HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSD-2024-530 - A 2024-075 - 96 Wood StreetStaff Report
r
JR
Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca
REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment
DATE OF MEETING: December 10, 2024
SUBMITTED BY: Tina Malone -Wright, Manager, Development Approvals
519-783-8913
PREPARED BY: Sean Harrigan, Senior Planning Technician, 519-783-8934
WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 9
DATE OF REPORT: November 28, 2024
REPORT NO.: DSD -2024-530
SUBJECT: Minor Variance Application A2024-075 - 96 Wood Street
RECOMMENDATION:
That Minor Variance Application A2024-075 for 96 Wood Street requesting relief
from the following Sections of Zoning By-law 2019-051:
i) Section 6, Table 6-3, as amended by By-law 2024-065, to permit a Multiple
Dwelling on a lot area of 393 m2 instead of the minimum required 450 m2;
ii) Section 6, Table 6-3, as amended by By-law 2024-065, to permit a minimum
front yard setback of 3.8 metres instead of the minimum required 4.5 metres;
iii) Section 6, Table 6-3, as amended by By-law 2024-065, to permit a minimum
exterior side yard setback of 2.5 metres instead of the minimum required 4.5
metres;
iv) Section 6, Table 6-3, as amended by By-law 2024-065, to permit a maximum
building height of 12 metres instead of the maximum permitted building height
of 11 metres; and
v) Section 4.5.a) to permit a 1.83 metre (6 foot) fence within one side of the
Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT) instead of the maximum permitted height of
0.9 metres;
to facilitate the development of an 8 -unit Multiple dwelling, generally in accordance
with drawings prepared by Masri O Inc. Architects, dated October 18, 2023, revised
August 2, 2024, BE DEFERRED until June 17, 2025, or earlier, in accordance with the
following:
1. That the Owner/Applicant prepare, submit and obtain approval of a Tree
Protection and Enhancement Plan to demonstrate full protection of City -owned
street trees adjacent to this property, that these trees will be protected to City
standards throughout demolition and construction as per Chapter 690 of the
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
Page 10 of 403
current Property Maintenance By-law, and that the requested minor variances
would meet the 4 tests in the Planning Act.
2. That the Owner/Applicant prepare, submit and obtain approval of a Planning
Justification Report to demonstrate how the proposal will meet the Official Plan
Policies for the Gildner Green Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape, with
particular attention to Policies 11.C.1.35 and 15.D.2.5, and having regard for the
Tree Management and Enhancement Plan, to support that the requested minor
variances would meet the 4 tests in the Planning Act.
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS:
• The purpose of this report is to review the requested minor variances to allow for the
development of an 8 -unit multiple dwelling on 96 Wood Street.
• The key finding of this report is that staff are not satisfied that the proposed
development is appropriate for this area and property until the applicant demonstrates
that the existing City trees will be preserved through a study prepared by a qualified
professional and that the proposal will meet the Cultural Heritage Policies for the
Gildner Green Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape.
• There are no financial implications.
• Community engagement included a notice sign being placed on the property advising
that a Committee of Adjustment application has been received, notice of the
application was mailed to all property owners within 30 metres of the subject property
and this report was posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the
Committee of Adjustment meeting.
• This report supports the delivery of core services.
BACKGROUND:
The minor variance application for 96 Wood Street was originally heard on September 17,
2024, and subsequently deferred to allow time for the applicant to prepare a Planning
Justification Report and Tree Protection and Enhancement Plan. The applicant has not
provided the required report and plan and as such, staff's comments remain unchanged
from the original hearing on September 17. Staff recommend another deferral to allow time
for the applicant to prepare the necessary report and plan.
The subject property is located in the K -W Hospital neighbourhood and is situated on the
northwest corner of the intersection of Wood Street and York Street. The property has
approximately 28 metres of frontage on York Street and 17 metres of frontage on Wood
Street. The property currently contains a single detached dwelling and detached garage,
both which will be removed. There is also an existing fence located within the City
boulevard along York Street.
Page 11 of 403
Figure 1: Location Map
The subject property is identified as a `Major Transit Station Area' on Map 2 — Urban
Structure and was previously designated `Low Rise Conservation' in the K -W Hospital
Neighbourhood Plan as shown on Map 18 —Secondary Plan in the City's 1994 Official
Plan. Recently, the property's land use designation changed to `Strategic Growth Area A'
with the adoption of By-law 2024-062 and approval of OPA 49 by the Region of Waterloo.
The property is currently zoned `Residential Five Zone, Special Use Provision 129U (R-5,
129U)' in Zoning By-law 85-1. The property will be zoned `Strategic Growth Area One
(SGA -1)' once the appeal to By-law 2024-065 is resolved and this by-law comes into full
force and effect.
The purpose of the application is to review minor variances to allow for the development of
an 8 -unit Multiple Dwelling. The proposed Multiple Dwelling is not a permitted use under
the current `R-5' zone but will be permitted under the new `SGA -1' zone. The proposed 8 -
unit Multiple Dwelling requires the following variances:
• A lot area of 393 m2.
• A front yard setback of 3.8 metres.
• An exterior side yard setback of 2.5 metres.
• A building height of 12 metres.
• To permit 1.8 metre high fence within the Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT).
Page 12 of 403
YORK S CRE�w„
�r4RNERVG9 iEfL iTv
TRIANGLE 1
ot'ss
LANDSCAPE
4
��RlIL ! o A)•lEAll71� ^ 4la
75 15610 3880 0
3 -STOREY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING+BASEMENT
II - a Uarcs
W I YPE B -BICYCLE 12
II � W SPACE$ �6I s
! a
� I PARKING
d SPACE
x I _ ' W.
t o ]BIKE
CLOS LE ITl i t s
I 4S)SPAC LANDSCAPE
SITE PLAN NFiPa4"3a'W V.40?w Ul
SCALE: 1 :156
s y
li. LL
O Nl
Figure 2: Site Plan
_t
TIO PENTHOUSE ROOF
13.300
U/S ROOF
10.500
a TIO THIRD FLOOR
� z
T-' 7.500
uu
CV
T— z
2
TIO SECOND FLOOR O
4.500
m
TIO GROUND FLOOR
r 1.500
r
i TICS 'E { BASEMENT LINES !
e!L _ _ _ _ — _ _ _ _
v
I
TIO �ASEMENT
1.300
Figure 3: Building Elevation (Wood Street Facade)
Page 13 of 403
Figure 4: Front of Existing House (Wood Street Facade)
_ - A
Page 14 of 403
s71
�
da"14-"
- Via\ . � � � -` ' � � -"•.. ��, 6.
JA
-• , r� a J '� ar
:+
'� y
Figure 8: Proposed Driveway Location between City tree and Utility Box
Figure 9: Location of City Trees
�1
Page 16 of 403
REPORT:
Planning Comments:
In considering the four tests for the 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:
The proposed 8 -unit Multiple Dwelling is not permitted under the current `R-5'Zone but will
be permitted once the new `SGA -1' Zone comes into full effect. As such, the requested
minor variances were reviewed against the `SGA -1' Zone and associated Official Plan
amendment.
General Intent of the Official Plan
Official Plan Amendment (OPA) 49 (By-law 2024-062) incorporated modifications to the
text and mapping of the Official Plan in order to implement a new land use planning
framework for seven of the City's ten Protected Major Transit Station Areas. This Official
Plan amendment changed the subject property's designation to `Strategic Growth Area A'.
Strategic growth area land use designations are applied within the Urban Growth Centre
and Protected Major Transit Station Areas. These lands will provide opportunities for all
housing types and a range of commercial, employment, and institutional uses to create
complete communities. Lands within Protected Major Transit Station Areas shall be
planned to achieve minimum densities, with the target for Grand River Hospital Station
being 160 residents and jobs combined per hectare as per Section 3.C.2.18. as amended
by OPA 49. The proposed development will have 203 residents per hectare and will
contribute to the diversity of housing types.
As per Official Plan Section 11.C.1.37., as amended by OPA 49, the City will require
development and/or redevelopment in a Protected Major Transit Station Area to support
and contribute to a high quality public realm. To do this, the City will require a high quality
public realm at grade which includes sidewalks, street furniture, street trees, and
landscaping. The City will also require developments to support, maintain and/or increase
the tree canopy, where possible, to support Kitchener's Sustainable Urban Forestry
Strategy. The subject property currently abuts several mature City trees, as shown in
Figure 9, that form an essential component of the streetscape character in addition to
contributing to the high quality public realm, as shown in Figures 5-8. The proposed 8 -unit
Multiple Dwelling with reduced front and exterior side yard setbacks appears to encroach
into the critical root zone of these mature City trees which poses a significant risk to their
immediate and long-term retention. Ensuring the retention of these trees is critical to
satisfying this Official Plan policy and as such, staff must recommend refusal for the
variances until the applicant demonstrates that all City trees will be retained.
Official Plan policy 15.D.2.5., as amended by OPA 49, states that site specific applications
which seek relief from the implementing zoning through a minor variance will consider the
compatibility with the planned function of the subject lands and adjacent lands, suitability
of the lot for the proposed use and/or built form, and other contextual or site specific
factors, amongst other requirements. As noted above, the planned function of the property
and adjacent lands is intensification with a clear requirement for maintaining and
enhancing the streetscape character, particularly as it relates to City trees. As for the
Page 17 of 403
suitability of the lot, the subject property is undersized for the proposed development and
built form as required by the Zoning By-law. The property might be suitable for the Multiple
Dwelling despite it being undersized, but only if the undersized lot area does not
negatively impact the streetscape character and City trees. As mentioned above, staff
have significant concerns that the proposed development will negatively impact and
require removal of the City trees. As such, staff are of the opinion that the general intent of
this policy cannot satisfied until the applicant demonstrates that the City trees will remain
through an acceptable report and/or plan.
General Intent of the Zonina By-law
The general intent of the Zoning By-law with respect to required lot area, setbacks, and
building height is to ensure the built form is compatible with the existing neighbourhood
and planned function for the property, has sufficient landscaping and outdoor amenity
space, and to prevent over development. To this regard, the proposed 8 -unit Multiple
Dwelling is keeping with the planning function for this area, but there are significant
concerns that the reduced lot area and setbacks along with the increase in building height
is over development for this property and neighbourhood. If the applicant can clearly
demonstrate through a qualified professional that the streetscape character and City trees
will remain unchanged, then staff would be satisfied that the general intent of the Zoning
By-law is maintained.
The general intent of the driveway visibility triangle is to ensure the safety of pedestrians
and vehicles when residents are entering or leaving the parking spot. Transportation staff
are satisfied that the proposed obstruction within the driveway visibility triangle does not
compromise safety and that the general intent of the Zoning By-law is maintained for this
specific variance.
Is/Are the Effects of the Variance(s) Minor?
The potential individual and cumulative impact of the minor variances for lot area, building
height, and setbacks is dependent on whether the City trees will be retained. If the City
trees are removed, the massing and built form resulting from the multiple variances for the
proposed 8 -unit Multiple Dwelling will have a considerable impact on the existing
neighbourhood character and appear out of place when compared to surrounding
properties. As such, staff are not satisfied the effects of the proposed variances are minor
in nature until the applicant provides evidence that the City trees will remain.
Regarding the driveway visibility triangle, staff are satisfied the proposed variance is minor
in nature given the existing fence and only 1 parking space is proposed.
Is/Are the Variance(s) Desirable For The Appropriate Development or Use of the Land,
Building and/or Structure?
The surrounding properties on York Street and Wood Street have similar front yard
setbacks to what is proposed on the subject property. However, these surrounding
properties have singled detached dwellings approximately 2 to 2.5 storeys in height with
traditional sloped roofs and mature trees located between the dwelling and travelled road.
The proposed development is 4 storeys in height with a flat roof and significantly more
residential units than surrounding properties and what is permitted on the current lot size.
This increase in massing resulting from the cumulative effect of the proposed variances is
a substantial deviation from the existing neighbourhood character that is further amplified if
Page 18 of 403
the City trees are removed. However, if the City trees are retained, the visual buffer
afforded by the canopy coverage will mitigate potential negative impacts from the
individual and cumulative effects of the proposed variances and help ensure the Multiple
Dwelling is appropriate development for the long term. With that said, staff are not satisfied
the proposed development is appropriate until the applicant proves the City trees will be
retained.
Environmental Planning Comments:
A number of trees are City street trees and parks/Forestry should advise on the proposal
and conditions. A tree on 85 Mount Hope that has potential for shared ownership with the
subject site should also be assessed for impact from the proposed development. Forestry
may wish the applicant to so assess the street trees as part of a Tree Management Plan.
Heritage Planning Comments:
The property municipally addressed as 96 Wood Street is located within the Gildner Green
Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape, per the Kitchener Cultural Heritage
Landscape Study (CHLS) dated December 2014 and approved by Council in 2015.
The Gildner Green Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape was recently identified as
a Cultural Heritage Landscape on Map 9 — Cultural Heritage Resources in the 2014
Official Plan by OPA 49 — Growing Together.
The CHLS identifies the attractive and consistent public realm linked by streetscape,
mature trees, and grass boulevards to be a character defining features of this area.
The following policies apply:
11.C.1.35. New development or redevelopment in a cultural heritage landscape will:
a) support, maintain and enhance the major characteristics and attributes of
the cultural heritage landscape further defined in the City's 2014 City of
Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscapes;
b) support the adaptive reuse of existing buildings;
c) be compatible with the existing neighbourhood, including but not limited
to the streetscape and the built form; and,
d) respond to the design, massing and materials of the adjacent and
surrounding buildings.
12.C.1.10. The City will require the conservation of significant cultural heritage
landscapes within the city.
15.D.2.5. Notwithstanding policies 4.C.1.8 and 4.C.1.9, site specific applications which
seek relief from the implementing zoning through a minor variance(s) or
amendment to the Zoning By-law, and/or seek to amend this Plan will
consider the following factors:
a) compatibility with the planned function of the subject lands and adjacent
lands;
b) suitability of the lot for the proposed use and/or built -form;
c) lot area and consolidation as further outlined in Policy 3.C.2.11;
Page 19 of 403
d) compliance with the City's Urban Design Manual and Policy 11.C.1.34;
e) cultural heritage resources, including Policy 15.D.2.8; and,
f) technical considerations and other contextual or site specific factors.
15.D.2.29. All development or redevelopment will embrace, celebrate and conserve the
Cultural Heritage Resources in the Urban Growth Centre (Downtown) and
Protected Major Transit Station Areas and will be subject to the Cultural
Heritage Resources Policies in Section 12 and subject to any other
supporting documents, adopted by Council, including Heritage Conservation
District Plans.
