HomeMy WebLinkAboutCA Agenda - 2025-06-171
KITc�ivER
Committee of Adjustment
Agenda
Tuesday, June 17, 2025, 10:00 a.m. -12:00 p.m.
Council Chambers
City of Kitchener
200 King Street W, Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7
(Pursuant to the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13, as amended,
and Ontario Regulations 197/96 and 200/96, as amended)
TAKE NOTICE THAT the Committee of Adjustment for the City of Kitchener will meet in Council
Chambers, 2nd Floor, Kitchener City Hall, 200 King Street West, on Tuesday, JUNE 17, 2025,
commencing at 10:00 a.m. for the purpose of hearing the following applications for Minor Variance
and/or Consent.
Applicants or Agents must attend in support of the application. This is a public meeting. Anyone
having an interest in any of these applications may make an oral submission at the meeting or
provide a written submission for Committee consideration. Please note this is a public meeting and
will be livestreamed and archived at www.kitchener.ca/watchnow.
The complete agenda, including staff reports will be available online the Friday prior to the week of
the meeting date.
Pages
1. COMMENCEMENT
2. MINUTES
3. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE
THEREOF
Members of Council and members of the City's local boards/committees are
required to file a written statement when they have a conflict of interest. If a
conflict is declared please visit www.kitchener.ca/conflict to submit your written
form.
4. APPLICATIONS FOR MINOR VARIANCE AND/ OR CONSENT PURSUANT
TO THE PLANNING ACT
5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
5.1 A 2024-075 - 96 Wood Street, DSD -2025-282 5
Requesting minor variances to permit a visibility obstruction 1.83m in
height within one side of the Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT) whereas
the by-law permits a maximum height of 0.9m for a visibility obstruction;
to permit a lot area of 393sq.m. rather than the minimum required
450sq.m.; to permit a front yard setback of 3.8m rather than the minimum
required 4.5m; to permit an exterior side yard setback abutting York
Street of 2.5m rather than the minimum required 4m; and, to permit a
building height of 12m rather than the maximum permitted 11 m to
facilitate the redevelopment of the property with an 8 -unit multiple
dwelling.
6. NEW BUSINESS
6.1 A 2025-055 - 89 Matthew Street, DSD -2025-257 140
Requesting a minor variance to permit an Additional Dwelling Unit (ADU)
(Detached) to have an area of 93sq.m. rather than the maximum
permitted 80sq. m.
6.2 A 2025-057 - 386 Wake Robin Crescent, DSD -2025-277 157
Requesting the following minor variances to facilitate the development of
a second storey addition onto an existing detached garage to facilitate
the conversion of the detached garage into an Additional Dwelling Unit
(Detached), on a lot having a width of 9.2m rather than the required
10.5m; to permit an ADU (Detached) to have a building height of 5.4 m
(flat roof) rather than the maximum permitted 3.0m; to permit an ADU
(Detached) to be setback 0.1 m from the easterly side lot line rather than
the minimum required 0.9m; to permit an ADU (Detached) to be located
in the area created by extending 4m from and parallel to any wall of the
rear facade of the principal dwelling, whereas an ADU (Detached) shall
not be located in this area; to permit a 1.1 m wide unobstructed walkway
from the sidewalk to the principal entrance of the Additional Dwelling Unit
(Detached) to be periodically obstructed by vehicles that are actively
passing to and from a required parking space; to permit eaves, as an
Architectural Feature, to project more than 0.6m into the required
minimum interior side yard setback, whereas a maximum projection of
0.6m is permitted; to permit a driveway width of 1.8m rather than the
minimum required 2.6m; and, to permit 1 parking space for a Single
Detached Dwelling with an ADU (Detached) rather than the minimum
required 2 parking spaces.
6.3 A 2025-058 - 175 Hoffman Street, DSD -2025-259 208
Requesting a minor variance to permit balconies supported by the
ground to project 1.5m into the easterly side yard, whereas the Zoning
By-law does not permit balconies to project if they are supported by the
ground, to facilitate the development of balconies on a 3 -storey building
Page 2 of 297
having 14 dwelling units in accordance with Site Plan Application
SP24/009/H/ES.
6.4 A 2025-059 - 22 Parkglen Street, DSD -2025-267 226
Requesting a minor variance to Zoning By-law 85-1 to permit a rear yard
setback of 2.6m rather than the minimum required 7m to facilitate the
construction of a sunroom addition to an existing detached dwelling.
