Submission No.: A 2025-004
Applicant: Skai Avenue Inc c/o Michael Addai-Dwomoh
Property Location: 240 Chapel Street
Legal Description: Part Lot 10 & Part Lot 11, Plan 768
Appearances:
In Support:
S. Al Mathno
Contra:
None
Written Submissions:
None
The Committee was advised the applicant requested minor variances to permit an easterly side yard setback of 0.4m rather than the required 1.2m; and, to have an unobstructed walkway that is a minimum of 0.92m in width rather than the required 1.1m to facilitate the construction of an Additional Dwelling Unit (ADU) in the rear yard of an existing single detached dwelling.
The Committee considered Development Services Department report DSD-2025-026, dated January 10, 2025, recommending approval subject to a condition for the minor variance request related to the easterly side yard setback; and refusal for the minor variance request related to an unobstructed walkway as outlined in the report.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated December 20, 2024, advising they have no concerns with the subject application.
The Committee considered the report of the Grand River Conservation Authority Resource Planning Technician dated January 3, 2025, advising they have no concerns with the subject application.
S. Al Mathno, QBS Architects Inc., was in attendance in support of the staff recommendation for approval of the minor variance request related to the easterly side yard setback. S. Al Mathno noted opposition to the staff recommendation for the refusal of the minor variance request related to the unobstructed walkway. S. Al Mathno requested the Committee approve the variance for the unobstructed walkway to have a width of 0.92m as the proposed width is an existing condition. S. Al Mathno noted to be able to achieve an unobstructed 1.1m walkway, modifications to an existing chimney and utility meter would be required, which would be financially burdensome for the property owner. S. Al Mathno suggested the Committee approve the proposed variance related to the walkway including a condition that the property owner be required to make modifications to the chimney and utility meter, if/when the neighboring property owner constructs a fence between the two properties in the future.
It was requested the variances be voted on separately.
A motion to approve the variance for an easterly side yard setback of 0.4m was brought forward by B. McColl and was seconded by M. Gambetti. The motion was then voted on and was Carried.
T. Malone-Wright advised the Committee a previous minor variance application, A2022-074, for the subject property was approved in July 2022, which permitted a reduced minimum side yard setback of 0.4m rather than 1.2m to facilitate the construction of the Additional Dwelling Unit (Detached) in the rear yard. However, during a site visit for the minor variance application being considered this date, staff discovered a chimney and utility meter on the left side of the main house projecting 0.18m into the 1.1m wide unobstructed walkway which were not identified in the previous minor variance application, site plan application, or building permit. As such, T. Malone-Wright noted Staff are recommending refusal of the proposed unobstructed walkway width of 0.92m required for the existing ADU (Detached) and the proposed basement Additional Dwelling Unit (Attached) as the the property is not currently zoning compliant.
A motion to approve the variance for the unobstructed walkway having a minimum width of 0.92m was brought forward by M. Gambetti and was seconded by M. Melo.
The Committee emphasized the importance of an unobstructed walkway having a minimum width of 1.1m to provide a suitable emergency access route to the proposed ADU.
T. Malone-Wright advised the Committee, the projection of the utility meter into the walkway is of greater concern than the chimney as it projects further into the walkway. Further, T. Malone-Wright noted she had been in consultation with the Planner for the subject application and it was noted the projection of the chimney leaves a walkway width of 0.99m which is a minor variance (0.11m) from the required walkway width of 1.1m. As such, T. Malone-Wright advised, staff would be supportive the Committee approving an unobstructed walkway width of 0.99m rather than 0.92m as requested by the applicant. T. Malone-Wright also noted the applicant would be required to modify only the utility meter meter in order to construct an unobstructed walkway having a width of 0.99m which would address the financial concerns related to modifying the chimney previously raised by the applicant.
B. McColl brought forward an amendment to M. Gambetti's motion to amend the width of the unobstructed walkway to 0.99m rather 0.92m. The amendment was seconded by M. Melo. The amendment was then voted on and was Carried.
The motion, as amended was voted on and was Carried.
Moved by M. Gambetti
Seconded by M. Melo