HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSD-2025-211 - A 2025-043, 044 - 82 Brunswick AveStaff Report
r
JR
Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca
REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment
DATE OF MEETING: May 20, 2025
SUBMITTED BY: Tina Malone -Wright, Manager, Development Approvals
519-783-8913
PREPARED BY: Evan Wittmann, Senior Planner, 519-783-8523
WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 10
DATE OF REPORT: May 7, 2025
REPORT NO.: DSD -2025-211
SUBJECT: Minor Variance Application A2025-043 — 82 Brunswick Avenue
(Future Retained Parcel)
Minor Variance Application A2025-044 — 82 Brunswick Avenue
(Future Severed Parcel / 84 Brunswick Avenue)
RECOMMENDATION:
A. Minor Variance Application A2025-043 - 82 Brunswick Avenue (Future Retained
Parcel
That Minor Variance Application A2025-043 for 82 Brunswick Avenue (Future
Retained Parcel) requesting relief from the following sections of Zoning By-law
2019-051:
i) Section 4.12.2.h) to permit a minimum front yard landscaped area of 15%
instead of the minimum required 20%;
ii) Section 5.4, Table 5-3, to permit a maximum driveway width of 5.2 metres
instead of the maximum permitted 3 metres; and
iii) Section 7.3, Table 7-3, to permit a minimum rear yard setback of 6.6 metres
instead of the minimum required 7.5 metres;
to facilitate the development of a Semi -Detached Dwelling with three (3)
Additional Dwelling Units (ADU) (Attached) in each half of the Semi -Detached
Dwelling, for a total of eight (8) dwelling units, generally in accordance with
drawings prepared by Southwood Homes, dated March 27, 2025, BE REFUSED.
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
Page 24 of 246
B. Minor Variance Application A2025-044 - 82 Brunswick Avenue (Future Severed
Parcel / 84 Brunswick Avenue)
That Minor Variance Application A2025-044 for 82 Brunswick Avenue (Future
Severed Parcel / 84 Brunswick Avenue) requesting relief from the following
sections of Zoning By-law 2019-051:
i) Section 4.12.2.h) to permit a minimum front yard landscaped area of 17%
instead of the minimum required 20%;
ii) Section 5.4, Table 5-3, to permit a maximum driveway width of 5.2 metres
instead of the maximum permitted 3 metre; and
iii) Section 7.3, Table 7-3, to permit a minimum rear yard setback of 5.1 metres
instead of the minimum required 7.5 metres;
to facilitate the development of a Semi -Detached Dwelling with three (3)
Additional Dwelling Units (ADU) (Attached) in each half of the Semi -Detached
Dwelling, for a total of eight (8) dwelling units, generally in accordance with
drawings prepared by Southwood Homes, dated March 27, 2025, BE REFUSED.
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS:
• The purpose of this report is to review and make recommendations on minor variance
applications for the future Severed and Retained Parcels at 82 Brunswick Avenue to
facilitate the creation of a Semi -Detached Dwelling with four dwelling units on each
side.
• The key finding of this report is that the two minor variance applications do not meet
the `four tests' of the Planning Act and refusal is recommended.
• 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 on the eastern side of Brunswick Avenue between
Hartwood Avenue and Guelph Street within the "Fairfield" community. The subject
property currently features a 1.5 storey single detached dwelling and has a frontage of
approximately 15 metres and depth of approximately 30 metres. The surrounding area is
generally characterised by low-rise housing, with notable exceptions being the abutting
"Margaret Place" apartment buildings, each being 18 storeys tall. The parking areas of the
Margaret Place property abuts the eastern and southern edges of the subject property. A
short distance north of the subject property is large commercial property, currently
tenanted by Giant Tiger. The Breithaupt Centre is a short distance from the subject
property, across Margaret Avenue to the northeast.
Page 25 of 246
Figure 1: Aerial View Of The Subject Property (in Red)
Figure 2: Subject Property, View From Street (Taken May 2, 2025)
The subject property is identified as `Community Areas' on Map 2 — Urban Structure and is
designated `Low Rise Residential' on Map 3 — Land Use in the City's 2014 Official Plan.
Page 26 of 246
The subject property is zoned `Low Rise Residential Four Zone (RES -4)' in Zoning By-law
2019-051. This zone permits semi-detached dwellings on lots with a lot width of 7.5 metres
and lot area of 210 m2, which are met by the proposed lot configuration and would be
implemented by a future Consent Application.
The purpose of the applications is to vary the `RES -4' Zone requirements for minimum rear
yard setback, minimum front yard landscaping, and maximum drive -way width to facilitate
the development of a Semi -Detached Dwelling with three (3) Additional Dwelling Units
(ADU) (Attached) in each half of the Semi -Detached Dwelling, for a total of eight (8)
dwelling units.
Figure 3: Zoning By -Law
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:
General Intent of the Official Plan
The Official Plan provides several policies regarding the intensification of low rise
residential areas, with more specific direction to the requested variances, being to the rear
yard setback, front yard landscaping, and driveway width.
Page 27 of 246
Of particular relevance to this application is Policy 4.C.1.8, which provides specific policy
direction for minor variance applications proposing residential intensification:
4. C.1.8. Where a special zoning regulation(s) or minor variance(s) is/are requested,
proposed or required to facilitate residential intensification or a
redevelopment of lands, the overall impact of the special zoning regulation(s)
or minor variance(s) will be reviewed, but not limited to the following to
ensure, that.-
e)
hat:
e) The lands can function appropriately and not create unacceptable
adverse impacts for adjacent properties by providing both an
appropriate number of parking spaces and an appropriate
landscaped/amenity area on the site.
f) The impact of each special zoning regulation or variance will be
reviewed prior to formulating a recommendation to ensure that a
deficiency in the one zoning requirement does not compromise the
site in achieving objectives of compatible and appropriate site and
neighbourhood design and does not create further zoning
deficiencies.
Regarding policy 4.C.1.8.e), two (2) of the requested variances reduce the amount of
landscaped and amenity areas on the property: the rear yard setback reduction and
reduction to minimum front yard landscaping. The variances would reduce both the size of
the rear yard and the usable amenity space or green area in the front yard. The reduction
in front yard landscaping is also predominately due to the requested variance for the
widened driveway, which would also suggest that the site is not large enough to
accommodate the required parking and maintain an appropriate rear yard or the amount of
landscaped area in the front yard.