Through Section 11.C.1.35 of the amended Official Plan, "New development or
redevelopment in a cultural heritage landscape will a) support, maintain and enhance the
major characteristics and attributes of the cultural heritage landscape further defined in the
City's 2014 City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscapes and c) be compatible with the
existing neighbourhood, including but not limited to the streetscape and the built form." As
such, Heritage Planning staff have concerns related to the possible encroachment or risk
to the mature City trees which abut the subject property. The retention and maintenance of
these trees should be ensured through the completion of a Tree Management Plan with
demonstration through a Planning Justification Report that the proposal will comply with
Policies 11.C.1.35 and 15.D.2.5.
Building Division Comments:
The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance provided building permit
for the new residential building is obtained prior to construction. Please contact the
Building Division at building(a-)kitchener.ca with any questions.
Engineering Division Comments:
No concerns.
Parks/Operations Division Comments:
There are several large City owned street trees adjacent to this property and these trees
should be protected to City standards throughout demolition and construction as per
Chapter 690 of the current Property Maintenance By-law. Suitable arrangements including
the submission and approval of a Tree Protection and Enhancement Plan showing
full protection for existing trees; an ISA valuation of City -owned trees and any
required securities or compensation for removed trees will be required to the
satisfaction of Parks and Cemeteries prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
Please see Urban Design Manual Part C, Section 13 and
www.kitchener.ca/treemanagement
There are existing encroachments onto City lands as shown in the survey included in the
Committee of Adjustment application. Theses encroachments should be removed entirely
and complete restoration of public property to City standards will be expected through the
off-site works related to the Building Permit application.
Transportation Planning Comments:
Transportation Services have no concerns with the encroachment into the driveway visibility
triangle as this is an existing condition with the neighbouring property at 85 Mt. Hope Street.
Page 20 of 403
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
This report supports the delivery of core services.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget.
Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance
of the Committee of Adjustment meeting. A notice sign was placed on the property
advising that a Committee of Adjustment application has been received. The sign advises
interested parties to find additional information on the City's website or by emailing the
Planning Division. A notice of the application was mailed to all property owners within 30
metres of the subject property.
PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES:
• Planning Act
• Provincial Policy Statement (PPS 2024)
• Regional Official Plan
• Official Plan (2014)
• Official Plan Amendment 49 (By-law 2024-062)
• Zoning By-law 2019-051
• Zoning By-law Amendment 2024-065, currently under appeal.
Page 21 of 403
Staff Report
r
JR
Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca
REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment
DATE OF MEETING: September 17, 2024
SUBMITTED BY: Tina Malone -Wright, Manager, Development Approvals
519-741-2200 ext. 7765
PREPARED BY: Sean Harrigan, Senior Planning Technician, 519-741-2200 ext.
7292
WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 9
DATE OF REPORT:
REPORT NO.:
September 9, 2024
DSD -2024-422
SUBJECT: Minor Variance Application A2024-075 - 96 Wood Street
RECOMMENDATION:
That Minor Variance Application A2024-075 for 96 Wood Street requesting relief
from the following Sections of Zoning By-law 2019-051:
i) Section 6, Table 6-3, as amended by By-law 2024-065, to permit a Multiple
Dwelling on a lot area of 393 m2 instead of the minimum required 450 m2;
ii) Section 6, Table 6-3, as amended by By-law 2024-065, to permit a minimum
front yard setback of 3.8 metres instead of the minimum required 4.5 metres;
iii) Section 6, Table 6-3, as amended by By-law 2024-065, to permit a minimum
exterior side yard setback of 2.5 metres instead of the minimum required 4.5
metres;
iv) Section 6, Table 6-3, as amended by By-law 2024-065, to permit a maximum
building height of 12 metres instead of the maximum permitted building height
of 11 metres; and
v) Section 4.5.a) to permit a 1.83 metre (6 foot) fence within one side of the
Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT) instead of the maximum permitted height of
0.9 metres;
to facilitate the development of an 8 -unit Multiple dwelling, generally in accordance
with drawings prepared by Masri O Inc. Architects, dated October 18, 2023, revised
August 2, 2024, BE DEFERRED until December 10, 2024, or earlier, in accordance
with the following:
1. That the Owner/Applicant prepare, submit and obtain approval of a Tree
Protection and Enhancement Plan to demonstrate full protection of City -owned
street trees adjacent to this property, that these trees will be protected to City
standards throughout demolition and construction as per Chapter 690 of the
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
Page 22 of 403
current Property Maintenance By-law, and that the requested minor variances
would meet the 4 tests in the Planning Act.
2. That the Owner/Applicant prepare, submit and obtain approval of a Planning
Justification Report to demonstrate how the proposal will meet the Official Plan
Policies for the Gildner Green Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape, with
particular attention to Policies 11.C.1.35 and 15.D.2.5, and having regard for the
Tree Management and Enhancement Plan, to support that the requested minor
variances would meet the 4 tests in the Planning Act.
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS:
• The purpose of this report is to review the requested minor variances to allow for the
development of an 8 -unit Multiple Dwelling on 96 Wood Street.
• The key finding of this report is that staff are not satisfied that the proposed
development is appropriate for this area and property until the applicant demonstrates
that the existing City trees will be preserved through a study prepared by a qualified
professional and that the proposal will meet the Cultural Heritage Policies for the
Gildner Green Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape.
• There are no financial implications.
• Community engagement included a notice sign being placed on the property advising
that a Committee of Adjustment application has been received, notice of the
application was mailed to all property owners within 30 metres of the subject property
and this report was posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the
Committee of Adjustment meeting.
• This report supports the delivery of core services.
BACKGROUND:
The subject property is located in the K -W Hospital neighbourhood and is situated on the
northwest corner of the intersection of Wood Street and York Street. The property has
approximately 28 metres of frontage on York Street and 17 metres of frontage on Wood
Street. The property currently contains a single detached dwelling and detached garage,
both which will be removed. There is also an existing fence located within the City
boulevard along York Street.
Figure 1: Location Map
Page 23 of 403
The subject property is identified as a `Major Transit Station Area' on Map 2 — Urban
Structure and was previously designated `Low Rise Conservation' in the K -W Hospital
Neighbourhood Plan as shown on Map 18 —Secondary Plan in the City's 1994 Official
Plan. Recently, the property's land use designation changed to `Strategic Growth Area A'
with the adoption of By-law 2024-062 and approval of OPA 49 by the Region of Waterloo.
The property is currently zoned `Residential Five Zone, Special Use Provision 129U (R-5,
129U)' in Zoning By-law 85-1. The property will be zoned `Strategic Growth Area One
(SGA -1)' once the appeal to By-law 2024-065 is resolved and this by-law comes into full
force and effect.
The purpose of the application is to review minor variances to allow for the development of
an 8 -unit Multiple Dwelling. The proposed Multiple Dwelling is not a permitted use under
the current `R-5' zone but will be permitted under the new `SGA -1' zone. The proposed 8 -
unit Multiple Dwelling requires the following variances:
• A lot area of 393 m2.
• A front yard setback of 3.8 metres.
• An exterior side yard setback of 2.5 metres.
• A building height of 12 metres.
• To permit 1.8 metre high fence within the Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT).
VC S -f FEE
TE. K
R6
�iSYVtI€' COS'dC
¢RNER V1$IBILIT
I MANGLE
-
N 99'6
LANDSCAPE P -
_ I
A)+lENITY- I W
_ - U
- 7S _ 1SAI0 3880 0
PARKING
SPACE
BIKE
Ei1CL 11
SPAC
SITE PLAN
SCALE: w : m
Figure 2: Site Plan
r
w
Page 24 of 403
3-STCPREY RESIDENTIAL BWLDING+gA&Eh1ENT �
I
S UNITS
YPE B -BICYCLE x
wSPACES; ,6)
'PdZ_
1�1
PWI
.IT
LANDSCAPE b
UP I
N 26 W30- W VAW
r
W LL
d M
r
w
Page 24 of 403
l.- TIO PENTHOUSE ROOF
r 13-300
1� U/S ROOF
r
r 10.500
T10 THIRD FLOOR
r' 7.500
04
r
Z
z
T10 SECOND FLOOR
a
J
co
r 4.500
TIO GROUND FLOOR
r�
rJ 1.500
a T10 G ' E BASEMENT LINES
0.01
�TJO,8ASEMENT
Y -1.300
Figure 3: Building Elevation (Wood Street Fagade)
Figure 4: Front of Existing House (Wood Street Facade)
Page 25 of 403
� 1
wAM►"
rr[
foie,
4 L
1
5•
e TM
kip a
Figure 9: Location of City Trees
REPORT:
Planning Comments:
In considering the four tests for the 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:
The proposed 8 -unit Multiple Dwelling is not permitted under the current `R-5'Zone but will
be permitted once the new `SGA -1' Zone comes into full effect. As such, the requested
minor variances were reviewed against the `SGA -1' Zone and associated Official Plan
amendment.
General Intent of the Official Plan
Official Plan Amendment (OPA) 49 (By-law 2024-062) incorporated modifications to the
text and mapping of the Official Plan in order to implement a new land use planning
framework for seven of the City's ten Protected Major Transit Station Areas. This Official
Plan amendment changed the subject property's designation to `Strategic Growth Area A'.
Strategic growth area land use designations are applied within the Urban Growth Centre
and Protected Major Transit Station Areas. These lands will provide opportunities for all
housing types and a range of commercial, employment, and institutional uses to create
complete communities. Lands within Protected Major Transit Station Areas shall be
planned to achieve minimum densities, with the target for Grand River Hospital Station
being 160 residents and jobs combined per hectare as per Section 3.C.2.18. as amended
Page 28 of 403
by OPA 49. The proposed development will have 203 residents per hectare and will
contribute to the diversity of housing types.
As per Official Plan Section 11.C.1.37., as amended by OPA 49, the City will require
development and/or redevelopment in a Protected Major Transit Station Area to support
and contribute to a high quality public realm. To do this, the City will require a high quality
public realm at grade which includes sidewalks, street furniture, street trees, and
landscaping. The City will also require developments to support, maintain and/or increase
the tree canopy, where possible, to support Kitchener's Sustainable Urban Forestry
Strategy. The subject property currently abuts several mature City trees, as shown in
Figure 9, that form an essential component of the streetscape character in addition to
contributing to the high quality public realm, as shown in Figures 5-8. The proposed 8 -unit
Multiple Dwelling with reduced front and exterior side yard setbacks appears to encroach
into the critical root zone of these mature City trees which poses a significant risk to their
immediate and long-term retention. Ensuring the retention of these trees is critical to
satisfying this Official Plan policy and as such, staff must recommend refusal for the
variances until the applicant demonstrates that all City trees will be retained.
Official Plan policy 15.D.2.5., as amended by OPA 49, states that site specific applications
which seek relief from the implementing zoning through a minor variance will consider the
compatibility with the planned function of the subject lands and adjacent lands, suitability
of the lot for the proposed use and/or built form, and other contextual or site specific
factors, amongst other requirements. As noted above, the planned function of the property
and adjacent lands is intensification with a clear requirement for maintaining and
enhancing the streetscape character, particularly as it relates to City trees. As for the
suitability of the lot, the subject property is undersized for the proposed development and
built form as required by the Zoning By-law. The property might be suitable for the Multiple
Dwelling despite it being undersized, but only if the undersized lot area does not
negatively impact the streetscape character and City trees. As mentioned above, staff
have significant concerns that the proposed development will negatively impact and
require removal of the City trees. As such, staff are of the opinion that the general intent of
this policy cannot satisfied until the applicant demonstrates that the City trees will remain
through an acceptable report and/or plan.
General Intent of the Zoning By-law
The general intent of the Zoning By-law with respect to required lot area, setbacks, and
building height is to ensure the built form is compatible with the existing neighbourhood
and planned function for the property, has sufficient landscaping and outdoor amenity
space, and to prevent over development. To this regard, the proposed 8 -unit Multiple
Dwelling is keeping with the planning function for this area, but there are significant
concerns that the reduced lot area and setbacks along with the increase in building height
is over development for this property and neighbourhood. If the applicant can clearly
demonstrate through a qualified professional that the streetscape character and City trees
will remain unchanged, then staff would be satisfied that the general intent of the Zoning
By-law is maintained.
The general intent of the driveway visibility triangle is to ensure the safety of pedestrians
and vehicles when residents are entering or leaving the parking spot. Transportation staff
are satisfied that the proposed obstruction within the driveway visibility triangle does not
Page 29 of 403
compromise safety and that the general intent of the Zoning By-law is maintained for this
specific variance.
Is/Are the Effects of the Variance(s) Minor?
The potential individual and cumulative impact of the minor variances for lot area, building
height, and setbacks is dependent on whether the City trees will be retained. If the City
trees are removed, the massing and built form resulting from the multiple variances for the
proposed 8 -unit Multiple Dwelling will have a considerable impact on the existing
neighbourhood character and appear out of place when compared to surrounding
properties. As such, staff are not satisfied the effects of the proposed variances are minor
in nature until the applicant provides evidence that the City trees will remain.
Regarding the driveway visibility triangle, staff are satisfied the proposed variance is minor
in nature given the existing fence and only 1 parking space is proposed.
Is/Are the Variance(s) Desirable For The Appropriate Development or Use of the Land,
Building and/or Structure?
The surrounding properties on York Street and Wood Street have similar front yard
setbacks to what is proposed on the subject property. However, these surrounding
properties have singled detached dwellings approximately 2 to 2.5 storeys in height with
traditional sloped roofs and mature trees located between the dwelling and travelled road.
The proposed development is 4 storeys in height with a flat roof and significantly more
residential units than surrounding properties and what is permitted on the current lot size.
This increase in massing resulting from the cumulative effect of the proposed variances is
a substantial deviation from the existing neighbourhood character that is further amplified if
the City trees are removed. However, if the City trees are retained, the visual buffer
afforded by the canopy coverage will mitigate potential negative impacts from the
individual and cumulative effects of the proposed variances and help ensure the Multiple
Dwelling is appropriate development for the long term. With that said, staff are not satisfied
the proposed development is appropriate until the applicant proves the City trees will be
retained.
Environmental Planning Comments:
A number of trees are City street trees and parks/Forestry should advise on the proposal
and conditions. A tree on 85 Mount Hope that has potential for shared ownership with the
subject site should also be assessed for impact from the proposed development. Forestry
may wish the applicant to so assess the street trees as part of a Tree Management Plan.
Heritage Planning Comments:
The property municipally addressed as 96 Wood Street is located within the Gildner Green
Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape, per the Kitchener Cultural Heritage
Landscape Study (CHLS) dated December 2014 and approved by Council in 2015.
The Gildner Green Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape was recently identified as
a Cultural Heritage Landscape on Map 9 — Cultural Heritage Resources in the 2014
Official Plan by OPA 49 — Growing Together.
