended to Council
that the Heritage Permit Application be refused. Shortly after the Heritage Kitchener meeting,
the applicants submitted a revised proposal that would continue to locate a garage within the
westerly side yard, but would see the scale of the detached garage reduced from a double-car
garage down to a single car garage. Heritage staff were of the opinion that the reduction in the
size of the garage would establish a structure that is of a more appropriate scale with the stone
house. In addition, the proposed front yard 8.73m setback from the road would ensure that
views to the stone house would remain unobstructed as one approaches the property from Sims
Estate Place. While the single-car garage would partially obstruct views to the upland forest, the
extent to which views would be impaired was reduced when compared with the double-car
garage. The reduced width of the single-car garage also provided an opportunity to shift the
easterly wall of the garage further west, thereby increasing the separation distance between the
two structures and giving the house more “breathing room”.
As a result of the revisions made to the proposal, the Heritage Permit Application seeking
permission to build a single car garage within the westerly side yard of 10 Sims Estate Place
was formally approved by the City. Further, Heritage Planning staff made the follow comments
in the staff report regarding the pending variance application:
“While the applicants will require a variance to the zoning by-law to construct a garage within
the westerly side yard, staff are of the opinion that the amendment made to HPA-2016-IV-006 to
reduce the scale of the garage is an acceptable compromise which balances conservation
objectives with the limitations of the property and the needs of the property owner. Accordingly,
should Council approve the amended Heritage Permit Application, Heritage Planning staff would
support the required zoning variance”.
Heritage Planning staff can advise that the westerly side yard variance being sought in
Committee of Adjustment Application A 2016-124 (westerly side yard of 3.90m) is generally
consistent with the proposal that received Heritage Permit Application approval. As an 8.73m
front yard setback for the proposed garage is critical in maintaining historic views to the
farmhouse, heritage staff request that the approval for the variance for the front yard setback
clarify, by way of a condition or otherwise, that the 1.82m front yard setback applies to the
existing farmhouse building only, and that the proposed garage shall have a minimum front yard
setback of 8.73m.
Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) Comments:
The Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) has no objection to the above-noted variance
to allow a reduced side yard setback and legalize the front yard setback of the existing single
detached dwelling.
Environmental Planning Comments:
In light of the treed nature of the subject property it is requested that a Tree Preservation Plan
be required prior to the construction of the proposed garage.
Transportation Services Comments:
Transportation Services has no concerns with the proposed application.
RECOMMENDATION
That application A 2016-124 requesting relief from Special Regulation 472R to permit a reduced
westerly side yard setback of 3.9 metres, whereas 13 metres is required, and to permit a
reduced from yard setback of 1.82 metres, whereas 3.5 metres is required, be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the proposed garage be built in accordance with the dimensions depicted on the
survey sketch submitted in support of this application prepared by Black, Shoemaker,
Robinson & Donaldson Limited dated October 25, 2016;
2. That the owner obtain a building permit for the construction of the proposed garage by
June 30, 2017;
3. That in light of the treed nature of the property and the proximity of trees in shared
ownership, the owner shall prepare a Tree Preservation Plan for the lands in accordance
with the City’s Tree Management Policy, to be approved by the City’s Director of
Planning and where necessary, implemented prior to any grading, tree removal or the
issuance of building permits. Such plans shall include, among other matters, the
identification of a proposed building envelope/work zone, landscaped area and
vegetation to be removed and/or preserved. The owner further agrees to implement the
approved plan. No changes to the said plan shall be granted except with the prior
approval of the City’s Director of Planning;
4. That the reduced front yard setback of 1.82 metres apply only to the existing single
detached dwelling on the subject property.
__________________________________
Juliane von Westerholt, BES, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
October 31, 2016
Holly Dyson
City of Kitchener
200 King Street West
P.O. Box 1118
Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7
File No.: T15-40/VAR KIT GEN
(3-7, 10-13)
Dear Ms. Dyson:
Re:
Committee of Adjustment Meeting on November 15, 2016, City of Kitchener
Regional staff have reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and
have no comments:
1. SG 2016-006 – 299 Doon Valley Drive, Conestoga College I.T.A.L.
2. A 2016-116 – 58 Howe Drive, 2437612 Ontario Inc. /1841949 Ontario Inc.
3. A 2016-117 – 245 Huck Crescent, Pratul and Smita Modi
4. A 2016-118 – 2 Willowrun Drive, Milestone Developments Inc.
5. A 2016-119 – 79 Willowrun Drive, Milestone Developments Inc.
6. A 2016-120 – 418 Zeller Drive, Zach & Stephanie Makryoakis
7. A 2016-121 – 482 Belmont Avenue West, Warwick Property Management Inc.
8. A 2016-122 – 16 Sheldon Avenue South, Citified Property Initiative Inc.
9. A 2016-123 – 453 Park Street, 2407850 Ontario Inc.
10. A 2016-124 – 10 Sims Estate Place, Graham White
11. A 2016-125 – 3 Pieter Vos Drive, Mattamy Limited
12. A 2016-126 – 20 Braun Street, Anna K. Marshall Holding Inc.
13. A 2016-127 – 150-158 Heiman Street, Heiman Street Properties Limited
14. A 2016-128 – 350 Luella Street, Sigrid Antonia Linster
15. A 2016-129 – 350 Luella Street, Sigrid Antonia Linster
Please be advised that any development on the subject lands is subject to the
provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 14-046 or any successor
thereof and may require payment of Regional Development Charges for these
developments prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The comments contained in this letter pertain to the Application numbers listed. If a site
is subject to more than one application, additional comments may apply.
DOCS: 2256268
Please forward any decisions on the above mentioned Application numbers to the
undersigned.
Yours Truly,
Jason Wigglesworth, C.E.T.
Planning, Development & Legislative Services
(519) 575-4835
/jw
Filing: T15-40/28 – Conestoga College (1)
T15-40/VAR KIT - DOAMEZ, EROL & STACEY (2)
T15-40/VAR KIT – Citified Property Initiative Inc. (8)
T15-40/VAR KIT – 2407850 Ontario Inc. (9)
T15-40/VAR KIT – Linster, Sigrid (14, 15)