As indicated in policy 4.C.1.8.f), one zoning deficiency should not create additional zoning
deficiencies. The requested variance to reduce the front yard landscaped area is caused
by the requested variance to widen the driveway beyond the maximum permitted width.
The Official Plan provides policy direction on the compatibility of residential intensification
with the existing character of the neighbourhood. Policy 4.C.1.9 states:
4. C.1.9. Residential intensification and/or redevelopment within existing
neighbourhoods will be designed to respect existing character. A high
degree of sensitivity to surrounding context is important in considering
compatibility.
Examining the existing context of Brunswick Avenue, while the predominant driveway form
is single loaded, there are examples of double wide driveways. In instances where a
double wide driveway is present, the lot features a single detached dwelling. These single
detached lots are large enough to accommodate both parking and landscaping in the front
yard. A side-by-side, double wide driveway at the front of the dwelling is generally
uncharacteristic of the surrounding neighbourhood.
Page 28 of 246
Additional policy direction regarding compatibility is provided in the Low Rise Residential
land use designation policies, specifically 15.D.3.3:
15. D.3.3. To support the successful integration of different housing types, specifically
multiple residential developments, through new development/redevelopment
and/or residential intensification, within lands designated Low Rise
Residential, Medium Rise Residential or High Rise Residential, the City will
apply design principles in accordance with the Urban Design Policies in
Section 11. An emphasis will be placed on.-
b)
n:
b) the relationship of housing to adjacent buildings, streets and exterior
areas,
c) adequate and appropriate parking areas are provided on site, and,
d) adequate and appropriate amenity areas and landscaped areas are
provided on site.
Policy 15.D.3.3 further emphasizes the appropriateness of parking areas, amenity areas,
and landscaped areas in Low Rise Residential areas. Widening the driveway will have an
adverse impact on the streetscape, and reductions to both the front and rear landscaped
and amenity areas results in areas inadequate for four dwelling units.
Based on the above review, the requested variances do not meet the intent of the
Official Plan.
General Intent of the Zoning By-law
The intent of the maximum driveway width is to maintain the relationship between
residential properties and the streetscape, avoiding neighbourhoods that are dominated by
paved surfaces. This is facilitated by the deliberate departure from the previous driveway
maximum of Zoning By-law 85-1. In Zoning By-law 81-5, the maximum permitted driveway
width was 5.2 metres, which was revised down to the current maximum driveway width of
40% of the lot width in established neighbourhood areas. The requested increase to the
maximum driveway width is contrary to the intent of the current Zoning By-law.
In context, the reduction to front yard landscaped area is due to the widened driveway,
creating a front yard condition that is primarily paved. Reducing the landscaped area to
provide additional parking area does not follow the intent of the Zoning By-law.
The intent of the rear yard setback is to ensure both sufficient distance from lot lines to
ensure privacy to abutting properties, and to provide private, outdoor amenity space to the
lot. The need for reductions to the rear yard setbacks are due to the angle of the rear lot
line. For the future severed lot, the setback is 5.1 metres at its shortest point, which
continues to increase until reaching 6.6 metres at its longest. The average rear yard
setback is roughly 5.8 metres, which results in a rear yard area of approximately 43
square metres. The minimum rear yard size as calculated by the required zone provisions
is 56.25 square metres (7.5 metres x 7.5 metres). The 43 square metres that would be
provided is 76% the area of the typical requirement. Based on the intent of the rear yard
Page 29 of 246
setback, the reduction results in an area that does not provide appropriate outdoor
amenity area for a primary dwelling and three ADU's.
For the future retained lot, the setback is 6.6 metres at its shortest point, which continues
to increase until reaching 8.5 metres at its longest. The average rear yard setback is
roughly 7.6 metres, which is above the minimum requirement of 7.5 metres. For this lot,
the reduction to the rear yard effectively meets the intent of the Zoning By-law.
341.49
3414
x 5R
1R
341.64_ ��fty�ao ,'R 341.64.
UNIT 4 _ WNIZ 4
ACCESS _ A6CESS
Figure 4: Rear Yard Setback Measurements
I
Based on the above review, the requested variances, aside from the 6.6 metre rear
yard setback, do not meet the intent of the Zoning By-law.
Is/Are the Effects of the Variance(s) Minor?
Regarding the variances to increase the maximum driveway width, the maximum driveway
width is to be 40% of the frontage of the property. Based on the future intent to sever, two
lots of 7.5 metres are proposed. 40% of the 7.5 metre frontage results in a maximum
driveway width of 3 metres; large enough for one parking space. The requested increase
to 5.2 metres, or 70% of the frontage, which is nearly double the maximum width
permitted, is to facilitate side-by-side parking. While functionally this is a convenient option
for a building with multiple units to avoid parking conflicts, it presents a scenario where a
significant portion of the front yard is a paved surface.
The increased driveway width has a compounding effect, resulting in the need to reduce
the minimum front yard landscaped areas for both future lots. While in some scenarios a
reduced front yard landscaped area may be appropriate, needing to reduce landscaped
area for additional parking is not a desirable corresponding variance.
Page 30 of 246
As noted in the above analysis regarding the intent of the Zoning By-law, the future
retained parcel and 6.6 metre rear yard setback is generally technical in nature due to the
angled rear lot line and would be considered minor.
Overall, the requested variances, aside from the rear yard reduction to 6.6 metres, are
not minor in nature.
Is/Are the Variance(s) Desirable For The Appropriate Development or Use of the Land,
Building and/or Structure?
In addition to the individual review of each variance, it is important to consider the
variances in aggregate. While up to four units are permitted on residential properties in the
City, it must be demonstrated that the property in question can reasonably accommodate
that level of density. The applicant has prepared a concept plan that demonstrates an
eight -unit development that could be constructed with no variances. This alternative
concept is generally undesirable, as several of the units, such as the detached ADUs, are
very small in size.
Although eight (8) units would not be feasible without variances, a semi-detached dwelling
with two attached Additional Dwelling Units, for a total of six (6) units, could be constructed
without the need for any variances and would provide more livable units than the as -of -
right eight -unit concept. Understanding that appropriate redevelopment is possible on the
subject property without need for variances reflects negatively on the desirability of the
variances.