The CHLS identifies the attractive and consistent public realm linked by streetscape,
mature trees, and grass boulevards to be a character defining features of this area.
Page 30 of 403
The following policies apply:
11.C.1.35. New development or redevelopment in a cultural heritage landscape will:
a) support, maintain and enhance the major characteristics and attributes of
the cultural heritage landscape further defined in the City's 2014 City of
Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscapes;
b) support the adaptive reuse of existing buildings;
c) be compatible with the existing neighbourhood, including but not limited
to the streetscape and the built form; and,
d) respond to the design, massing and materials of the adjacent and
surrounding buildings.
12.C.1.10. The City will require the conservation of significant cultural heritage
landscapes within the city.
15.D.2.5. Notwithstanding policies 4.C.1.8 and 4.C.1.9, site specific applications which
seek relief from the implementing zoning through a minor variance(s) or
amendment to the Zoning By-law, and/or seek to amend this Plan will
consider the following factors:
a) compatibility with the planned function of the subject lands and adjacent
lands;
b) suitability of the lot for the proposed use and/or built -form;
c) lot area and consolidation as further outlined in Policy 3.C.2.11;
d) compliance with the City's Urban Design Manual and Policy 11.C.1.34;
e) cultural heritage resources, including Policy 15.D.2.8; and,
f) technical considerations and other contextual or site specific factors.
15.D.2.29. All development or redevelopment will embrace, celebrate and conserve the
Cultural Heritage Resources in the Urban Growth Centre (Downtown) and
Protected Major Transit Station Areas and will be subject to the Cultural
Heritage Resources Policies in Section 12 and subject to any other
supporting documents, adopted by Council, including Heritage Conservation
District Plans.
Through Section 11.C.1.35 of the amended Official Plan, "New development or
redevelopment in a cultural heritage landscape will a) support, maintain and enhance the
major characteristics and attributes of the cultural heritage landscape further defined in the
City's 2014 City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscapes and c) be compatible with the
existing neighbourhood, including but not limited to the streetscape and the built form." As
such, Heritage Planning staff have concerns related to the possible encroachment or risk
to the mature City trees which abut the subject property. The retention and maintenance of
these trees should be ensured through the completion of a Tree Management Plan with
demonstration through a Planning Justification Report that the proposal will comply with
Policies 11.C.1.35 and 15.D.2.5.
Page 31 of 403
Building Division Comments:
The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance provided building permit
for the new residential building is obtained prior to construction. Please contact the
Building Division at building(o)kitchener.ca with any questions.
Engineering Division Comments:
No concerns.
Parks/Operations Division Comments:
There are several large City owned street trees adjacent to this property and these trees
should be protected to City standards throughout demolition and construction as per
Chapter 690 of the current Property Maintenance By-law. Suitable arrangements including
the submission and approval of a Tree Protection and Enhancement Plan showing
full protection for existing trees; an ISA valuation of City -owned trees and any
required securities or compensation for removed trees will be required to the
satisfaction of Parks and Cemeteries prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
Please see Urban Design Manual Part C, Section 13 and
www.kitchener.ca/treemanaaement
There are existing encroachments onto City lands as shown in the survey included in the
Committee of Adjustment application. Theses encroachments should be removed entirely
and complete restoration of public property to City standards will be expected through the
off-site works related to the Building Permit application.
Transportation Planning Comments:
Transportation Services have no concerns with the encroachment into the driveway visibility
triangle as this is an existing condition with the neighbouring property at 85 Mt. Hope Street.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
This report supports the delivery of core services.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget.
Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance
of the Committee of Adjustment meeting. A notice sign was placed on the property
advising that a Committee of Adjustment application has been received. The sign advises
interested parties to find additional information on the City's website or by emailing the
Planning Division. A notice of the application was mailed to all property owners within 30
metres of the subject property.
Page 32 of 403
PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES:
• Planning Act
• Provincial Policy Statement (PPS 2020)
• A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020
• Regional Official Plan
• Official Plan (2014)
• Official Plan Amendment 49 (By-law 2024-062)
• Zoning By-law 2019-051
• Zoning By-law Amendment 2024-065
Page 33 of 403
August 26, 2024
Connie Owen
City of Kitchener
200 King Street West
P.O. Box 1118
Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7
File No.: D20-20/
VAR KIT GEN
PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT
AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES
150 Frederick Street, 8th Floor
Kitchener ON N2G U Canada
Telephone: 519-575-4400
TTY: 519-575-4608
Fax: 519-575-4449
www. reg i o n ofwate r l o o. ca
Subject: Committee of Adjustment Meeting September 17, 2024, City of Kitchener
Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and
have the following comments:
1) A 2024 - 068 — 22 Woodfern Court — No concerns
2) A 2024 - 069 — 68 West Acres Crescent — No concerns.
3) A 2024 - 070 — 47 Hugo Crescent — No concerns.
4) A 2024 - 071 — 509 Wilson Avenue — No concerns.
5) A 2024 - 072 — 565 Topper Woods Crescent — No concerns.
6) A 2024 - 073 — 109 Edgehill Drive — No concerns.
7) A 2024 - 074 — 177 Esson Street — No concerns.
8) A 2024 - 075 — 96 Wood Street — No concerns.
9) A 2024 - 076 — 332 Charles Street East - No concerns.
10)A 2024 - 077 — 525 Highland Road West — No concerns.
11)A 2024 — 078 — 15 Dellroy Avenue (retained) — No concerns.
12)A 2024 — 079 — 1055 Weber Street Easy (severed) — No concerns.
Document Number: 4766511
Page 34 of 403
Please be advised that any development on the subject lands is subject to the
provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 19-037 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.
Please forward any decisions on the above-mentioned Application numbers to the
undersigned.
Yours Truly,
Katrina Fluit
Transportation Planner
(226) 753-4808
CC:
Connie Owen, City of Kitchener
CofA(a)Kitchener. ca
Document Number: 4766511
Page 35 of 403
November 25, 2024
Administration Centre: 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Cambridge, ON N1 R 5W6
Phone: 519-621-2761 Toll free: 1-866-900-4722 Fax: 519-621-4844 www.grandriver.ca
Marilyn Mills
Secretary -Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment
City of Kitchener
200 King Street West
Kitchener, ON, N2G 4G7
Dear Marilyn Mills,
Re: Committee of Adjustment Meeting - December 10, 2024
Applications for Minor Variance
via email
A 2024-075
96 Wood Street
A 2024-110
171 Otterbein Road
A 2024-107
15-105 Mooregate Crescent
A 2024-111
124 Cedar Street South
A 2024-108
42 Wendy Crescent
A 2024-112
578 Guelph Street
A 2024-109
25 Sandsprings Crescent
A 2024-113
1838 Trussler Road
Applications for Consent
B 2024-017
135 Gateway Park Drive
B 2024-038
250 Shirley Avenue
B 2024-018
135 Gateway Park Drive
B 2024-039
120 Keewatin Avenue
B 2024-037
135 Gateway Park Drive
B 2024-040
120 Keewatin Avenue
Applications for Consent and Minor Variance
B 2024-041 to B 2024-047 217-233 Lancaster Street East & 98-102 Weber Street East
A 2024-114 to A 2024-119 217-233 Lancaster Street East & 98-102 Weber Street East
Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) staff has reviewed the above -noted applications.
GRCA has no objection to the approval of the above applications. The subject properties do not
contain any natural hazards such as watercourses, floodplains, shorelines, wetlands, or valley
slopes. The properties are not subject to Ontario Regulation 41/24 and, therefore, a permission
from GRCA is not required.
Should you have any questions, please contact me at aherreman(u-)_grandriver. ca or 519-621-
2763 ext. 2228.
Sincerely,
Andrew Herreman, CPT
Resource Planning Technician
Grand River Conservation Authority
Member of Conservation Ontario, representing Ontario's 36 Conservation Authorities I The Grand - A Canadian Heritage River
Page 36 of 403
August 30, 2024
Administration Centre: 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Cambridge, ON N1 R 5W6
Phone: 519-621-2761 Toll free: 1-866-900-4722 Fax: 519-621-4844 www.grandriver.ca
Marilyn Mills
Secretary -Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment
City of Kitchener
200 King Street West
Kitchener, ON, N2G 4G7
Dear Marilyn Mills,
Re: Committee of Adjustment Meeting - September 17, 2024
Applications for Minor Variance
A 2024-068
22 Woodfern Court
A 2024-069
68 West Acres Crescent
A 2024-071
509 Wilson Avenue
A 2024-072
565 Topper Woods Crescent
A 2024-074
177 Esson Street
Applications for Consent
B 2024-017
135 Gateway Park Drive
B 2024-018
135 Gateway Park Drive
B 2024-023
Ridgemont Street
B 2024-024
525 Highland Road West
B 2024-025
15 Dellroy Avenue
via email
A 2024-075
96 Wood Street
A 2024-076
332 Charles Street East
A 2024-077
525 Highland Road West
A 2024-078
15 Dellroy Avenue
A 2024-079
1055 Weber Street East
Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) staff has reviewed the above -noted applications.
GRCA has no objection to the approval of the above applications. The subject properties do not
contain any natural hazards such as watercourses, floodplains, shorelines, wetlands, or valley
slopes. The properties are not subject to Ontario Regulation 41/24 and, therefore, a permission
from GRCA is not required.
Should you have any questions, please contact me at aherreman(u-)_grandriver. ca or 519-621-
2763 ext. 2228.
Sincerely,
Andrew Herreman, CPT
Resource Planning Technician
Grand River Conservation Authority
Member of Conservation Ontario, representing Ontario's 36 Conservation Authorities I The Grand - A Canadian Heritage River
Page 37 of 403
w
0
A"
m
W
0
z
0
J
D
m
z
LU
DC
Q
W
i
O
J
z
_O
Q
U
LL
V)
z
W
F -
z
LUJ
F -
z
W
0
Page 38 of 403
IN
I�
uu
eli
ego
FEN C
M Uk JtWE
w�
41 jw I} ,
a an a[E7 FrrP..�
WOOD STREET
4
Page 39 of 403
�
ego
6 _ . x �rrrJJ7AA00
m E�
Eb¢]
S.
N
WOOD STREET
4
Page 39 of 403
Apilrillill 0 00-4
MAL
I
VJVV NOUVIS Nmo' SL
%uo'[jv�s'Jjsuv.jj
pldl!,d punojv
0
cU
u
E
<
0
>
>
U
kn
0
S�-
0
-E
—0
QJ
CIJ
u
E
C
0
13J
4-j
4-J
Ln
0
c
<
u
Lr)
—
u
V)
un
4-2
QJ
E
U,
IZZ
U
*4 -j
Q)
C -
-s--j
E
4-1
0
0
4-J
U')
00e
ch
0
U
36-
0
o
('o
V)
N
<
0
C
r--4
Apilrillill 0 00-4
MAL
I
VJVV NOUVIS Nmo' SL
%uo'[jv�s'Jjsuv.jj
pldl!,d punojv
HOQ
m
-
7o
C
m
m
m
Z
O
VQ
�
n
N
O
90
Z
Cfu
N
D
m
N
0703
�
C
m
�
O
0
cn
�
Z
G�
m
G1
7v
�
n
m
O
�
-
Z
o
L'
m
�
C
Z
r
O
r+
HOQ
-
_.
N
O
VQ
M
MX.
Cfu
a .
3
�
O
-•
n
r+
0
0
0
Z
n
N
o
L'
r
r+
r
_.
HOQ
F
1 f
biD
bjD
0
ru
WN
bjO
0
Uj
0
Q)
Q)
�
0
ro
V)
r1r)
m
<
LA
Ln
0
IZZ•
Ln
fZ-
C)
V)
0
E
-fin
b-0
0
4-j
0
C
rz
ro
ai
S..
0
E
-p-j
un
Q)
E
o
•
U
F
1 f
o,
O
O
0
V)
m
m
3
3
3
0°
3
3.
3
NOD
cn
C
m
3
Q
w
N
O
m
x
3'
-
a-
o
o
Z
Q
C:r•-r
�.
3
=
CL
OrQ
O'
O
(D
Orq'
�'
Orq
Q
N
�-
N
Q
rr+
rpt
(D
r.+
(D
<
pq
[L
n
r
O
�
(D
N
r+
cr,
(D
tA
OL)
r
C'7
r
�
7�
r-+
65
c
r+
LA
-I m w
Ln 3 3
Z
N N m
0°
3 3 A
3 c
cn
C
m
3
Q
Page 43 of 403
3
i,n
3
o0
3
0
%
cin
0
<.
f�
w
N
O
m
Page 43 of 403
W
W
w
Page 44 of 403
133�US a00M
9
m
_
-
wi
cz
m
w
m
92
L`
Z
A
WAW 4�.R,4A
^�
alb, �dlMtAV
-
L
LU`
�''cl�35UUY'1
!a�
.
R I .,'N
q-
aai
T
3AOGV
a
t
JZ
d03Nlr
0090
utw
Z
W
.I
L
11J
_
a
s
Q
_
m
� Z i
Ir
�
Y i W
f
U)
L
42W
O
'F'^—
VJ
w
T
Y
M
'I
0
_ _ -
1rm -
I
0
m S
OG
r
/lC9XlM X I�,1 ,3"g i i i
' I
Page 44 of 403
1
FENCE CAN BE REDUCED/
- +
4 1 1
IF
r� O
rn fJ
m �qq
U) I I, S •
0
i Z
100
Gc >-� {
E C x
°{4t5 a
_ r 4
_0 I
® Zcu
4
i+ Y
D �F
� � I
m
m � 4
H m
4
%s Z I
�•-Ile101110
-h#57WFi# 61 'FP
z a g
DUNE OF cnl I
AV.3W
n 21(o
DJ 51,'[AI, TREE
ZM 43•IT W E t7A69
v
3
I (T� E%ISTYHS C+7FlL'Pf1E 560EWti1FL
T� Ul
V 1
� m
,.:C,
WOOD STREET
m
m
Page 45 of 403
t
t
w
a
Q
LL
8
Q'
LL
w
o
s
v
=
�
A:
Q
lgw'J
8
Q'
LL
w
W
W
N
r)
O
O
LO
O1
0
LU
06
L)
Z
O
Q
W
J
L1J
Page 46 of 403
A:
w s
lgw'J
f4
Q¢
w�
v
W
W
N
r)
O
O
LO
O1
0
LU
06
L)
Z
O
Q
W
J
L1J
Page 46 of 403
i
.r
joy
44-
L,
y
•
O
h
3 1+
M
N
r
m n
o g
B
41
0
O
O
N
(D
Q
Q
(D
N
Clq'
n
(D
(D
N
aq
�D
(D
N
Page 49 of 403
,�� ;�
1332US DOOM I -i;-
I—
W
W
r)
O
O
rn
Page 50 of 403
Page 51 of 403
From:
To: Committee of Adjustment (SM)
Subject: 96 wood street - opposed
Date: Monday, September 9, 2024 10:59.34 PM
IYou don't often get email from . Learn why this isim on rtant
Hi there,
I am emailing to provide comments on the recent proposal for redevelopment at 96 wood
street.