6.5 B 2025-018 - 73 Second Avenue, DSD -2025-283 242
Requesting consent to sever a parcel of land having a width of 10m, a
depth of 40.2m and an area of 404.7sq.m. The retained land will have a
width of 10m, a depth of 40.2m and an area of 404.7sq.m. Both the
severed and retained land are proposed to be developed with Duplex
Dwellings.
6.6 B 2025-019, B 2025-020, A 2025-060 & A 2025-061 - 181 Borden 263
Avenue North, DSD -2025-285
Requesting consent to sever a parcel of land having a width of 10.2m on
Borden Avenue North, a depth of 30.5m and an area of 310.7sq.m. The
retained land will have a width of 10.2m on Second Avenue, a depth of
30.4m and an area of 311.2sq.m. Both the severed and retained land are
proposed to have 3 -storey dwellings containing 4 -units. Consent is also
requested to create an easement over the shared lot line of the severed
and retained land having a width at the front of the parcel of 1.9m and 3m
at the rear of the parcel, an overall depth of 30.5m and an area of
65.1 sq. m. to facilitate shared driveway access for both the severed and
retained lands. Minor variances are also being requested to permit
balconies for the proposed dwelling units on both the severed and
retained lands that are supported by the ground to project into the
required front yard, whereas balconies that project into the front yard and
are supported by the ground are not permitted; and, to permit a driveway
width of 8.7m rather than the maximum permitted 8m to facilitate the
severance of the lot and a shared driveway for the proposed dwellings.
7. ADJOURNMENT
8. PLANNING ACT INFORMATION
Additional information is available at the Legislated Services
Department, 2nd Floor, Kitchener City Hall, 200 King Street West,
Kitchener 519-741-2203 or by emailing CofA(a)-kitchener.ca.
Copies of written submissions/public agencies' comments are available
the Friday afternoon prior to the meeting on the City of Kitchener
website www.kitchener.ca/meetings in the online Council and
Committee calendar; see the meeting date for more details.
Anyone having an interest in any of these applications may attend this
meeting.
Page 3 of 297
Only the Applicant, Minister, specified person (as defined in Section 1 of
the Planning Act) or public body that has an interest in the matter has
the right to appeal of decisions of the Committee of Adjustment. These
parties must make written submissions to the Committee prior to the
Committee granting or refusing Provisional Consent otherwise, the
Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) may dismiss the appeal.
Any personal information received in relation to this meeting is collected
under the authority s. 28(2) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13,
and will be used by the City of Kitchener to process Committee of
Adjustment applications. Questions about the collection of information
should be directed to Marilyn Mills at marilyn.mills(a)kitchener.ca.
If you wish to be notified of a decision, you must make a written request
to the Secretary -Treasurer, Committee of Adjustment, Kitchener City
Hall, 200 King St. W., Kitchener ON, N2G 4G7.
The Notice of Hearing for this meeting was published in the Record on the 30th
day of May, 2025.
Marilyn Mills
Secretary -Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment
Page 4 of 297
Staff Report
r
JR
Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca
REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment
DATE OF MEETING: June 17, 2025
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: June 6, 2025
REPORT NO.: DSD -2025-282
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, to permit a Multiple Dwelling with 8 Dwelling Units on a lot
having an area of 393 square metres instead of the minimum required 450
square metres;
ii) Section 6, Table 6-3, to permit a front yard setback of 3.8 metres instead of the
minimum required 4.5 metres;
iii) Section 6, Table 6-3, to permit an exterior side yard setback of 2.5 metres
instead of the minimum required 4.5 metres; and
iv) Section 6, Table 6-3, to permit a building height of 12 metres instead of the
maximum permitted building height of 11 metres;
to facilitate the development of an 8 -unit Multiple dwelling, generally in accordance
with drawings prepared by Masri O Inc. Architects, dated February 28, 2025, revised
May 2, 2025, BE REFUSED.
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 requested variances
satisfy any of the Four Tests of the Planning Act.
• 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
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
Page 5 of 297
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:
Application History
The Minor Variance Application for 96 Wood Street was originally heard on September 17,
2024, and the Committee of Adjustment recommended that the application `Be Deferred'
until December 10, 2024, or earlier, in accordance with the following:
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 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
Subsequent to the meeting, Planning and Heritage Planning Staff provided the Applicant
with additional information and a `Terms of Reference' on October 4, 2024, outlining what
should be included in the necessary Report and Plan.