By increasing the driveway width, the front yard will largely be paved area. Increasing the
amount of hard surface on a property has negative environmental and streetscape
impacts. Additionally, by increasing the driveway width, a street tree will need to be
removed, which is not a desirable outcome and not supported by the City's Forestry
Division.
Overall, the requested variances are not desirable for the appropriate
redevelopment of the property.
Environmental Planning Comments:
Environmental Planning is not in support of any variances to reduce required landscape
area as permeable area and soil volume will be reduced negatively impacting water
infiltration and the survival of street trees. Arborist's Report required to assess impacts to
vegetation at 305-315 Maragret Ave (their required Landscape Plan).
Heritage Planning Comments:
No Heritage comments or concerns.
Building Division Comments:
The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance provided a building permit
for the new semi-detached building and detached ADUs is obtained prior to construction.
Please contact the Building Division at building(a)kitchener.ca with any questions.
Page 31 of 246
Engineering Division Comments:
No Engineering comments or concerns.
Parks and Cemeteries/Forestry Division Comments:
There is an existing City -owned street tree within the boulevard on Brunswick Avenue. It is
expected that all City owned tree assets will be fully protected to City standards throughout
demolition and construction as per Chapter 690 of the current Property Maintenance By-
law. No revisions to the existing driveway or boulevard apron will be permitted without
Forestry approval. Tree Protection and Enhancement Plans to Forestry's satisfaction will
be required outlining complete protection of City assets prior to any demolition or building
permits being issued.
Transportation Planning Comments:
No Transportation comments or concerns.
Enova Power:
Following the property severance, each municipal address must have an individual hydro
service. The meter base for the accessory dwelling unit (ADU) must be located in the
same area as the front units.
Region Comments:
No Region comments or concerns.
GRCA Comments:
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.
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 246
PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES:
• Planning Act
• Provincial Planning Statement (PPS 2024)
• Regional Official Plan
• Official Plan (2014)
• Zoning By-law 2019-051
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A — Site Plan
Page 33 of 246
ATTACHMENT A
out wood -orr nc
a 4 - I- C_ T U R A L D E 5 1 h
NJS:=6i*_51 A'wi:i_�rtx�ad:ertrcce vvrvrsaJT.a:u.i-c n..:a ::9
Site Plan
6; ;'.,.rjnSWICk. Avenve, Kirchener ON
X4
Page 34 of 246
May 6, 2025
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 May 20, City of Kitchener
Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and
have the following comments:
1) A 2025 —
043
— 82 Brunswick Avenue — No Concerns
2) A 2025 —
044
— 84 Brunswick Avenue — No Concerns
3) A 2025 —
045
— 191 Morgan Avenue — No Concerns
4) A 2025 —
046
— 241 Huck Cresent — No Concerns
5) A 2025 —
047
— 14 Jansen Avenue — No Concerns
6) A 2025 —
048
— 24 Amherst Drive — No Concerns
7) A 2025 —
049
— 42 Orchard Mill Cresent — No Concerns
8) A 2025 —
050
— 244 Samuel Street — No Concerns
9) A 2025 —
051
— 503 Victoria Street North — No Concerns
10)A 2025 —
052
— 573 Guelph Street — No Concerns
11)A 2025 —
053
— 575 Guelph Street — No Concerns
12)A 2025 —
054
— 864 King Street West — No Concerns
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.
Document Number: 4976854
Page 35 of 246
Please forward any decisions on the above-mentioned Application numbers to the
undersigned.
Yours Truly,
Joshua Beech Falshaw
Transportation Planner
jbeechfalshaw@regionofwaterloo.ca
Document Number: 4976854
Page 36 of 246
May 5, 2025
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 — May 20, 2025
Applications for Minor Variance
A 2025-021
2880 King Street East
A 2025-043
82 Brunswick Avenue
A 2025-044
84 Brunswick Avenue
A 2025-045
191 Morgan Avenue
A 2025-046
241 Huck Crescent
A 2025-047
14 Jansen Avenue
A 2025-048
24 Amherst Drive
Applications for Consent
B 2025-016 1950 Fischer Hallman Road
B 2025-017 864 King Street West
via email
A 2025-049
42 Orchard Mill Crescent
A 2025-050
244 Samuel Street
A 2025-051
503 Victoria Street North
A 2025-052
573 Guelph Street
A 2025-053
575 Guelph Street
A 2025-054
864 King Street West
Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) staff have 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 aherremana-grand river. 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 246
From:
Pui Ming Leung
To:
Committee of Adiustment (SM)
Subject:
Comments, Enova Power, April 2025
Date:
Monday, May 5, 2025 9:51:20 AM
Attachments:
11111j)d
in
The following are the comments for Committee of Adjustment applications -April 2025.
82 / 84 Brunswick Ave:
Following the property severance, each municipal address must have an individual hydro
service. The meter base for the accessory dwelling unit (ADU) must be located in the same
area as the front units.
573/575 Guelph St:
The meter base for each unit must be installed at the front of the house. Installation on the
side wall is not permitted due to insufficient clearance.