Although I understand the city's need for intensification within major transit station areas,
this section of the Wherry Park neighbourhood is a unique family neighbourhood with an
important cultural heritage. More and more, developers have been purchasing homes in the
neighbourhood with the intent to tear them down. Personally, my elderly neighbour's home
was purchased by a developer who intends to put up town homes in my backyard,
something that would maybe make sense if there weren't existing family homes on all sides
of the property. As with the home at 96 Wood, I feel strongly that this type of development
will have a significant negative impact on the neighbourhood.
It is my view that the building height should adhere to the current 11m limit to preserve
what we can of the neighbourhood's character. I'm not sure why the requests of a developer
would supersede bylaw that citizens and community members need to adhere to.
Further, the neighbour already lacks in street parking due to the proximity to the hospital.
Currently, most sheet parking in the neighbourhood is limited to 2 hours, and there is no
parking diui_mg the winter. Parking is already a challenge for many, as these heritage homes
have limited space for this.
I am also concerned about the potential for trees to be removed in the neighbourhood. The
beauty of the neighbourhood will be significantly impacted by this. Please ensure that any
plans for development include provisions about maintaining trees or replacing them if
maintaining them is not possible.
Thank you,
Isabelle
Page 52 of 403
From:
To: Sean Harrigan, Committee of Adjustment (SM)
Subject: Opposition to Proposed 8 -Unfit Development at 96 Wood Street
Date: Tuesday, September 10, 2024 1:26:15 PM
You don't often get email from
Dear Sean,
I am writing to formally express my opposition to the proposed 8 -unit development at 96
Wood Street. Having lived on Wood Street for over 20 years, I believe this development will
significantly impact the character and livability of our neighborhood.
First, the height of the proposed building exceeds the bylaw's limit and does not align with the
"cultural heritage landscape" of the area. I request that the city and the Committee respect the
bylaw's 11 -meter height restriction to maintain the neighborhood's charm and consistency
with existing properties.
Additionally, the current parking situation is already strained in our area. I have attached
several photos illustrating the congestion on Wood and York Streets, as well as Wood and Mt.
Hope Streets, where cars regularly fill the streets. Hospital employees frequently park in our 2 -
hour time-limited spaces, and the addition of eight more units will only exacerbate this issue_
Also included is a photo of garbage bins from a current multi -unit building on York Street,
which highlights the kind of clutter that could worsen with further development.
Moreover, many residents have invested significantly in their homes to maintain and improve
property values in this area. A large multi -unit rental development like this would likely
decrease the value of our homes, undermining the investments we have made in our
properties.
While I understand the city's goal for intensification near major transit stations, I believe this
development is too intensive for our area and will negatively affect the existing infrastructure,
neighborhood character, and property values.
I respectfully ask that the Committee take these concerns into serious consideration and deny
the request for the proposed development.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Best regards,
Michele Grieco
Page 53 of 403
MX7
Page 54 of 403
IY
`• �, - 4 P � r p � � Few
xir
r,
kyr,•'.': .
y.'Js��• �y•.�°.y� �j,.■ °5a a —�v CJS _ e~ J..�u
�
'�•
e �
A
, °
� -4p
•
$amu
dwL
s
a
Y
ir
i
kyr,•'.': .
y.'Js��• �y•.�°.y� �j,.■ °5a a —�v CJS _ e~ J..�u
Page 57 of 403
Fran:
To:
Sean H arrlu in
Cc:
Committee of Adjustment (SM)
Subjeck:
Concerns Regarding Proposed Development at 96 Wood Street (A21124-075)
Date:
Tuesday, September 10, 2024 1:59:48 PM
IYou don't often get email from Learn w this is im�aortant
Hi Sean,
I hope you're doing well. I wanted to share some concerns from the neighborhood about the
proposed S -unit development at 96 Wood Street, which I believe will have a significant impact
on both the character of the area and our already strained infrastructure. I understand that
you're the planner on the project.
While we recognize the city's focus on intensification within major transit areas, it's important
that this be done in a way that respects the unique heritage and feel of our neighborhood. The
proposed height of 12 meters exceeds the current bylaw limit and would stand out against the
surrounding homes, which are much lower in profile. I've attached photos of nearby properties
to illustrate how this development could disrupt the cohesion of the area.
A Neighbourhood Photos.zig
Another major issue is traffic congestion, especially when it comes to parking. The streets
around us, particularly Wood, York, Mount Hope, and Eden, are already overwhelmed with
cars, often due to nearby hospital staff parking here. I've attached photos showing current
parking congestion to give you a better sense of the challenges we face. The addition of more
units without sufficient parking solutions will only exacerbate this problem.
One of the main reasons my partner and I chose to move to this neighborhood, specifically at
109 Wood Street, right across from the proposed development, is because of the unique charm
of the small, character -filled homes, the beautiful old trees lining the street, and the sense of
close-knit community. This development, particularly at the proposed height and scale,
threatens to fundamentally alter that character and diminish the appeal that originally drew us
here.
Additionally, we are concerned that the construction of a building of this size and density will
negatively impact the value of our home and investment. Preserving the neighborhood's
heritage is not only about aesthetics but also about maintaining the qualities that sustain it and
its value, both for current residents and future generations.
We'd appreciate any steps you can take to ensure that these concerns are taken into account. I
am strongly against this proposal/application. If there's any additional information or action
you would recommend on our part, please let me know.
Thank you for your consideration.
Best regards,
Tristan Pilcher
Page 58 of 403
Page 60 of 403
From:
To: Committee of Adiustment (SM). Sean Harrigan: Debbie Charman
Subject: Committee of Adjustment Concerns - 96 Wood Street
Date: Tuesday, September 10, 2024 7:25:012 PM
Attachments: 96 Wood Street - Plan.odF
You don't often get email from Learn why this is im a an
Committee of Adjustment, Sean Harrigan and Debbie Chapman,
Re: A-2024-075 - 96 Wood Street
Requesting minor variances to permit a visibility obstruction (a fence) having a height
of 1.83m within ogre side of the Drivewa!v Yisihility Triangle (DVT) rather than
neaxinnan permitted height of 0.97n within the DVT, a lot area of 393 sq.m. rather than
the required 450 sq.m; a front yard setback of 3.8ne rather than the required 4.5m; an
exterior side vard setback abutting York Street of 2.5in rather than the required 4ni; a
building height of 12nt rather than the maxinnan permitted 11rn to facililate the
redevelopment of the property into an 8-itnit multi -residential dwelling.
See plan attached.
I am sharing my concerns prior to the Cominittee of Adjustment meeting scheduled for
September 17, 2024.
PROPORTION AND BALANCE
As demonstrated in the request for maximtnn height and width variances, the proportion of
this 8 -unit plan is vast. The building's size is unbalanced in comparison to the existing
structures in the neighbourhood. In addition, this plan does not align with City guidelines and
is disrespectful to adjacent homeowners.
As per the Urban Design Manual
Respect existing and planned contexts, heights, building lengths and massing. Ensure
new buildings do not appear substantially larger than the existing buildings. If a larger
building is proposed, its massing should be subdivided into smaller, compatible pieces.
Maintain the neighbourhood's prevailing pattern of lot widths, lot depth and lot area.
Complement the existing development pattern of the neighbourhood in terms of
buildings location, building height, landscaping, setbacks, entrances, windows and other
architectural elements. The use of repetitive or generic design is discouraged.
DESIGN AND MATERIALS
As illustrated in the plan, the aesthetic of this 8 -trait is "contemporary/modern cookie -cutter".
Page 61 of 403
The building's drawing does not include any design elements that integrate with the heritage
and character of the neighbourhood. In addition, this plan does not align with City guidelines.
As per the Urban Design Manual ...
• Provide a built -form which respects and complements existing neighbourhood
characteristics, including heights, setbacks, orientation, building width and length and
architectural rhythms.
• Respect the rhythms of design elements from the existing neighbourhood and
streetscape. This rhythm can be found through massing, materials, details, and
architectural features.
• On a street where existing elements (e.g. architectural styles, porches, building
placement, materials etc.) are recurring, new development should reflect some or all of
the key elements, sensitively interpreting these elements to reflect contemporary design
approaches.
Here are some examples of new, quality builds that are well integrated in the neighbourhood
65 Gildner Street
123 Wood Street
am 0=6 L`�i=
95 Mount Hope
103 Mount Hope
107 Mount Hope
WASTE AND RECYCLING
The applicant has not outlined the mass waste enclosure for the 8 -unit plan. While this detail is
not an application requirement, it's disrespectful not to proactively include this information for
adjacent homeowners. Furthermore, there doesn't appear to be remaining outdoor space in the
plan for a mass waste enclosure.
As per the Urban Design Manual ...
• Waste storage areas are to be fully enclosed and screened from public view, first
through the thoughtful design of site and building elements (including placement,
orientation and locating the storage area internally to the building), then through
landscape screening, and finally, if other options do not exist, through enhanced
enclosure design.
Page 62 of 403
• Provide safe and convenient recycling options including secure and generous sorting
rooms, options for organic materials, and roll-out or outdoor garbage locations that do
not negatively impact the streetscape, shared spaces, or building occupants (noise,
odour).
TREES AND LANDSCAPING
The applicant did not provide a tree preservation plan. Staff are still evaluating tree retention.
Please be aware there is a growth tree situated on the new entrance path and another old
growth tree to the right of the driveway.
It is unfortunate that this landlord has taken an opportunity from a first-time home
buyer/family. We are very concerned that this development will set a precedent in the
neighbourhood. Apparently, this landlord has expressed a development interest in another
nearby home.
I recognize the need for the "Growing Together" initiative however, please respect the
character and heritage of the neighbourhood. Our City standards/guidelines exist for a reason.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Jennifer
Page 63 of 403
z �a U
sn P o zm F— o
oW � E° ff O w
Ts z z
o o N a o
W 07
gFC � Wd zC-
`�F �� ❑ao �z � G � � Q �r 3��
z
w
2
IL
O
J
W
W
D
LL
O
N
IEDHIS DOOM d
N1HM3O1S 313MONOO ONI1SIX3
0
ur li-1-1-1
£6244 3..OS.ZZu£9N
N � /
Sr/
1 /
AMJd AA WB'£
3 0981.3 wsll
Z
Mti
M
M
f O
W
J
v
J
M
W
N
u'1
P
W
N
4
Uz
BJ co
0-
w�
M
N
N
N
N
M
L) 0
"
a
LL
N
�
MM
tij
w
LU
O
V
N
Lf7
117
l[7
V
N
4
N
Lo¢
LO
Z
W
4
M
O
N
O
'It
Z
m
W O
V
N
N
N
E
a
z
z
z
€
E
w
c7
w
E
Z
y}
�xc
Z
2
w
4
a
1J
LL�
W
w
w~
U]
a
wW0c7�a¢aaa�
❑
r
x
J
LU
�w
O
a
LL
0
y
U
U
a
❑
Y
Z
2
Z
Z
Q
Q
O❑
U
O
U
w
m
N
z
z
y Q O7
z
I
m
J
J
4
❑❑
z
z
g
Y
X
W W
w as
ON
L.m
Ji
0
z
-
a
Y }�
m
v
Mn
N1HM3O1S 313MONOO ONI1SIX3
0
ur li-1-1-1
£6244 3..OS.ZZu£9N
N � /
Sr/
1 /
AMJd AA WB'£
3 0981.3 wsll
w
xO
O
0 0
Q LL
LULU Z 0 0 z
w 7 LL LL O
J
m N M m
♦
Z
M
f O
J
v
J
O
Y
Uz
w�
a
�Q
L) 0
"
`Q
LL
N
�
MM
tij
w
w
xO
O
0 0
Q LL
LULU Z 0 0 z
w 7 LL LL O
J
m N M m
♦
Z
d
J
a
W
Y
11O— lAto-MO M�Wl
O� Flo OIC olo OIC O
1= 7- H H v H- H
-4r
z
Q
a
W
J
W
ui
W
From:
Sean Harrigan
To:
Cc:
Committee of Adjustment (SM); Tina Malone -Wright
Subject:
RE: 96 Wood Street Proposed 8 -Unit development
Date:
Wednesday, September 11, 2024 10:11:54 AM
Attachments:
imaae001.ona
imaae002.ona
imaae003.ona
imaae004.ona
imaae005.ona
imaae006.ona
imaae007.ona
imaae008.ona
Good morning Andrew,
Thank you for your email and comments. The Committee of Adjustment staff will ensure your
comments are provided to the Panel Members for their consideration.
Regards,
Sean Harrigan
Senior Planning Technician, Customer Experience & Project Management I Planning & Housing
Policy Division I City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 ext. 7292 1 Sean. Harrioan(c kitchener.ca
From: Andrew Wong
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2024 3:37 PM
To: Sean Harrigan <Sean.Harrigan@kitchener.ca>
Subject: 96 Wood Street Proposed 8 -Unit development
You don't often get email from a
Hello,
Learn why this is important
I'm writing to express my concern about the proposed redevelopment of a 8 -unit building at 96
wood street. There are a couple concerns I have, namely:
1) Parking is already very congested around the area of that home. I understand this 8 -unit building
likely wouldn't have sufficient parking for the residents. It is also understood that while this house is
close to public transit, I would be expected that a majority of the tenants would have a car, and the
unit would not have enough parking space.
2) The neighborhood has a particular character, where most buildings in that area are not too tall,
and have brick finishing. I feel this building may not ensure the character of the neighborhood.
Page 65 of 403
Please let me know if you have any questions for me,
Thanks!
Andrew Wong
Page 66 of 403
From:
Sean Harriaan
To:
Cc:
Committee of Adjustment (SM); Tina Malone -Wright
Subject:
RE: Redevelopment of 96 Wood Street Kitchener
Date:
Wednesday, September 11, 2024 10:17:05 AM
Attachments:
imaae001.Dna
imaae002.Dna
imaae003.Dna
imaae004.Dna
imaae005.Dna
imaae006.Dna
imaae007.Dna
imaae008.Dna
imaae010.Dna
imaae011.Dna
Good morning Elizabeth,
Thank you for your email and comments. The Committee of Adjustment staff will ensure your
comments are provided to the Panel Members for their consideration.
Regards,
Sean Harrigan
Senior Planning Technician, Customer Experience & Project Management I Planning & Housing Policy
Division I City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 ext. 7292 1 Sean.Harriganna kitchener.ca
From:
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2024 9:29 AM
To: Sean Harrigan <Sean.Harrigan@kitchener.ca>
Cc:
Subject: Re: Redevelopment of 96 Wood Street Kitchener
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important
Hello Sean,
This email is regarding the proposed redevelopment of an eight unit rental building at 96 Wood St.
Kitchener.
I have lived in my home now for almost 66 years. I have raised my 5 children in this home and
enjoyed watching many other families grow up in the homes on my street. I do understand the
importance for intensification within major transit station areas but I request that the city and the
committee respect the "culture heritage landscape" of our area. As for the building height please
have the building restricted to the bylaws 11 -meter limit. The 12 -meter height of the proposed
Page 67 of 403
building does not fit within the character of the neighbourhood. The following photo is the character
of the homes on Wood St.
Another concern is parking. Street parking is already overwhelmed, especially with non residents
from Grand River Hospital parking here. York and Wood St. are congested now and any additional
units would strain the situation further. As it is two way traffic cannot get through on York and Wood
St. with all the cars parked at the side of the road.
Page 68 of 403
As you can see in this photo there is not room for two way traffic on York St. We have the same issue
on Wood St!
As for design of the building please ensure there is parking for all the units and the materials (brick,
finishes, and front porches) as well as the overall structure and landscaping integrates with my
neighbourhood.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Beyers
Page 69 of 403
From:
To: Committee of Adiustment (SM)
Subject: 96 Wood St.
Date: Wednesday, September 11, 2024 4.07:59 PM
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
I have lived at Wood St.. for 65 years.
I just heard that they want to built a 8 unit occupancies building at 96 Wood. This property is
too small for for that kind of structure plus parking.
Street parking in this area is either permit or 2 hour parking and is usually congested with
people parking to go to the hospital who cannot find parking there.
dur area is old heritage area made up of mostly single dwelling homes. This build will look so
out of plane and not welcome by the residents ,that 1 have spore to.
I will remind you, that the bylaw for this area is building can NOT be over 11 meters.
Again we strongly object to the proposal put forward to change this property.
Lynn & Wayne Hickman
Page 70 of 403
From:
To: Committee of Adjustment (SM): Sean Harricaan
Subject: proposed 8 -unit development at % Wood St
Date: Wednesday, September 11, 2024 8:24:28 RA
IYou don't often get email from . Learn why this is im on rtant
Hello,
I'm writing to give my input to the proposed development happening in my neighbourhood. I
live at St, and enjoy this residential neighbourhood, with its mature trees, quiet
streets and older homes. I live in a 2 -generation household with my adult children, and am in
favour of multi -unit homes. I believe in intensification of our neighbourhoods as a creative
way to increase housing options. Affordable and attainable housing is a priority for our city
and I am supportive of that. I love that this neighbourhood is close to the ION and other major
transit routes.
I have some concerns about the proposed development at 96 Wood St. The 8 -unit building
would be taller than the bylaw 11 -meter limit, changing the culture heritage landscape of this
neighbourhood. I am also very concerned that this development of 8 units only includes 1
parking spot? Where will these tenants park's Is the plan to only approve tenants with no
vehicles for these units? Our streets are already full with hospital parking, so adding more
vehicles would increase the congestion. A building that fits within the height bylaw, with
fewer units and more parking, that also includes landscaping that replaces any trees that have
been removed. Please help preserve the natural beauty of this area.
Thank you for considering my feedback..
Marilyn Rudy-Froese
Page 71 of 403
From:
To: Committee of Adiustment (SM)
Subject: 96 Wood St.
Date: Thursday, September 12, 2024 9:01:31 AM
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at
https://aka.ms/LeamAboutSenderldentification ]
Paul Koop
Committee of Adjustment
City of Kitchener
200 King Street West
Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7
Dear Members of the Committee,
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed development of
an 8 -unit building at 96 Wood Street. Understanding the city's goals
for intensification, I urge the Committee to carefully consider the
impact this development will have on our neighbourhood's unique
character and landscape — many of the homes in the neighbourhood were
built for Dominion Tire factory employees.
One major concern is the proposed building height of 12 meters. This
exceeds the bylaw's 11 -meter limit and does not align with the
character of our neighbourhood. This size of building would be
inconsistent with the lower -scale nature of the area. A building of
this height would disrupt the visual harmony and aesthetic value that
defines our community.
Parking is another significant issue — our current parking situation
is already strained. Street parking is frequently overwhelmed,
exacerbated by non-residents such as hospital staff who use our
streets as overflow parking. Current parking restrictions, including
2 -hour limits and ticketing for hospital employees, highlight the
existing challenges. Introducing additional units will only intensify
this problem, making it even more difficult for residents to find
adequate parking.
Lastly, the preservation of trees and landscaping is crucial. Although
there is no bylaw preventing tree removal, I ask that the Committee
require the developer to implement a comprehensive landscaping plan
that replaces any removed trees. This would help maintain the natural
beauty and environmental quality of our neighbourhood.
Thank you for considering my concerns.
Sincerely,
Paul Koop
Page 72 of 403
From:
To: Committee of Adiustment (SM)
Cc: Sean Harriaan
Subject: 96 Wood St Alteration
Date: Thursday, September 12, 2024 10:59:05 AM
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at
https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ]
I saw the sign on the lawn at 96 Wood St and thought they would have "a" rental unit, that's in line with
the area and would not change the ambiance here, but a massive 8 unit complex on the corner of Wood
and York would cause chaos in the area. There are already hospital staff and hospital visitors already
taking up the entire street, so there is very little parking already for the people who call this place home;
no parking planned for 8 more families in this tiny place will only exacerbate the problem. With a 2 hour
max parking on the street, anyone living there would not be able to stay more than 2 hours, and there is
no overnight parking, there will be no place for them. This is a peaceful area of homes secluded with
dead end street which help keep it quiet, building an oversized monstrosity would destroy the quant
community and ruin the century old character and culture of the area. To try and force in that many units
it will have to be a oversized 40+ foot tall leviathan taking up the entire lot, obliterating the natural
beauty and devastating the look and feel of our cosy locality. The city is growing and we need more
housing, but put giant housing complexes in the busier areas and leave cute little neighbourhoods alone.
The beautiful houses and trees make this part of town special, building a gigantic housing block in the
middle of this community would be a mistake and I feel this would devastate the whole area. Please
don't alter this beautiful spot, it is a small paradise that could be lost with this proposal. Thank you for
Page 73 of 403
From:
To: Committee of Adjustment (SM)
Subject: Proposed redevelopment of an 8 -unit rental buildinq at 96 Wood street.
Date: Thursday, September 12, 2(124 2:15:59 PIM
IYou don't often get email from Learn why this is im ortant
Good afternoon,
The purpose of this email is to relay my objection to the proposed 8 -unit development at 96
Wood Street.
While I appreciate the city's need for intensification within transit station areas, I expect that
the city and committee will respect the cultural heritage landscape of our neighbourhood and
restrict the building height to the bylaw's 11 meter limit. The 12 -meter height of the proposed
building does not fit within the character of the neighborhood, not to mention removes all
privacy for neighbours.
I would also like to express my concern regarding parking. While I commend the city from
promoting cycling and moving away from car -centric planning, most residents are still car
dependent. Parking in this area is already overwhelmed by non-residents at the hospital and
neighbouring Sunlife insurance office. Not to mention there is no parking overnight during the
winter months. The proposed build will ultimately lead to greater congestion and strain on this
small neighbourbood.
I also expect the committee will require a landscaping plan to replace any trees that are
removed. Unfortunately, more trees are being removed from this neighbourhood than being
put in, which hurts the natural beauty of this area, while leaving us exposed to climate related
incidents.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Amanda Gordon
Page 74 of 403
From:
To: Committee of Adjustment (SW Sean Harriclan
Cc: Debbie Chapman
Subject: opposed to Variance Request for 96 Wood St (A-2024-075)
Date: Thursday, September 12, 2(124 4:57:26 PM
Attachments: 96 Woad Street - Plan.odf
You don't often get email from
Rd7v.�
Please note Debbie, l have copied you for awareness only as you are the representative
for our area.
Re: A-2024-075 - 96 Woad Street
Requesting minor variances to permit a visibility obstruction (a fence) having a height of
1.83m within one side of the Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT) rather than maximum
permitted height of 0.9m within the D VT- a lot area of 393 sq.m. rather than the required
450 sq. m; a front yard setback of 3.8m rather than the required 4.5m; an exterior side
yard setback abutting York Street of 2.5m rather than the required 4m; a building height
of 92m rather than the maximum permitted 7 7m to facilitate the redevelopment of the
property into an 8 -unit multi -residential dwelling.
See plan attached.
Dear Committee Members,
I hope this message finds you well. My name is William
i am writing to
express my concerns and opposition to the development request for 96 Wood St in Kitchener,
turning this single-family dwelling into an 8 -unit multi -residential building.
The proposed variances include:
1. Fence Height: Request to permit a fence height of 1.83m within the Driveway Visibility
Triangle (DVT) instead of the maximum permitted height of 0.9m.
2. Lot Area: A request for a lot area of 393 sq.m. rather than the required 450 sq.m.
3. Front Yard Setback: A front yard setback of 3.8m instead of the required 4.5m.
4. Exterior Side Yard Setback: A setback abutting York Street of 2.5m rather than the
required 4m.
5. Building Height: A building height of 12m instead of the maximum permitted 11 m.
I am concerned that the proposed variances and the overall design of this redevelopment
project do not align with the City's Urban Design Manual and may adversely impact our
Page 75 of 403
neighborhood. Here are my specific concerns:
Proportion and Balance:
The proposed building's size and height are disproportionate compared to existing structures
in the neighborhood. According to the Urban Design Manual, new buildings should respect the
existing context and massing, avoiding significant discrepancies in size. The proposed building
appears significantly larger and does not reflect a harmonious integration with the surrounding
structures.
Respect existing and planned contexts, heights, building lengths and massing.
Ensure new buildings do not appear substantially larger than the existing buildings.
If a larger building is proposed, its massing should be subdivided into smaller,
compatible pieces.
Maintain the neighbourhood's prevailing pattern of lot widths, lot depth and lot
area.
Complement the existing development pattern of the neighbourhood in terms of
building location, building height, landscaping, setbacks, entrances, windows and
other architectural elements. The use of repetitive or generic design is
discouraged.
Design and Materials:
The design presented is described as "contemporary/modern cookie -cutter" and lacks
elements that reflect the character and heritage of our neighborhood. The Urban Design
Manual emphasizes the importance of integrating new developments with the existing
architectural rhythm, including respect for building height, setbacks, and materials. The
proposed design does not seem to align with these guidelines and fails to complement the
existing development patterns.
Provide a built -form which respects and complements existing neighbourhood
characteristics, including heights, setbacks, orientation, building width and length
and architectural rhythms.
Respect the rhythms of design elements from the existing neighbourhood and
streetscape. This rhythm can be found through massing, materials, details, and
architectural features.
On a street where existing elements (e.g. architectural styles, porches, building
placement, materials etc.) are recurring, new development should reflect some or
all of the key elements, sensitively interpreting these elements to reflect
contemporary design approaches.
Here are some examples of new, quality builds that are well integrated in the neighbourhood
Page 76 of 403
65 Gildner Street
123 Wood Street
55 Wood Street
95 Mount Hope
103 Mount Hope
107 Mount Hope
Waste and Recycling:
The application does not provide details on waste and recycling storage, which is crucial for
the quality of life of adjacent homeowners. The lack of information about waste management
and the apparent absence of designated outdoor space for waste enclosures are concerning.
Waste storage areas are to be fully enclosed and screened from public view, first
through the thoughtful design of site and building elements (including placement,
orientation and locating the storage area internally to the building), then through
landscape screening, and finally, if other options do not exist, through enhanced
enclosure design.
Provide safe and convenient recycling options including secure and generous
sorting rooms, options for organic materials, and roll-out or outdoor garbage
locations that do not negatively impact the streetscape, shared spaces, or building
occupants (noise, odour).
Trees and Landscaping:
The absence of a tree preservation plan is troubling, especially since there are significant
growth and old-growth trees on the property. These trees contribute to the character of our
neighborhood, and their preservation should be a priority.
Impact on Neighborhood:
This development may set a concerning precedent in our community, especially considering
that the landlord has shown interest in redeveloping other nearby properties. Such large-scale
changes could significantly alter the character of our neighborhood, which is a vital aspect of
our community's identity.
Page 77 of 403
While I understand the need for growth and development, I respectfully urge the Committee to
consider these concerns in light of maintaining the character and standards of our
neighborhood. The existing City guidelines and standards are in place to ensure balanced and
respectful development, and I believe adherence to these principles is crucial. Our
neighbourhood and local community is unique and we would like to keep it that way.
Thankyou for your attention to these matters. I appreciate your consideration and hope for a
decision that respects the heritage and character of our community.
Sincerely,
Page 78 of 403
z �a U
sn P o zm F— o
oW � E° ff O w
Ts z z
o o N a o
W 07
gFC � Wd zC-
`�F �� ❑ao �z � G � � Q �r 3��
z
w
2
IL
O
J
W
W
D
LL
O
N
IEDHIS DOOM d
N1HM3O1S 313MONOO ONI1SIX3
0
ur li-1-1-1
£6244 3..OS.ZZu£9N
N � /
Sr/
1 /
AMJd AA WB'£
3 098 l.3 wsll
Z
Mti
M
M
f O
W
J
v
M
W
N
u'1
P
W
N
4
Uz
BJ co
0-
w�
M
N
N
N
N
M
L) 0
"
a
LL
N
�
MM
tij
w
LU
O
V
N
Lf7
117
l[7
V
N
4
N
Lo¢
LO
Z
W
4
M
O
N
O
'It
Z
m
W O
V
N
N
N
E
a
z
z
z
€
E
w
c7
w
E
Z
y}
�xc
Z
2
w
4
a
1J
LL�
W
w
w~
U]
a
wW0c7�a¢aaa�
❑
r
x
J
LU
�w
O
a
LL
0
y
U
U
a
❑
Y
Z
2
Z
Z
Q
Q
O❑
U
O
U
w
m
N
z
z
y Q O7
z
I
m
J
J
4
❑❑
z
z
g
Y
X
W W
w as
ON
L.m
Ji
0
z
-
a
Y }�
m
v
Mn
N1HM3O1S 313MONOO ONI1SIX3
0
ur li-1-1-1
£6244 3..OS.ZZu£9N
N � /
Sr/
1 /
AMJd AA WB'£
3 098 l.3 wsll
w
xO
O
0 0
Q LL
LULU Z 0 0 z
w 7 LL LL O
J
m N M m
♦
Z
M
f O
J
v
W
Y
Uz
w�
a
�Q
L) 0
"
`Q
LL
N
�
MM
tij
w
w
xO
O
0 0
Q LL
LULU Z 0 0 z
w 7 LL LL O
J
m N M m
♦
Z
d
J
a
W
Y
11O— lAto-MOM�Wl
O� Flo OIC olo OIC O
1= 7- H H v H- H
-4r
z
Q
a
W
J
W
ui
W
From:
To: Committee of Adiustment (SM): Sean Harridan
Subject: 96 Wood St
Date: Thursday, September 12, 2024 5:34:19 PM
IYou don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
Good afternoon,
I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed redevelopment of 96 Wood St.
and the request for several variances. As a rear neighbor, diagonal to the property, I have
serious reservations about the scale and impact of the proposed redevelopment and urge the
Committee of Adjustment to deny the requested variances for lot size, height, and front and
side yard setbacks.