864 King St W:
The building must maintain a minimum clearance of 5.5 meters plus required working space
from the primary hydro pole line. Refer to Standard D11111 for guidance. Additional
requirements can be found in the document:
Tech nical-Guidelines-for-properties-in-Kitchener-and-Wilmot-over-400-Amperes-rev-3-feb-
13-2024. pdf
Reminder for all applications:
Customers must submit a Service Request for any new hydro service connection or upgrade
using the following link:
Service Request Form - Engineering (Victoria Street Office) - Enova Power
Thanks,
Pui Ming Leung (she/her) I Design Technologist
Direct Number: 226-896-2200 (EXT 6205)
Mobile Number: 519-589-2659
puimin_.la eunq(a enovapower.com
301 Victoria Street South, Kitchener, Ontario, N2G 41_2
enovapower.com
UJ
This correspondence is directed in confidence solely to the addressees listed above. It may
Page 38 of 246
contain personal or confidential information and may not otherwise be distributed, copied or
used by the intended recipient. Ifyou are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail
and any attachments and notify the sender immediately. Click on the link to read the
additional disclaimer: https:Ilenovapower.com/disclaimer
Page 39 of 246
N
O
r O
7 7 Wlqr—
ll
W Z °❑ a o d
F2w Z W ~per w
W a O w U 2 f z z O z
o=p �w w3a §wzr o
a 0 2 Z Q Z F> x>w O H 2 K U D Z
O H m
Q W H ❑ Z❑ w J y O
_ ~ ~ ~l 3 O
Z W J
O 7 a O p N w m m
�
Omq W ' Q Y2zv^
p2U U O N> U
oyovz w H �W¢ w=p WO- J
Q
N
J Om mfn W J W yaz W mp oJFQa m N N
OJ Z OF x O W W W m W O Q N N w w
Q° O w v Q Q LL ? z m W z z to V Q m O Z /
z, yrs w ' wo z Y
y> O j mow yZ Ola-~ U V r �m a W z04
y°1 �
CK�� 7yLLJ
w0 aa¢ -w LL pw ouz O M
m z o v w¢ O=W w w 00
��Ro _ov� �a ua- a n� ozm°n ¢ ¢ U) s
maa(7 ~» my,y �xQ h m� Um COO y fail W w
N Z~ z m 0 N J~ W N a = W ¢ j° F F Z W Z U (7
O 2ND w°z c°)o .0 Z, 3<w z yz 0i0os o°p o Z m 3
zo 0, Y H f7 0> r W wo w w y N V N F 7 7 Q 3
Z LLU W Q W QO ZNa m OO w 2N W KKa'2 �� LNL m N VJ (7
O W S H N ❑ o m m O U ❑ w F fn w W
LU
- OUZ OU w O (N
Z
Z<MZ❑ OOy o >zO ZmmNOUOW U) W a
xwW=WO 6ZW GzV ZmU Q J
vJ ¢ W Z O ❑L) l_L¢ W W F jH aa v,
mLLO O Uwm w mz > Va O
°
¢¢ O J m Z CO Z W Z O a
O 0 W2ZWOWO00QOOJOm
zf2nz3a14 Ll UUaU Nm z
Z of 2
R O
S x
3
T'yQ6/ �i� Wfn W�
a
w £
a V s°
Cys l >On N z rc
�aa o�
K 6 K O K O a
T pp N
w
3 0 0 b
cC k-11 S
U
LD f — c~i w a Z G
m
Uw r N 14
7 V W \ W
mar m
a\
N Z \
o \
U
Z W
O - ~
At O
e
e
F
\ NZ \.
\ T
~ / W
U W
N O
z Z
� LL
r
H
O
J
a
Objection to Minor Variance Applications A2025-043 and A2025-044 - 82
Brunswick Ave
Dear Committee of Adjustment,
am writing to formally object to Minor Variance Applications A2025-043 and A2025-044
regarding the proposed developments at 82 Brunswick Avenue.
As a nearby resident, I have strong concerns about the negative impact these
applications will have on our street and community:
1. Overdevelopment and Poor Living Conditions - Proposing two semi-detached
homes with possible three Additional Dwelling Units in each half -a total of 12 units -on
one lot is extreme. These will be small, crowded units with limited outdoor space,
creating poor living conditions and encouraging "transient tenancy". This does not
address the housing crisis meaningfully or sustainably.
2. We Need Family -Oriented Housing, Not Investor Units - There are already many
condos and small rental units being developed in the area. What we lack are homes
that support families -spaces with yards, privacy, and room to grow. Rebuilding a single-
family home or a modest triplex would still add resale and long-term value for new
owners without harming the character or livability of the neighbourhood.
3. Affordability of Single -Family Homes - Allowing investors to densify lots at this
scale will inflate land values, making it even harder for everyday families to afford a
home. Protecting space for traditional single-family or modest multi -family housing
keeps ownership within reach for young families and future generations.
4. Traffic and Safety Risks on a Narrow Street - Brunswick Avenue is a very narrow
street, and adding this many new units will significantly increase traffic and on -street
parking. This poses a serious safety concern -especially for the many children who live
and play on this street. Adding multiple wide driveways and allowing rear yard variances
that reduce buffer space only worsens the situation.
5. Loss of Green Space and Neighbourhood Value - The proposed reductions in front
yard landscaping (15 percent and 17 percent) and increased driveway widths (5.2m) will
replace green space with pavement, degrading the visual appeal of the area and
contributing to urban runoff. These changes erode the value and integrity of a
neighbourhood that people genuinely want to live in and call home.
6. Communities, Not Commodities - These types of developments are driven by real
estate investors, not families. They are changing the face of our neighbourhoods -from
livable communities into congested, fragmented rental zones. Let high-density living
remain in high-rise zones -not quiet residential streets where people are trying to build
lives and futures.
Page 41 of 246
7. Loss of Appeal Rights Under Bill 23 - As a resident, I am deeply concerned that
under Bill 23, neighbours like myself no longer have the legal right to appeal this
decision. This severely limits public accountability and leaves residents powerless to
prevent developments that damage their communities. I urge the Committee to weigh
this inequity heavily when making its decision.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Committee deny the requested
variances. I also ask to be notified of the Committee's decision.
Sincerely,
Kendra Elizabeth Bester
Page 42 of 246
From:
To: Committee of Adjustment (SM)
Subject. Objection to Minor Variance Applications A 2025443 & A 2 02 5-044 — 82 & 84 Orunswick Avenue
Date: Monday, May 5, 2025 9:47:40 PM
You don't often get email from
Dear Committee Members,
I am writing as a long-term resident of to formally express my
objection to the minor variance applications A 2025-043 and A 2025-044 concerning the
properties at 82 and 84 Brunswick Avenue (Potential Future Severed Lot).
While I understand the need for strategic urban growth and densification, I am very concerned
that the proposed variances and associated redevelopment plans are excessive for this modest
residential street and will have serious and lasting impacts on neighbourhood safety, livability,
and character.
These applications would permit the construction of two semi-detached dwellings containing
a total of 8 residential units, where currently there is only a single-family bungalow. This
dramatic increase in density is not in keeping with the established pattern of development on
Brunswick Avenue, and the proposed variances further compound the problem.