While I appreciate the city's need for intensification within transit station areas, I am opposed
to the variances requested for lot size, front and side yard setbacks, and building height.
Adherence to lot size restrictions and front and side yard setbacks are a big reason why new
construction "fits" the neighbourhood. The 12 -meter height of the proposed building does not
fit within the cultural heritage landscape of our neighbourhood and will be an eyesore to our
neighbour.
Additionally, such a large building removes all privacy for my family and our adjacent
neighbours. A rooftop patio would be extremely invasive and wouldn't be warranted if the
proposal adhered to lot size restrictions.
Relocating parking from Wood St. to York St. raises significant safety issues. York St is omen
used as a through street and the additional driveway would increase risks for pedestrians,
cyclists and drivers. There is simply no need to add another access point when the driveway
can safely remain on Wood St.
Finally, the city is considering a proposal to add more people to the neighbourhood without
having the proper infrastructure in place or ensuring that the proposed development will meet
the needs of the would-be tenants. The addition of a new driveway on York St. would also
remove valuable on -street parking spaces frequently used by hospital visitors. This change
would negatively impact the broader community, reducing accessibility in an area where street
parking is already at a premum.
I ask that the committee deny the requested variances for front and side yard setbacks, lot size,
and height.
Thank you,
Karl Snyder
Page 80 of 403
Fran:
To:
Sean Hof Actin
Cc:
Committee of Adjustment (SM)
Subjea;
95 Wood St - Proposal objection
Date:
Friday, September 13, 2424 8:14:51 AM
IYou don't often get email from Learrn why this is im on Stant
To whom it may concern,
I am a lifelong resident of Kitchener on Wood St, between Belmont Village and Grand River
Hospital. My and my family as well as the rest of the neighborhood have recently become
aware of a proposed 8 -unit rental property to be constructed from an existing house on the
corner of Wood St. and York St. at the address 96 Wood St. I am writing: to object this
proposal, as I believe it would negatively affect our neighborhood's cultural heritage
landscape, which is important to me, as someone who has lived in this house since I was a
young child.
I acknowledge the cities need for intensification near major transit sites, like the Grand River
Hospital ION station, and while I agree with this idea, I think the affects of the changes to this
particular house do not justify the total transformation. I am asking that the building height be
restricted to the by-law's 11 -meter limit.
Going over the height limit does not fit the character of the neighbourhood, where all of the
other house exist within the height contraints. I also worry about the parking situation. The
neighbourhood already has many non-residents, such as hospital employees, who park on
Wood Street or York Street, making it a lot more congested. We already have parking
restrictions, such as 2 -hour parking limits and I believe that adding a possible 8 more cars to
this area would not only be a problem for existing residents, but also to the ones moving in.
Moreover, I would request that should city's plan continue, that any trees or existing trees be
replaced, as our street has many old trees and beautiful landscaping, which is something I love
about the street.
Ultimately, I love living in this neighbourhood and I believe the current development proposal
would be obstructive and would not fit the current feeling of this neighbourhood. With so
much development occurring in both Kitchener and Waterloo, it would be sad to see the same
changes occur in our small neighbourhood.
If the above ideas could be considered, I would deeply appreciate it, as would the rest of the
neighbourhood?
Thank you,
Olivia Koop
Page 81 of 403
Frons:
To: Sean Harrigan; Committee of Adjustment (SM)
Subject: 96 Wood St
Date: Friday, September 13, 2024 10:09:56 AM
You don't often get email from
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed 8 -unit apartment building at 96
Wood Street. My husband and I have lived on Wood St for over 20 years; we have watched
homeowners in this area (including ourselves) renovate to accommodate growing families
rather than move out of this neighbourhood. These few blocks (between Wood J Mt Hope
Gildner) are a rarity - a well-established, humble neighbourhood with streets lined by tall
trees, where people find community within the density of a city.
The 12 -meter height of this proposed building exceeds the bylaw limit, and I feel it disrupts
the character of our neighbourhood. There have always been 2 triplexes at the end of Wood
St by the park, but they are modest and do not draw your eye. A building of this height
would disrupt the visual harmony and aesthetic value, along with being precariously placed
in the middle of the neighbourhood and its residential homes.
Parking is also a major concern. Our streets -- particularly Wood, York, and Eden -- are
already congested. Our neighbourhood is used as a through -way between King St 1 Grand
River Hospital to Belmont Village. Current parking restrictions, including 2 -hour limits and
ticketing, are insufficient to manage the high demand; people already park illegally on a
regular basis. Adding more units in this small section of the city will exacerbate this
problem, making it even harder for residents to find parking. (My husband even got a
parking ticket this summer for parking on our street)
Please consider the attributes that make our neighbourhood significant to Midtown - older
brick homes, tall trees lining the streets, front porches, and moderately-sized dwellings.
On a personal note, I hear about the inadequacies of finding affordable places to live in KW
on a daily basis in the work I do, so I am aware of the city's need to intensify especially
near public transportation. However, I am going to assume that this 8-plex will not be
owned by a local individual who is invested in the community and the rent will not actually
be affordable. My assumptions (and l maybe I'm wrong) are that this is a capitalist venture
without regard for quality, affordable units to provide safe living spaces within our little
neighbourhood for those who actually need it.
The times we live in require decision -makers who consider more than just the legalities of
zoning, so thank you for your consideration.
Sarah
Page 82 of 403
Fran:
To: Committee of Adjustment (SM)
Subject. Proposed redevelopment of an 8 -unit rental buildinq at 96 Wood Street.
Date: Friday, September 13, 2024 10:49:41 AM
IYou don't often get email from Learn why this is im op rtant
To whom it may concern,
As a resident of close to 30 years on Wood Street, I am writing with concern re the new
proposed redevelopment of the rental property at this location and that the building height be
restricted to the bylaw's 11 -meter limit. The proposed building height does not fit within die character of the
neighborhood at the current height proposed.
Considerations of materials and designs (e.g., brick finish. front porches) that better integrate with the neighborhood
would also be required from the developer, as well as a landscaping plan to replace any trees that are removed. This
would help preserve the natural beauty of the area.
parking over the years has become a greater concern on York and the surrounding streets. These streets are already
overwhelmed, especially if non-residents (e.g.. hospital staff/visitors) are parking there. These streets, with their
restricted 2 -hour parking have been causes for ticketing of these hospital employees and/or visitors. Additional
units would strain the situation further. York Street tends to be a busy street between Glasgow and Union and the
width of this street is greatly reduced with parking along the side creating dangerous blind spots for any traffic
entering from any of the perpendicular streets (particularly Wood Street) See attached photos.
As a homeowner and city resident, I am aware of the city's need for intensification within major transit station areas
(defined as within 800 meters of the ION) but would request that the city and the committee respect the "cultural
heritage landscape" of the area. Thank you.
Regards.
James and Andrea Weber Steckly
Page 83 of 403
A
Page 84 of 403
From:
To: Committee of Adiustment (5M)
Subject: Application# 2024-96 Wood St.
Date: Friday, September 13, 2024 11:53:36 AM
IYou don't often get email from . Learn why this isim on rtant
Dear City of Kitchener Planner,
I am writing to express my significant concerns regarding the proposed redevelopment of 96
Wood St., which seeks approval for an eight -unit, four-story building with a rooftop patio.
While I support the City's objective to enhance development around major transit stations,
particularly within 800 meters of the ION, I urge the Committee to consider the broader
impacts of this proposal on our neighbourhood's cultural heritage, infrastructure, and overall
quality of life.
1. Building Height and Design: The proposal to construct a building with a height of 12
meters, exceeding the bylaw limit of 11 meters by 1 meter, is more than a minor adjustment; it
represents a significant shift that disrupts the established character of our neighbourhood. Key
concerns a clude:
- Visual and Environmental Impact: The additional height will significantly alter the visual
harmony of our area, which is characterized by single-family homes and smaller multi -unit
buildings. The proposed building's height will overshadow neighbouring homes, particularly
those on the south side, leading to:
- Loss of Natural Light: The increased height will cast extended shadows, diminishing the
amount of natural light reaching adjacent properties and affecting the enjoyment of outdoor
spaces such as gardens, patios, and backyard areas.
- Privacy Invasion: Higher structures can intrude on the privacy of neighbouring homes,
overlooking private backyards and living spaces, thereby reducing residents' sense of privacy
and comfort.
- Overwhelming Aesthetics: The visual mass of a four-story building can overwhelm the
existing smaller -scale structures, leading to a Jan-img contrast and disrupting the
neighbourhood's aesthetic cohesion.
- Architectural Harmony: While the specific design details are not yet available, the final
design must harmonize with the existing architectural styles of our neighbourhood. This
includes:
- Material and Design Integration: Using traditional materials such as brick or stone, and
incorporating design features like pitched roofs and front porches, can help maintain a visual
and historical continuity with the surrounding area.
- Mass and Scale: The overall massing of the building should be designed to complement
rather than dominate the surrounding structures, preserving the neighbourhood's balance and
scale.
2. Parking Congestion. Parking is already a significant issue in our area. The current situation
is exacerbated by:
- There is a high demand from various sources for parking spaces on Mt. Hope, Wood, and
York Streets and are frequently occupied by:
- Hospital Staff, patients, and Visitors: The nearby hospital generates substantial parking
demand, with staff and visitors occupying spaces day and night.
Page 85 of 403
- SunLife Employees and nearby businesses: The adjacent office building adds to the parking
strain, contributing to a shortage of available spaces.
- Residents of Nearby Multi -Unit Buildings: The parking needs of residents in nearby multi-
unit buildings further stress the available parking resources.
- Impact of New Development: As a neighbourhood, we have witnessed firsthand the adverse
impacts of other new builds that, with their limited parking, increased number of residents,
and greater heights, have negatively affected existing homes, backyard spaces, privacy, and
the treed landscape. The proposed eight -unit development will likely:
- Exacerbate Parking Shortages: The additional units will increase the number of vehicles
competing for already limited street parking, leading to heightened congestion and
inconvenience for current residents.
- Strain Existing Infrastructure: The current parking infrastructure is already under strain, and
the added demand will likely lead to increased conflicts and enforcement issues, affecting the
quality of life for everyone in the area.
3. Trees and Landscaping: The removal of mature trees on the property raises several
concerns:
- Aesthetic and Environmental Impact: Mature trees are essential for the neighbourhood's
visual appeal and environmental health. They provide shade, improve air quality, and support
local wildlife. Their removal will:
- Diminish Neighborhood Beauty: The loss of mature trees will negatively impact the area's
aesthetic value and reduce the sense of natural beauty that characterizes our community.
- Disrupt Local Ecosystem: Trees are critical in supporting local biodiversity. Their removal
could negatively affect various species that rely on them for habitat.
- Need for Comprehensive Landscaping: To mitigate these impacts, the Committee should
require the developer to submit a detailed landscaping plan that includes:
- Tree Replacement: A commitment to plant new trees of equivalent or greater size to replace
those removed, ensuring the preservation of the neighbourhood's green character.
- Sustainable Practices: Incorporation of landscaping strategies that support biodiversity and
ecological balance, such as native plantings and wildlife -friendly designs.
In summary, while I understand and support the need for increased housing, the proposed
project in its current form presents substantial challenges to our neighbourhood's character,
infrastructure, and environmental quality. I respectfully request that the Committee deny the
requested variances for building height and other related requests, and instead consider a
development plan that respects and integrates with the unique attributes of our community.
Thank you for your careful consideration of these critical issues. I trust that you will make a
decision that balances the need for development with preserving our neighbourhood's heritage
and quality of life.
Sincerely,
MaryBeth Reynolds and Nathan Majury
Page 86 of 403
From:
To: sean.harrinaton0kitchener.ca: Committee of Adiustment (SM]
Subject: A 2024-075 - % Wood Street
Date: Friday, September 13, 2024 12:02:21 PM
II You don't often tet email from . Learn why this is important
Re: A 2024-075 - 96 Wood Street
Hello,
am writing to express my deep concerns regarding the proposed redevelopment of 96
Wood St. and the request for several variances. As the rear neighbor, I have serious
reservations about the scale and impact of the proposed redevelopment and urge the
Committee of Adjustment to deny the requested variances for lot size, height, and front
and side yard setbacks.
I appreciate the need for housing and support the redevelopment of the property into a
multi -unit building. However, I am opposed to several aspects of this specific plan and I
see no compelling reason for this development to bypass the regulations that help
maintain the integrity of the neighborhood.
My specific concerns include:
1. Lot Size, Setbacks, and Height:
I am opposed to the variances requested for lot size, front and side yard setbacks, and
building height. This neighborhood is a cherished mix of old and new single-family
homes, small multi -unit buildings, and larger apartment buildings that blend
harmoniously. Adherence to lot size restrictions and front and side yard setbacks are a
big reason why new construction "fits" the neighbourhood. The proposed structure is
simply too large for this lot and without the required setbacks a building of this size
would overshadow adjacent properties, intrude on my family's privacy, and alter the feel
of the block in a way that feels out of place.
2. Parking Relocation and Safety Concerns:
Relocating parking from Wood St. to York St. raises significant safety issues. Speeding
on York St is common, and the additional driveway would increase risks for pedestrians,
including my children, and to cyclists and drivers. There is simply no need to add another
access point when the driveway can safely remain on Wood St.
3. Displacement of Current Tenants:
I most troubled by the displacement this would bring to the current tenants at 96 Wood
St—a family with an infant and a dog. This family faces the prospect of losing their three-
bedroom home, which is especially concerning given the severe shortage of such rental
units in the city. It is distressing to see a family pushed out to make way for eight smaller
units that do not meet the same need. The lack of communication from the property
owner with the tenants regarding this redevelopment only reinforces my feeling that this
Page 87 of 403
project prioritizes profit over people.
4. Loss of Privacy:
The proposed rooftop patio and the building's excessive height would significantly
infringe upon my backyard privacy.