My main concerns are as follows:
Parking and Traffic Congestion:
The proposal includes only 4 parking spaces for 8 units, which will force tenants and
visitors to park on the street. Brunswick Avenue is only 7 meters wide in front of 82
Brunswick Avenue, making it already difficult for vehicles to pass safely. Additional
on -street parking will reduce visibility, hinder traffic flow, and block access for
emergency or service vehicles.
2. Pedestrian Safety on an Incomplete Sidewalk Network:
Brunswick Avenue does not have a complete sidewalk, forcing pedestrians
including children and persons with disabilities (both of whom live in my household)--
to
ouseholdto walk directly on the street. Increased on -street parking and vehicle traffic will
significantly raise the risk of pedestrian accidents and reduce safety for the most
vulnerable road users.
3. Snow Removal and Emergency Access:
During the winter months, snowbanks further narrow the street. The addition of parked
vehicles will impede snow clearing operations, potentially compromising access for
emergency vehicles and making the street dangerous for all users.
4. Environmental and Noise Buffer Loss:
The development will require the removal of several large, mature trees. These trees
provide more than aesthetic and environmental benefits—they also act as a natural
noise barrier between Brunswick Avenue and the two large apartment buildings on
Margaret Avenue. Removing them will increase noise pollution for nearby residents
and reduce the privacy and quiet enjoyment of our properties.
Page 43 of 246
5. Loss of Green Space and Neighbourhood Character:
The requested variances include a reduction in front yard landscaping to as little as
15%, the widening of driveways beyond zoning limits, and a reduction in rear yard
setbacks. These changes would result in a built form that is out of scale with the
existing neighbourhood, eroding its character and replacing usable green space with
pavement and building mass.
6. Not a Minor Adjustment:
Taken individually, each variance may seem modest. But together, they represent a
significant deviation from the zoning by-law's intent. Approving these changes would
effectively redefine what's permissible in our neighbourhood, paving the way for further
over -intensification.
In summary, I strongly urge the Committee to deny these variance requests and encourage a
more appropriately scaled development that preserves safety, neighbourhood character, and
environmental quality.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I would welcome the opportunity to speak further
or appear at the public hearing.
Sincerely,
Marc Charette
Page 44 of 246
From:
To: Committee of Adiustment (SM)
Subject: Re: Written Submission for Application A 2025-043 and A 2025-044
Date: Tuesday, May 6, 2025 5:24:08 PM
Hi Connie,
Thank you for forwarding these. We'd be happy to have a conversation with the neighbours to
help address their concerns — please feel free to pass along my email so we can connect
directly if that is allowed.
It's worth clarifying that many of the issues raised seem to relate more to the zoning by-law
itself rather than our proposed development. For example, the by-law requires only two
parking spaces for four units, so we are not seeking a parking reduction, only a minor variance
for driveway widening. Snow removal and sidewalk maintenance fall outside our control, and
any trees being removed are private and located within our property boundaries.
Additionally, the zoning designation (Res -4) permits four units per lot, and I want to clarify that
our proposal is for eight units in total — not twelve, as noted in one of the objection emails.
We share the view that family-oriented housing is important, which is why our plan includes a
mix of larger two- and three-bedroom units alongside more affordable one -bedroom options.
We believe this approach, though requiring minor variances, results in a more desirable
outcome compared to the detached ADU option we previously submitted, which would not
require variances but offers less housing diversity and much smaller units.
Thanks again for facilitating this dialogue — we look forward to working together to address
these concerns.
Amy
From: Committee of Adjustment (SM)
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2025 1:34 PM
To:
Subject: Written Submission for Application A 2025-043 and A 2025-044
Good afternoon,
I am attaching another written submission received for your application for the upcoming Committee
of Adjustment meeting.
Page 45 of 246
Connie Owen.
Administrative Clerk I Legislated Services I City of Kitchener
519-741-2203 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 cofana kitchen er.ca
Page 46 of 246
From:
To: Committee of Adiustment (SM): Committee of Adiustment (5M)
Subject-. Opposition to Variance Applications A2025-043 & A2025-044
Date: Thursday, May 8, 2025 10.31:.03 AM
IYou don't often get email from Learn why this is im op rtant
Dear Members of the Committee,
I am writing to formally oppose minor variance applications A2025-043 and A2025-044,
which propose replacing a single-family home on our street with a semi-detached structure
containing eight individual residential units and only four parking spaces. This development is
incompatible with the character, infrastructure, and true housing needs of our neighborhood.
As someone who has lived on this street for over 20 years—and whose family has been part of
this commiunty for more than 84 years—I speak on behalf of a neighborhood committed to
preserving its century homes, strong community ties, and family -friendly environment.
Key concerns with this proposal include:
■ Over -Intensification and Misaligned Housing: Units between 500-1,040 square feet
are not suitable for families and would likely attract transient or student tenants. This
location is not close to the universities or colleges and does not support the style of
higher -density student housing.
Parking and Traffic Safety: Only four parking spaces for eight units is imsafe and
unrealistic. Our street allows parking on only one side and becomes a single lane during
winter due to snow accumulation. We also lack a sidewalk on one side of the street.
Traffic and parking congestion from new tenants and guests will significantly impact
safety—especially for the many children in the area. Additionally, our street sees heavy
pedestrian traffic due to foot access to the nearby Giant Tiger store, increasing the risk
to pedestrians.
• Property Neglect and Transient Tenancy: Multi -tint rentals are often poorly
maintained. We are already seeing this throughout the city and recently in our own
neighborhood with the new builds at 271 and 273 Hartwood. Issues include improper
garbage disposal, overgrown lawns, and poor snow removal—all signs of a lack of long-
term investment in the community.
Loss of Neighborhood Character: This area is known for its family homes and
heritage charm. Allowing eight small units in place of one home fundamentally changes
the character of our street and community—not for the better.
We urge you to reject these applications. If redevelopment must occur, each sena-detached
unit should serve a single family resulting in a total of two units, not eight. This would
support the type of housing our community needs while preserving the integrity of the
neighborhood.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Kelly Targosz Valdez
Page 47 of 246
May 9, 2025
Re: A2025-043 - 82 Brunswick Avenue
A2025-044 - 82 Brunswick Avenue
Dear Committee of Adjustment members,
As a long-time resident of Brunswick Avenue, living at for 16 years,
and only moving due to two untimely deaths resulting in a move to the family farm in 2024,
1 continue to be part of Brunswick Avenue community.
I offer the following submissions for your consideration:
1. Inadequate parking
The four parking spots on the submitted design are each 2.6 meters (8.5 feet)
wide.
b. My minivan is 5.5 feet wide. The driver door when opened is 3 feet, for a
total of 8.5 feet. The proposed driveways are not wide enough for four side
by side parking spots.
c. The two spaces labelled "concrete walkway" beside the driveways will more
than likely be used as driveway because the proposed driveways are not wide
enough to accommodate the opening and closing of vehicle doors. The little
green strip in the middle of the two driveways, with no measurement being
provided, will more than likely become paved and used as a driveway to
accommodate the inadequate driveway width. Because of the practical
impacts, 5% and 3% reductions at first blush sound minor, but are in fact
significant.
d. Driveway width minimums have been set by the City and allow for vehicles to
adequately fit on a driveway. The requested variances do not meet the
intent of the City's zoning by-law as vehicles will not be able to use the
driveway well, the two inner parking spots will have difficulty entering and
exiting their vehicle depending on how the two outside vehicles park on the
driveway and the size of each vehicle. The result is that more vehicles will
likely use the road for parking. Due to these impacts, this variance request is
not minor in nature and does not meet the intent of the zoning by-law.
2. Street Parking Impact
a. Street parking is currently permitted on one side of the street. Brunswick
Avenue is narrow and according to the Geographic Information system (GIS)
used by the City, the pavement width is 7 meters (22.97 feet).
Page 48 of 246
b. Without adequate parking on site, the street becomes more congested with
cars being parked on the street and then by-law has to be called to issue
tickets when the street is used as a driveway. This is not a developer issue
because they are likely out of the picture, this is left to the neighbourhood to
manage.
c. More importantly, vehicles parked on the street become safety issues and
site line issues for crossing the street. With Giant Tiger nearby, Brunswick
Avenue's one sidewalk on the west side of the street is well used.
3. 271-273 Hartwood Avenue — four units with insufficient parking
a. This is a recent development around the corner from Brunswick Avenue, this
development has four units. The proposed development is double. I have
observed on countless occasions six (6) vehicles on the driveway and front
walk; the front walk is used as a driveway. If vehicles aren't in the driveway
the vehicles are parked on the street using the street as a driveway.
Attached is a picture of the property from Google Maps. The only front yard
green space is on the City's right of way.
4. Changes to the Region's Waste Management collection in 2026
a. The design does not incorporate garages or storage areas at the rear or the
side of the property for bikes, waste, snow shovels, toys, recycling, etc.
b. The walkways are 1.1 m (110cm) at the side and rear of the building to access
the side and rear units.
c. In March 2026 the Region is moving to a cart -based collection system. The
default (large) garbage cart is 68cm wide and 69cm in depth. The small black
garbage cart and green cart for organics are 48 cm wide and 62cm in depth.
Where will these carts go? Attached are the sizes of the carts from the
Region's website.
d. In addition to black and green carts, there is blue box recycling.
These variance requests are significant because there are eight proposed
Dwelling Units where: the front yard is parking, the side yard is 110cm is
labelled a "walkway" for the side and rear units. What is not shown on the
design is that the green space at the rear of the yard is sloped and is a
downward gradient to the rear property line.
5. Negative Impact to Environment & Community
When combined, the proposed variances remove almost all green space, and
what is labelled as green space will likely be paved over to accommodate for
lack of parking and amenities. If this application proceeds the City should
Page 49 of 246
ensure that this property is reviewed so the appropriate storm water rates
are applied to this development.
b. The existing, mature tree canopy at the side and rear of the property act as a
natural buffer to the large apartment building at the rear of the property. The
destruction of trees is concerning and in direct contrast to the City's Official
Plan (Section 8.C.2 — Urban Forests).
c. The rear yard setback requests are 12% and 32%. This is a sloped area leading
to storm water drains located just beyond the rear property line. Regardless
of the slope, this becomes a small property when a disproportionately large
building is taking up most of the space within the property lines, making the
reduced setbacks substantial in nature.
d. The side yard setbacks do not accommodate for air conditioning units, lawn
mowers if not kept on site, people moving furniture to and from the four of
the eight units.
The developer's response to this Committee will be that "we are in a housing crisis".
A housing crisis does not allow a developer to provide little to no green space,
remove tree canopy acting as a natural buffer, and negatively impact storm water
runoff. A housing crisis does not excuse a developer from respecting set -backs that
have been set by the City of Kitchener to foster good planning, a place to call home,
and community.
Request:
• To deny applications A2025-043 and A2025-044 as the variances: are not desirable,
are in no way minor in nature, and do not come close to meeting the intent of the
City's Official Plan or current zoning by-law.
There are meaningful ways the City can increase density, but these two applications only
serve the developer in maximizing profits at the expense of the community.
Respectfully,
Cory Shang
Cory Shantz
Attachments: Google Map Street View — 2023 of 271 Hartwood and 273 Hartwood Avenue
2026 Curbside Collection Changes— Region of Waterloo website
Page 50 of 246
Page 51 of 246
517125, 10:56 AM
Region of Waterloo
2026 Curbside Collection Changes - Region of Waterloo
2026 Curbside Collection Changes
Overview
In March 2026, the Region of Waterloo will be changing to cart -based collection for
garbage and organics.
The Region provides curbside collection service to approximately 161,000 single-
family homes, duplexes, and 3 -to -6 -unit buildings, as well as 8,500 multi -family
units and townhouse complexes that meet truck -access criteria.
Currently, most of the collection is done manually, by lifting waste materials and
placing them into the collection trucks. By switching to cart -based collection, the
Region will improve worker safety, operational efficiency, and cut down on waste
collection day litter.
Download the Waste Whiz app to receive notifications on the cart rollout.
Come see the carts!
Waste Management staff will be out in the community at various events throughout
the transition process.
Upcoming events are listed below:
• Waste Discovery Day; Saturday, 9 a.m. - 1 p.m., 925 Erb St. W. Waterloo, Gate
#1
Cart selection
When will residents be able to select their carts?