5. Street Parking Removal:
The addition of a new driveway on York St. would also remove valuable on -street parking
spaces frequently used by hospital visitors. This change would negatively impact the
broader community, reducing accessibility in an area where street parking is already at a
premium.
I kindly ask that the committee deny the requested variances for front and side yard
setbacks, lot size, and height. This project, as proposed, would significantly disrupt the
neighborhood, increase risks for pedestrians and drivers, reduce on -street parking, and
displace valued residents.
Thank you for considering my perspective.
Sincerely,
Keely Phillips
Page 88 of 403
From -
To: Committee of Adiust hent (SM)
Subject: Re: opposing the 8 -unit Build % Wood St Kdchener
Date: Friday, September 13, 2624 5:23:16 PM
You don't often tet email from . Learn why this is Important
As a home owner on Wood St. Kitchener, I strongly oppose the development being
proposed at 96 Wood St.
I understand the city's need for intensification near major transit stations within the
800 meter distance to ION.
I am requesting that the city and planning committee respect the cultural heritage
landscape of our neighborhood.
For one major concern, according to the bylaw, the building must be restricted to 11
meters in height.
• Building Height: The proposed 12 -meter height of the proposed building does
not fit within the character of the neighborhood- or the BYLAW.
• Pai-Idug: Existing Parking on our street and the surrounding neighborhood is
already congested. The street is consistently full on wood, York, and eden within
this immediate area. This is close to the Grand River Hospital and is extremely
overwhelmed especially during the week days. There is a 2 -hour limit of parking
already and I have seen tickets being issued i regularly due to the high demand to
park in the neighborhood. If these 8 unit's occupants are not having vehicles as
Sean mentions, this would make sense.
• Building Design: The look and feel of the neighborhood is all smaller sized
Page 89 of 403
homes with brick, and porches, and driveways. We would hope that similar
design is incorporated, however, can't imagine an 8 unit dwelling would do so
• Trees: Requesting that the city require a landscaping plan to replace any
removed city owned trees.
I strongly want to protect my investment in this city. We have also completed a home
renovation but ensuring at no point did we break tradition of this curbside heritage
look and feel of neighborhood.
Thank you kindly for your time and I am happy to provide more information if you wish.
Many thanks & kind regards,
Carl Puddy
Legislated Services I City of Kitchener
Page 90 of 403
From:
Sean Harrigan
To:
Cc:
Committee of Adiustment (SM)
Subject:
RE: Objection to Proposed 8 -Unit Development at 96 Wood Street
Date:
Friday, September 13, 2024 12:58:11 PM
Attachments:
imaae001.ona
imaae002.ona
imaae003.ona
imaae004.ona
imaae005.ona
imaae006.ona
imaae007.ona
imaae008.ona
Good afternoon Alison,
Thank you for your email and comments. The Committee of Adjustment staff (cc'd) will provide your
comments to the Panel Members for their consideration.
Regards,
Sean Harrigan
Senior Planning Technician, Customer Experience & Project Management I Planning & Housing
Policy Division I City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 ext. 7292 1 Sean. Harrioan(c kitchener.ca
From: Alison Marshall
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2024 12:41 PM
To: Sean Harrigan <Sean.Harrigan@kitchener.ca>
Subject: Objection to Proposed 8 -Unit Development at 96 Wood Street
You don't often get email from
Good Afternoon Sean,
Learn why this is important
I hope all is well. I am a concerned home owner on Wood St in Kitchener.
I am writing to share my concerns and objection for the proposed 8 -unit development at 96 Wood
Street because of the following points:
• Neighbourhood Integrity - by proposing this 8 -unit development, the integrity of the
neighbourhood will be compromised by developing a large building in its center. The
neighbourhood is filled with century -old homes and a building of this size would simply
diminish the cultural heritage landscape of the area. I ask that you take this into
consideration and respect the beauty of the neighbourhood.
• Building Height - The Bylaw states 11 Meters. This is what we invested in. This proposal is
Page 91 of 403
looking to break the bylaw that our community invested in
Parking - Wood, York, Mount Hope, Gilder and Eden Ave are all small quiet streets. With the
addition of an 8 -unit development there will be an additional influx of vehicles and traffic
added to the neighbourhood. We already experience a high volume of vehicles parking along
the street due to hospital traffic as well as individuals using these streets as thruofares to get
to Glasgow and Union. These streets would simply not support the addition of vehicles that
would accompany an 8 -unit development. (See photo for congestion example). The property
itself, does not allow for adequate parking, which will be flowed out into the street
• The need for single detached homes - there is no need to develop this plot of land into an 8 -
unit development. There have been two larger plots of land on Belmont and the corner of
Belmont and Union that have been sold to develop into 11 -story+ developments. The city is
in need of single detached plots of land to preserve the integrity of the city and it does not
need another multi unit dwelling to go up specifically right in the center of this neighborhood.
I hope to see you at the Committee of Adjustment meeting on Tuesday September 17th, where I
would be more than happy to expand on my concerns with you in person.
Thank you and I hope you have a wonderful weekend!
Alison Marshall
Page 92 of 403
From:
Sean Harrigan
To:
Cc:
Committee of Adiustment (SM)
Subject:
RE: 96 Wood ST
Date:
Monday, September 16, 2024 2:36:41 PM
Attachments:
imaae001.ona
imaae002.ona
imaae003.ona
imaae004.ona
imaae005.ona
imaae006.ona
imaae007.ona
imaae008.ona
Good afternoon Lauren,
Thank you for your email and comments. The Committee of Adjustment staff (cc'd) will provide your
comments to the Panel Members for their consideration for this application.
Regards,
Sean Harrigan
Senior Planning Technician, Customer Experience & Project Management I Planning & Housing
Policy Division I City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 ext. 7292 1 Sean. Harrioan(c kitchener.ca
From: Lauren McDonald
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2024 2:15 PM
To: Sean Harrigan <Sean.Harrigan@kitchener.ca>
Subject: 96 Wood ST
You don't often get email from 1 Learn why this is important
Hello Sean,
I live on Wood St, houses down from the property with the proposed 8 -unit development, 96
Wood St. My concerns are around parking and the amount of street parking in the neighborhood,
and the congestion it can create on York St. I have a young child that bikes to school, and there are
already a number of cars parked on the road as the neighbourhood is close to the hospital, and it
makes the street unsafe at times due to poor visibility, speed, and space on the street. There is also
2 hour parking on Wood St, which gets very busy, and I am concerned about adding to this.
We have a number of mixed buildings in the neighbourhood which is great, however over the past
few years, a number of single detached homes have been torn down in place of larger, multi unit
dwellings (including 2 directly behind my home). I love this neighbourhood and understand the need
for housing and bringing in more people, but I am concerned about the pattern of older, single
Page 93 of 403
detached homes being torn down. A 12 meter building, with 8 units on that lot seems quite large.
Again I worry about parking congestion, and cutting down more trees, and having it fit with the
neighbourhood, which most houses are approaching 100 years old.
Thank you for taking the time to read my concerns. Again, I love this neighbourhood, and love
bringing more people to live in the city core, but I do hope it can be done in a responsible and
respectful way, as this is a special neighbourhood.
Thank you,
Lauren McDonald
Page 94 of 403
Fran:
To:
Seem Hafrlclin
Cc:
Committee of Adjustment (SM)
Subject:
Concerns Regarding Minor Variance Request for % Wood Street
Date:
Monday, September 16, 2024 8:23:90 PM
IYou don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
Dear Sean,
I am writing in regards to the request for a minor variance at 96 Wood Street.
I live at Street, and my side yard and driveway face 96 Wood Street. I recognize
the need for more housing in our region, and do not oppose the redevelopment of this lot, but
feel like there are too many changes requested that will affect the safety of those who live,
work and play in this neighbourhood.
York Street is already fairly busy, with cars flying down it to enter the back of the Catalyst
137 parking lot and avoiding Park Street. Currently there is street parking where the proposed
new driveway for 96 Wood Street would be. This driveway would take away the already
limited street parking in the neighbourhood. Street parking that supports local businesses, but
also acts as a badly needed traffic calming measure.
The proposed size of the building will negatively affect the sight lines from both the proposed
parking spot and driving up Wood Street. Keeping the driveway/proposed parking spot on
Wood Street will maintain some street parking for those visiting residents of the apartment
buildings and businesses/hospital on Park Street and be safer for the resident who uses that
parking spot_
The comer of Wood Street and York Street already do not line up, limiting the sight lines
will make an already unsafe intersection even more unsafe. This neighbourhood is full of
pedestrians and kids, and their safety should be a priority. If the variance is granted I would
like to know what traffic calming measures will be put in place to ensure pedestrian safety is a
priority.
I completely support the need for more housing in our community, but eight single -bedroom
units on such a small piece of land is a lot. The property developer will be making a large
income off these eight units, and I believe the city should consider asking for at least two -units
to be affordable housing. if they are going to grant all of these variances. If the property
owner was interested in building this type of building, they should have looked at purchasing a.
lot that could easily fit the proposal.
I look forward to hearing the outcome of the meeting.
Andrea Harding
Page 95 of 403
From:
To:
Marilyn Mills
Cc:
Sean Harrigan, Tina Malone -Wright: Dave Seller: Connie Owen
Subject:
Re: Deferred Committee of Adjustment Application - A 2424-475 - 96 Wood Street, DSC -2024-42.2
Date:
Friday, September 20, 2024 12:14:21 PM
Attachments:
imaaeOOLE)no
imaae4(12.ana
imaae401prig
imaae4CW.ano
imaae005.ono
imaaeO(16.ona
imaae407.nna
imaaeOM.ono
Some people who received this message don't often get email frorr . Learn why this is
Important
Hi Marilyn, Sean and team,
I'm following up regarding the proposed 8 -unit development at 96 Wood Street, and I want to
strongly emphasize my concerns about parking and traffic congestion.
As a resident living directly across the street, I've seen firsthand how stretched our street
parking already is, particularly due to hospital staff and other non-residents using the area for
overflow parking. Introducing an additional 8 units with only one designated parking space
will undoubtedly exacerbate this problem. I believe this aspect is being severely overlooked.
It was mentioned during the hearing that the builders are not required to provide more than
one parking space for this entire 8 -unit building, which I find both surprising and concerning.
It is unrealistic to believe that none of the tenants in these units will own a vehicle. Why is this
issue not being addressed"? I'm disappointed to not see a more detailed parking plan in place
that reflects the reality of the demand that this development will cause.
Wood and York Streets are not designed to handle the influx of additional vehicles that would
come with a development of this size. Congestion and limited visibility already pose a danger,
and this development would increase those risks significantly.
It's extremely important to me and the community that parking is thoroughly addressed before
any approval is given. The ciurent plan, with just one parking space for 8 units, is insufficient.
I urge the city and the Coinn ittee of Adjustment to reconsider the parking requirements and to
account for the real needs of the residents and our neighborhood's infrastructme.
Thank you for your attention to this critical matter, and I look forward to further clarification
or revisions to the parking plan that address this serious issue.
Best regards,
Tristan Pilcher
Page 96 of 403
422 to the December 10, 2024 Committee of Adjustment meeting or earlier to allow the
applicants' agent an opportunity to provide Staff a Tree Protection and Enhancement Plan
and Planning Justification Report.
The Staff report, public agencies' comments and written submissions are attached to this
email for your information. Further, the meeting video can be viewed here.
Consideration of this application is currently scheduled for the Committee of Adjustment
meeting dated December 10, 2024 and may be brought forward an earlier meeting date,
once the applicant provides the additional information requested. Further details regarding
the meeting will be provided closer to the meeting date.
Thank You,
Marilyn Mills
Committee Coordinator I Legislated Services I City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 ext. 7275 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 Marllyn.Mllls4kitchener.ca
T CE
Page 97 of 403
From:
To: Committee of Adjustment (SM); Sean Harrigan; Debbie Chapman
Subject: Opposition to Proposed 8 Unit Development at 96 Wood Street
Date: Sunday, November 24, 2024 1:25:51 PM
Committee of Adjustment, Sean Harrigan and Debbie Chapman,
Re: A-2024-075 - 96 Wood Street
I am writing to reiterate my opposition to demolish 96 Wood Street to facilitate the
redevelopment of the property into an 8 unit multi -residential dwelling.
These are the reasons why I do not support the application.
1. STRATEGIC GROWTH AREA (SGA) - DESIGN CHARRETTES
This property is located within the "Gildner Green Heritage Landscape".
As part of SGA planning, Urban Design Planning Staff held six "Growing Together" Design
Charrettes with residents to collaboratively develop Urban Design Guidelines specific to their
neighbourhood.
The first point outlined in the criteria states ...
"Where front porches or detached garages are a predominant feature in the
neighbourhood, within a cultural heritage landscape, or along a particular street,
provide the same within new development, additions and/or alterations."
See Growing Together - KW/Midtown webpage and refer to Neighbourhood Specific
Guidelines for Midtown - Section 04.1.6 (Page 11).
The application must demonstrate how the proposed development meets applicable Official
Plan policies including those associated with the Cultural Heritage Landscape and Urban
Design Manual created/refined through the Growing Together design charrettes.
The application does not appear to demonstrate this.
2. URBAN DESIGN MANUAL - SECTION 03.3.0 SITE DESIGN - 03.3.1 BUILT
FORM
As demonstrated in the request for maximum height and width variances, the proportion of
this 8 -unit application is an overdevelopment. The size is unbalanced in comparison to the
existing structures in the neighbourhood. The design does not include ANY elements that
integrate with the heritage and character of the neighbourhood.
See Urban Design Manual webpage and refer to 03.3.0 Site Design - 03.3.1 Built Form.
Page 98 of 403
• Maintain the neighbourhood's prevailing pattern of lot widths, lot depth and lot area.
• Complement the existing development pattern of the neighbourhood in terms of
building location, building height, landscaping, setbacks, entrances, windows and other
architectural elements. The use of repetitive or generic design is discouraged.
• Provide a built -form which respects and complements existing neighbourhood
characteristics, including heights, setbacks, orientation, building width and length and
architectural rhythms.
• Respect the rhythms of design elements from the existing neighbourhood and
streetscape. This rhythm can be found through massing, materials, details, and
architectural features.
• On a street where existing elements (e.g. architectural styles, porches, building
placement, materials etc.) are recurring, new development should reflect some or all of
the key elements, sensitively interpreting these elements to reflect contemporary design
approaches.
• Waste storage areas are to be fully enclosed and screened from public view, first
through the thoughtful design of site and building elements (including placement,
orientation and locating the storage area internally to the building), then through
landscape screening, and finally, if other options do not exist, through enhanced
enclosure design.
• Provide safe and convenient recycling options including secure and generous sorting
rooms, options for organic materials, and roll-out or outdoor garbage locations that do
not negatively impact the streetscape, shared spaces, or building occupants (noise,
odour).
The application does not appear to demonstrate this.
Again, the application must demonstrate how the proposed development meets applicable
Official Plan policies including those associated with the Cultural Heritage Landscape and
Urban Design Manual created/refined through the Growing Together design charrettes.
3. STRATEGIC GROWTH AREA (SGA) - UNDER APPEAL
The application is dependent on SGA -1 zoning and bylaws that are not in effect.
As per my last inquiry, the response received stated
"Bylaw 2024-065 is under appeal in its entirety and it could take up to a year to resolve."
4. STREET PARKING
Under SGA -1, parking is no longer required for residential use.
Page 99 of 403
Hospital employees frequently park in the 2 hour time limited street spaces. The addition of 8
units will exacerbate parking congestion and snow removal.
4. DEVELOPMENT DEMOLITION PRECEDENT
Again, it is unfortunate that this landlord has taken an opportunity from a first-time home
buyer. This landlord had also expressed an interest in another nearby property. We are
extremely concerned that this development will set a demolition precedent in the
neighbourhood for more multi -unit developments.
For example, this precedent is already happening in the Cherry Hill residential neighbourhood,
along Peter, St. George and Cedar streets.
Lastly, there were 15+ written submissions in opposition of this application. During the last
COA meeting, several remarks were made about the lack of in-person representation. Please
understand that many of us are new to this process. These COA meetings are also conducted
during typical working hours. There appears to be an unwritten expectation to speak in-person.
I would also like to comment on the lack of professionalism demonstrated by the chair who is
also a voting member. Decisions should be based on information and facts applicable to the
application. Not a past personal experience as demonstrated at the last COA meeting. His
rationale is concerning.
Quote ... "I respectfully disagree. I don't think this is an overdevelopment of the lot. As
someone who lived in a crappy basement apartment for 1 year with undersized
windows, it sucks. They're just appreciating a funky lot. As -is, I'm in support of the
application."
I recognize the goal for intensification near major transit stations however, I believe this
development is too intensive for our neighbourhood and will negatively affect existing
infrastructure, character and property values. The Official Plan policies including those
associated with the Cultural Heritage Landscape and Urban Design Manual exist for a reason.
I respectfully ask that the Committee take these concerns into serious consideration and deny
the request for the proposed development.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Jennifer
Page 100 of 403
Page 101 of 403
From:
To: Committee of Adiustment (SM) Sean Harridan;
Subject. opposition to Proposed 8 -Unit Development at 96 Wood Street
Date: Tuesday, December 3, 2024 8:36:31 AM
IYou don't often get email from . Learn why this is im of� rtant
Dear, Committee of Adjustment, Mr. Harrigan and Ms. Chapman,
I am writing on behalf of concerned residents to formally object to the proposed 8 -unit
development at 96 Wood Street. This proposal raises significant concerns that jeopardize the
character, functionality, and overall integrity of our neighborhood. I would like to start off
with:
Unprofessional Conduct During the Meeting on Tuesday September
1792024 at 10:00am
At the Committee of Adjustment meeting for Application A-2024-075 on 96 Wood Street,
Chair made comments that were both inappropriate and dismissive of residents'
concerns.
1. Dismissal of Written Statements and Absence of Residents
Chau repeatedly emphasized the absence of neighborhood residents speaking
at the meeting, despite the fact that 15 written statements had been submitted. His
remarks alluded to the absence of speakers as a detriment to the strength of opposition.
This oversight fails to acknowledge that the meeting was conducted during working
hours -10 a.m. on a Tuesday—making it inaccessible for many.
Residents should not have to choose between personal or professional obligations
and having their voices heard.
Someone in a position of leadership should exhibit professionalism and
understand the realities of residents' schedules when making such dismissive
observations.
2. Inappropriate Personal Commentary
Chair remarks during the meeting, including his statement:
"Fin going to respectfidl v disagree. It's not an overdevelopment of a lot. For
someone wlro lived in a crappy basement apartment for 1 year with undersized
windows—it sucks—and Fin in support of this application. "
This type of unprofessional commentary, rooted in personal experience, is entirely
inappropriate for a decision-making forum. Such statements are dismissive of the conceins of
the community and indicate a troubling bias.
Mr. , how would you feel if an 8 -unit development were proposed directly beside
your home? This comment illustrates a lack of empathy and understanding for the residents
directly impacted by this project.
I urge you to carefully consider the following points:
Page 102 of 403
Gildner Green Cultural Heritage Landscape
This property is located within the Gildner Green Cultural Heritage Landscape, a designation
that underscores the City of Kitchener's recognition of the unique attributes of our
neighborhood. The mature street trees, consistent architectural styles, and heritage -like "built -
form" of the houses are defining features that this development blatantly disregards.
Permitting such a project would set a dangerous precedent, undermining the values this
designation was meant to preserve.
Neighbourhood Aesthetic and Property Value
The proposed development's design does not align with the aesthetic or architectural character
of the area. Many homeowners in the neighborhood have invested significant resources to
enhance their properties in ways that reflect and respect the community's distinct charm.
Introducing an oversized, incongruous development risks degrading the neighborhood's appeal
and lowering property values for all residents.
Excessive Building Height
The proposed building height exceeds the zoning limit of 11 meters, reaching 12 meters. This
excessive height is incompatible with the existing streetscape and creates a visual and spatial
imbalance that undermines the cohesion of the neighborhood. The zoning rules are in place to
prevent such overreach, and allowing this exception would erode trust in their enforcement.
Street Parking Congestion
Wood Street is already burdened by parking challenges due to its proximity to the hospital,
with visitors and employees frequently occupying the limited 2 -hour spaces. The proposed
development does not include any parking for its 8 units, which will exacerbate these issues
significantly. Additional cars on the street will complicate snow removal and increase tension
among residents, further eroding the quality of life in our community.
Precedent for Demolition and Overdevelopment
The approval of this development risks setting a precedent for further demolitions and multi-
unit developments in our neighborhood. The current landlord's track record—purchasing this
property out of reach for a first-time homebuyer and showing interest in additional
acquisitions—suggests a troubling trend. This project could open the door to further
speculative developments, threatening the long-term stability and character of the area.
As a long-time resident of this neighborhood, I strongly urge the Committee of Adjustment to
reject this proposal. The negative impact on the Gildner Green Cultural Heritage Landscape,
property values, parking congestion, and community cohesion far outweighs any potential
benefits. This development is not aligned with the vision of our neighborhood or the City of
Kitchener's commitment to preserving cultural heritage and livable spaces.
I trust the Committee will carefully consider these concerns, which are shared by many
residents in our community, and act in the best interest of preserving the unique character of
Wood Street.
Page 103 of 403
Sincerely,
Michele Grieco
a Da
Page 104 of 403
From:
To: Sean Harrigan; Committee of Adjustment (SM); Debbie Chapman
Subject: Key Concerns with the Proposed Development of 96 Wood Street
Date: Tuesday, December 3, 2024 2:37:47 PM
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at
https://aka.ms/LeamAboutSenderldentification ]
As a resident of Wood Street for over 25 years, I have serious concems about the proposed 8 -unit rental building at
96 Wood Street. I am aware of the Planning Act and the parking requirements for properties within a PMTSA but
this project would worsen the existing parking congestion caused by hospital staff and visitors, as the development
does not provide adequate parking for its residents. The strain on parking will significantly impact the quality of life
for those living here. Additionally, the building's design does not respect the aesthetic or architectural character of
our neighborhood. Many of us have invested heavily in our homes, and this development threatens to lower property
values and diminish the charm of our community. Approving this project sets a dangerous precedent for more
demolitions and speculative overdevelopment, undermining the close-knit and community -oriented nature of Wood
Street. This proposal is not just a single building—it risks the long-term integrity and character of our neighborhood.
Sent from my iPhone
Page 105 of 403
From:
To: Committee of Adjustment (SM); sean.harriaan(&kithcener.ca; d
Subject: 96 Wood Street Development
Date: Tuesday, December 3, 2024 7:55:45 PM
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at
https://aka.ms/LeamAboutSenderldentification ]
Hello,
This email is being sent to submit my personal objection to the proposed 8 -Unit development at 96 Wood Street.
I have lived in this neighbourhood for 25 years, 20 of them being a homeowner. A homeowner who lives directly
beside the proposed development. Which is obviously clear that I will be impacted the most, but alongside with
many concerned neighbors.
I have reviewed the design of the proposed building. One of my major concerns is the complete takeover of the lot
with the size of the building designed.
• concerns also consist about the encroachment of personal space, privacy, and that the overall backyard experience
will be impacted.
• current driveway will be boxed in by the fence to be built on the west side property line of the lot. Snow removal
will become more difficult as well as the overall function of useable space.
I am aware that development and creating new housing to accommodate for KW`s growing population is necessary,
but should not be done by the takeover of areas that are considered cultural heritage landscapes. They have been
designated that for a reason.
I have read over many of the neighbours email submissions, which then tells me that there is a general agreement on
the concerns that this development creates.
I find no reason to repeat on subjects and concerns that have already been said by 25 others, but STRONGLY agree
with them all.
A building of this size, design, an overall fagade does not belong amongst the mature maples and Century homes.
Although I will not be able to attend the meeting on the 10th of December, I absolutely stand by my many
neighbours whom are opposed of this proposal.
Thanks,
Wood Street Resident.
Page 106 of 403
From:
To: Committee of Adjustment (SM); Sean Harrigan; Debbie Chapman
Subject: Opposition to Proposed 8 -Unit Development at 96 Wood Street, Kitchener.
Date: Thursday, December 5, 2024 8:34:29 PM
Attachments: image001.png
imaae002.Dna
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
Hello, Committee of Adjustment, Mr. Harrigan and Ms. Chapman,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the the proposed 8 -unit development at
96 Wood Street. This proposal raises significant concerns that jeopardize the character,
functionality, and overall integrity of our neighborhood. As a resident of this area for over
15 years, I have witnessed the growth and transformation of this community, and I feel
deeply invested in its future. While I understand the need for development in urban
areas, I firmly believe that this particular project is not suitable for our neighborhood due
to several significant concerns, which I outline below. Starting with the unprofessional
conduct during the meeting on Tuesday September 17,2024 at 10:00am; although I was
unable to attend the meeting in person, I watched the recording and was NOT at all
pleased by the comments made by Chair ; the comments were both
inappropriate and dismissive to the residents' concerns around this project.
1. Dismissal of Written Statements and Absence of Residents
Chair repeatedly emphasized the absence of neighborhood residents
speaking at the meeting, despite the fact that 15 written statements had been
submitted. His remarks alluded to the absence of speakers as a detriment to the
strength of opposition. This oversight fails to acknowledge that the meeting was
conducted during working hours -10 a.m. on a Tuesday—making it inaccessible
for many.
o Residents should not have to choose between personal or professional
obligations and having their voices heard.
o Someone in a position of leadership should exhibit professionalism and
understand the realities of residents' schedules when making such
dismissive observations.
2. Inappropriate Personal Commentary
Chair remarks during the meeting, including his statement:
"I'm going to respectfully disagree. It's not an overdevelopment of a lot. For someone
who lived in a crappy basement apartment for 1 year with undersized windows—it sucks
—and I'm in support of this application. "
This type of unprofessional commentary, rooted in personal experience, is entirely
inappropriate for a decision-making forum. Such statements are dismissive of the
concerns of the community and indicate a troubling bias.
Page 107 of 403
Moving beyond the inappropriate and unprofessional conduct of the Chair, please
consider the following points:
Gildner Green Heritage Landscape
This property is part of the Gildner Green heritage landscape, a designation that underscores
the City of Kitchener's recognition of the unique attributes of our neighborhood. The mature
street trees, consistent architectural styles, and heritage -like "built -form" of the houses are
defining features that this development blatantly disregards. This development threatens to
disrupt the unique character of the area, which has been carefully preserved over many years.
The construction of a large multi -unit dwelling in this location would mar the landscape and
compromise its integrity, diminishing its value for future residents. It is essential that we
protect this heritage to maintain the distinctive charm of the neighborhood.
Neighborhood Aesthetic and Property Values
The aesthetic of our neighborhood is one of its most valued aspects. The existing single-family
homes, green spaces, and overall design create a serene and inviting atmosphere that has
drawn families to this area for decades. The proposed multi -unit development, with its modern
and potentially imposing structure, would clash with the current architectural style and disrupt
the harmonious look and feel of the neighborhood. Not only would this alter the visual appeal,
but it could also have a detrimental impact on property values. The presence of a large 8 -unit
building in what is otherwise a quiet, residential area could lead to decreased property values,
affecting homeowners' investments and set a dangerous precedent, undermining the values
meant to be preserved in this area.
Building Height and Scale
Another significant concern is the height and scale of the proposed building. The surrounding
homes are low-rise structures, and the addition of a taller building would dominate the corner
where it is to be built, creating a stark contrast with the current environment. This increase in
height would significantly alter the character of the area, creating a sense of overcrowding and
undermining the peaceful suburban feel that we currently enjoy. The proposed building height
exceeds the zoning limit of 11 metres, reaching 12 metres. This is excessive and is
incompatible with the surrounding homes.
Street Parking and Traffic Concerns
Our neighborhood already experiences significant challenges with street parking, particularly
during peak hours. The introduction of a large apartment complex would exacerbate this issue,
as new residents and visitors would likely rely on street parking. This would create congestion,
making it more difficult for long-time residents to park near their homes. Additionally, the
increased traffic could lead to safety concerns, particularly for children and pedestrians who
currently enjoy the calm and safe streets.
Precedent for Demolition and Further Development
Allowing this development to move forward could set a troubling precedent for the demolition
of other properties and the approval of future developments that do not align with the
character of our community. Once these changes begin, it could trigger further destruction of
the neighborhood's charm and integrity, leading to irreversible alterations to the area that may
not be in the best interest of the community.
Personal Experience in a Well -Rounded Community
Page 108 of 403
Having lived in this neighborhood for over 20 years, I have seen firsthand how the community
has evolved while maintaining its tight -knit, family-oriented atmosphere. The residents here
have built lasting relationships and take great pride in the area's peaceful environment. The
introduction of an 8 -unit dwelling would disrupt this balance, potentially leading to a loss of
community cohesion. The influx of transient residents and changes to the neighborhood
dynamics could erode the sense of belonging and mutual support that has made this area so
special.
For these reasons, I strongly oppose the proposed housing development. I urge the committee
to reject this proposal and consider the long-term impact this project will have on our
community, its heritage, and its residents. It is crucial that we preserve the character and
integrity of our neighborhood, protect our property values, and ensure that future
developments are in harmony with the existing environment.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response and hope that my
concerns will be taken into account as this matter moves forward.
Sincerely,
Will Rogers
Page 109 of 403