For garbage collection, the large black cart is the default size, Residents will have
the option to choose the smaller size in June and July. There is no selection for the
green cart, which only comes in one size.
When and how will the carts be delivered to residents?
Chat
https:llwww. reg ion ofwaterloo.ca'en1living-here12026-curbside-col lection-changes. aspx
Page 52 of 246
517!25, 10:56 AM 2026 Curbside Collection Changes - Region of Waterloo
Black and green carts will be delivered free of ch Chat ptuNclties before
March of 2026.
Information kits will be provided with the carts and include instructions and tips on
cart usage.
Cart sizes
Below are the sizes and dimensions for the various carts available. The large black
cart is the default size, and residents will have the option to choose the smaller size
if they wish. There is only one size for the green cart and food scraps container.
® Optional size
120L Black cart Black cart Green cart
garbage garbage garbage organics
can (large) (small)
Garbage can is not provided. Nath Moth 4MCI
l rn+
Fm We reference only. so cm 48 orn
Height
neem
Is' g'1
Height " Height Helght Height
04— 111 em g8 em go em
a Depth 8Depth 62 Depth g2 om
The large black cart fits the equivalent of three full bags of garbage.
Measurements: 69 cm (D) x 68 cm (W) x 111 cm (H)
The small black cart is optional, and can be chosen by residents if they prefer a
smaller size. It fits the equivalent of one full bag of garbage.
Measurements: 62 cm (D) x 48 cm (W) x 96 cm (H)
The green cart comes in one size.
Measurements: 62 cm (D) x 48 cm (W) x 98 cm (H)
The food scraps container comes in one size.
Measurements: 30 cm (D) x 22 cm (W) x 24 cm (H)
Food Scraps Container
(Default)
Chat
h €tps:llwrnu.reg ionofwaterl oo.ea'e nll i vino -h e rei2026-curbside-coil ection-ch anges.as px
Page 53 of 246
P
Chat
h €tps:llwrnu.reg ionofwaterl oo.ea'e nll i vino -h e rei2026-curbside-coil ection-ch anges.as px
Page 53 of 246
object to this proposal because on traffic risk on a narrow st they would be small unit only
suitable for individuals the is a family oriented. Area. it would not fit in with the style of our.
Neighborhood. Eight units in one small space would be overcrowded
C. Knox
Page 54 of 246
Application for the Adjustments (A2025-043) and (A2025-044
I along with my husband and our two children live the proposed site of 82 and 84 Brunswick
Avenue. As a family and neighbourhood residents of 15 years, we welcome a multi -family build in
that site to help address the growing housing crisis; however, we feel the scope and design of the
project would not fit into our existing neighbourhood without significant loss on our part. We
believe that this property, to safety be added to our neighbourhood could only have a maximum of
4 separate units. I offer the following submissions for your consideration:
a) Inadequate Parking by eliminating the front of the yard and replacing it with 4 parking spots
at 2.6 meters each
a. The front yard does not have enough space for the four proposed parking spots and
by-law does not permit this type of parking.
b. A similar building around the corner at 271-273 Hartwood has a similar issue with 4
units being built and the front driveway is only permitted one car/driveway with an
additional car along the boulevard. Over -crowding is a real issue and the
neighbours often resort to calling by-law to issue tickets. 82 and 84 Brunswick is
set to have up to 8 units and I find it very hard to believe that only 2 of them will have
cars and there is no boulevard for additional space here. Please note, there is not
green space on in these photos.
271-273 Hartwood
c. There are several successful multi -family dwellings on Brunswick that all provide
adequate rear parking for their inhabitants, rather than flooding the front with
parking that could be used as a model to fit in better with the neighbourhood and be
a safer solution than just ignoring the problem
Triplex 43 Brunswick Ave
Sixplex and its rear parking 111 Brunswick Ave. 242 Ahrens St. W.
Page 55 of 246
Street parking impact
The remainder of residents and their visitors will need to park on our street, which is
narrow. The width is only 7 meters and only permits parking on one side. Furthermore,
this street is narrowing toward the end with Giant Tiger, which results in pedestrians,
with no available sidewalk to walk, ride, scooter down the street for the remainder of
the way to Hartwood and Giant Tiger. This is a popular route for shoppers and children
on their way to the nearby schools, and additional parked cars and traffic would pose a
significant risk to them. Giant Tiger delivery trucks also use this road to access the rear
of the building for deliveries. This can be very difficult in the winter at which time the
road frequently is narrowed to one lane. By-law will need to be contacted in order to
issue tickets.
Typical street parking on Brunswick Ave #82 upper left of picture. Winter 2024-2025 road reduced to one lane due to
excessive snow. Had to be trucked away and street eventually widened.
Negative Impact of the rear yard set back of 5.1 meters and 6.6 meters, rather than the required 7.5
meters.
a. Our backyards have an old retaining wall holding up the soil and structures and moving
a large building back further into the backyard would put extreme pressure on the
already compromised structures. The retaining wall on our property has been tipping
over for years but we were in the process of digging out the shrubs that the former
owner of 82 Brunswick planted to replace the wall. It will need to be redone to support
such a structure.
Retaining walls in rear of 82 and 86 Brunswick
b. The small slip of land they suggest keeping as a small backyard is at the bottom of the
retaining wall of the 315 Margaret Avenue apartment complex known as Margaret Place.
Above this wall is their substantial parking lot and in the winter their snow is piled up
along with wall and often pushed over between their retaining wall and our backyard
fence. When the storm drain is blocked or overloaded, it is common for both our
backyards to flood in the spring or freeze in the winter. This area has significant soil
erosion.
Page 56 of 246
Loss of Privacy with the building right next to us
Furthest part of the backyard 82 Brunswick Ave.
The proposal is so massive that they suggest having a 1.1 m wide walkway along each
side of the building to access the back entrances without mention on a fence to
separate it from our property. This would have the walkway go directly behind our front
garden, shed and down the existing retaining wall to reach the rear basement
entrances.
Directly behind that shed is where the path with no fence is proposed. This is where my teenaged daughters pends
a great deal of her time — seen here with her not so helpful brother (hat)
b. The building at 271-273 Hartwood has a similar pathwaywhich has been reported by
their direct neighbours to be problematic when people move in an out of the building
with large pieces of furniture. Even getting the lawnmower into the backyard requires
them to lift over the recycling bins, air conditioners and a retaining wall to access the
backyard. This building do not have rear entrance tenants such as the ones proposed
at 82 and 84 Brunswick.
Small path to rear of 271 Hartwood
c. Our home has most of the windows on the Southeastern side of the property and
because the current building is smaller, we do not need to keep our curtains drawn.
This allows the light into our house and provides cherished views of our garden, bird
bath and feeders
Page 57 of 246
d. Homes on Brunswick tend to be old brick homes that are set back from the road,
however this proposal puts concrete and asphalt right to the road and nearly to the
back of the property. This does not provide any usable outdoor living space for the
residents they are hoping to attract. No family would be looking for a building that they
can only access through narrow paths. No outdoor space for parking, bikes, strollers
etc.
Loss of Greenery and a Mature Canopy
a. There are currently 7 mature trees and countless shrubs, bushes and plants on
the property at 82 Brunswick. There were more but they lost 2 mature trees to
the Ash Borer Beetle, as did our property several years ago which was a natural
loss that could not be prevented. However, it is a choice to remove these trees
for this project and our neighbourhood would not be the same without them.
82 Brunswick Street view Leaves filling in May 14, 2025 Full summer coverage from yard #86
Our naturally protected view from our back porch
b. Currently these trees, 3 seasons of the year, create a natural screen from the
large apartment buildings behind us on Margaret Avenue. These trees also act
as buffer to the noise from the parking lot and the echo that is caused by the
looming buildings behind us. It would be heartbreaking to see so many
beautiful trees go when the building could be made smaller to accommodate an
appropriate number of units and not encroach on so many trees.
Garbage and snow removal
a. Since there is no space for garages or sheds, the garbage cans will need to be stored
either on the front driveway area or along the narrow paths going to the back of the house.
b. We are about to switch to cart -based collection (2026) which will only leave 42cm of path
for people to walk, not to mention look terrible at the front of 8 houses. Currently garbage is
a huge issue at 271-273 Hartwood, with the renters frequently putting garbage out on the
Page 58 of 246
wrong days and then leaving it along the road instead of taking it back in. A number of times
animals have ripped into these bags and garbage has been strewn around the street.
Property owners did not clean it up; the neighbours did it. And only through their constant
vigilance do they stop it from happening again. However, even last week (May 9, 2025) too
many bags were put out for collection
c. Last winter we had snowbanks of nearly 5 feet along our driveway. Where will
their snow go?
Brunswick winter 2023 had average snowbanks
d. The developer will not be here to manage the building. Leaving us as the
neighbours to deal with people putting their garbage out wrong, calling by-law
when the parking becomes a problem, the constant turn over of temporary
tenants moving in and out regularly. The plan has too many issues to offer 8
units in a space with no parking, no yard space and no one to maintain the
building. This is happening all over the city under the guise of creating homes to
meet the demand caused by the housing crisis. Buildings are going up all over
town, small, quickly built and poorly managed by investors from another city are
overcrowding otherwise peaceful and flourishing neighbourhoods. We have
multi -family homes on this street; they have been built into the fabric of the
neighbourhood with adequate parking and front lawns have drawn the families
that are not in a position to buy their first home.
We moved to this 15 years ago thinking it was a starter home but stayed because of the incredible
neighbourhood we joined. This little narrow section of Brunswick is very close. We help each
other, watch out for one another, water each others' plants and house sit for each other. Our
children often are running across the street to play together (mine to babysit as they are the oldest
in our end of Brunswick now), ride bikes and migrate from one backyard trampoline to another's
swing set. It is truly an ideal and we are worried that the city will allow a greedy developer to place
Page 59 of 246
a monstrosity, amongst some century old homes. We were drawn to Brunswick's charm, the
greenery and family-oriented vibes, but we stayed for the neighbourhood we built together.
I would like to formally request this committee to deny applications A2025-043 and A2025-044 as
the variances have too many units to have their parking and waste collection needs met; the loss of
the mature trees that filter sound and provide a sheltering canopy would be devastating, it does not
meet current zoning by-law, and it would overwhelm a small and symbiotic street.
Sincerely,
Maggie Wright
Page 60 of 246
From:
To: Committee of Adjustment (SM)
Subject: 82 Brunswick Avenue Variance
Date: Thursday, May 15, 2025 1:42:35 PM
Attachments: Minor Variance Applications A20254M and A2025 -{K4 reoardina the proposed developments at 82 Brunswick
Avenue.pdf
IYou don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
Iii Tin writing to you in regards to the Minor Variance Applications A2025-043 and A2025-044 regarding the proposed
developments at 82 Brunswick Avenue just don't do it! We don't need 16 people on one tiny lot and 16 ears on the road
hitting our children
Page 61 of 246
Dear Committee of Adjustment,
I am writing to formally object to Minor Variance Applications A2025-043 and A2025-044
regarding the proposed developments at 82 Brunswick Avenue.
As a nearby resident, I have concerns about the cumulative impact of these variances:
1. Reduced Landscaping (15% and 17%) — Reducing the front yard landscaping below
the minimum 20% will negatively impact the streetscape and neighbourhood aesthetics,
diminishing green space and increasing hard surface runoff.
2. Excessive Driveway Width (5.2 metres) — The proposed driveway widths exceed the
bylaw maximum of 3 metres, which could lead to loss of soft landscaping, more front
yard paving, and increased on -street parking pressure.
3. Reduced Rear Yard Setbacks (S.Om and 5.1m) — Shortened rear yard setbacks from the
required 7.5 metres will reduce privacy and negatively affect the livability of both the
new dwellings and neighbouring properties.
4. Over -Intensification — Constructing two semi-detached dwellings with three Additional
Dwelling Units in each half (a total of 12 units) is a significant intensification on what is
currently a single lot. This raises concerns about traffic, noise, waste management, and
neighbourhood character.
Given these issues, I respectfully request that the Committee deny the requested variances. I
also request to be notified of the decision regarding these applications.
Sincerely,
Zach Schnarr
Page 62 of 246