The Applicant requested that the Application be considered at the December 10, 2024,
Committee of Adjustment meeting and was subsequently deferred again as the Applicant
did not submit the necessary Report and Plan.
The Applicant has since prepared the necessary Report and Plan, however did not follow
the `Terms of Reference' provided on October 4, 2024. The Applicant has also made
minor revisions to their proposal by removing the proposed one parking space to
accommodate additional outdoor amenity space and modifying the building fagade
material and colour. The proposed variance for the required Driveway Visibility Triangle is
no longer required given that the proposed driveway has been removed.
Property 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.
The subject property is identified as a `Protected Major Transit Station Area' on Official
Plan Map 2 — Urban Structure and Map 4 — Protected Major Transit Station Areas and
Page 6 of 297
Urban Growth Centre. The property was previously designated `Low Rise Conservation' in
the K -W Hospital Neighbourhood Plan on Map 18 — Secondary Plan in the City's 1994
Official Plan. The property's land use designation changed last year to `Strategic Growth
Area A' on Map 3 — Land Use with the adoption of By-law 2024-062 and approval of OPA
49 by the Region of Waterloo. The property is also identified within the `Gildner Green
Neighbourhood' on Map 9 — Cultural Heritage Resources
The property was originally zoned `Residential Five Zone, Special Use Provision 129U (R-
5, 129U)' in Zoning By-law 85-1 when the application was heard in September and in
December 2024. The property's zone category has changed to `SGA -1: Low Rise Growth
Zone' now that the appeal to By-law 2024-065 has been partially resolved.
731 f
t6l,1 /,66
Figure 1:
Location Map (96 Wood Street Shown in RED)
Purpose of Application
The purpose of this application is to review the requested minor variances to facilitate the
development of an 8 -unit Multiple Dwelling with reduced setbacks and increased height on
an undersized lot. Residential development was previously limited to 4 dwelling units or
fewer under the old R-5, 129U zoning, but now that the SGA -1 zone is in full effect, a
Multiple Dwelling is permitted subject to applicable regulations. The requested variance to
these applicable regulations include:
• Permit a Multiple Dwelling with between 5 and 10 dwelling units to have a reduced
lot area of 393 square metres instead of the minimum required 450 square metres.
• Permit a front yard setback of 3.8 metres instead of 4.5 metres.
• Minimum exterior yard setback of 2.5 metres instead of 4.5 metres.
• Permit a building height of 12 metres instead of 11 metres.
Page 7 of 297
The Applicant had also requested a minor variance to permit an existing 1.8 metres high
fence on the abutting property within one side of the required Driveway Visibility Triangle
for a proposed new driveway and parking space within the rear yard. However, the
Applicant has removed the driveway and parking from the revised site plan to
accommodate additional amenity space as shown in Figures 2 and 3. As such, this
requested variance is no longer applicable and will not be evaluated in the comments
below.
2000 1 t500
Page 8 of 297
s
K
EX1`aT1P1C'
_
r PORNERVISIBILI
r i TRIANGLE
Vj
}
PRGW.S�'
r h
I:'1.r SCAPF
r
r
LWVQSCAPE
95d1G
1
3899 W
n
750[1
53
$
- _ -
3 --STOREY RESIQENTIkL BUILQING+gp�,SEMENT
-
B UNITS
_
T
A
WMICYCLE
It
OUTi OOR
w ACPS [61
AMENITY
_
x 0
w'-
fl
1
fl
BIKE
CLOS E
SPAC
x I
x
xj i27. } -
LANID50APE
=
�+��®18'90" 4V 402
�
SITE PLAN
Q
SCALE: t 1sa
a
� LL
E E
o0
M
Figure 2: Site Plan -
Revised May 2, 2025
2000 1 t500
Page 8 of 297
TRET
CORK
ASK
COSIQA�
E%SSTISSG
``��
5
7�
I
I CpORNER VISIBILIT
s I TRIANGLE
OiY.�
�
RO
LANDSCAPE
L5n !-
4$
V Y
-
I'
4Ssn REQ fix`
4500
tANG1'E�
I
' �VISiS4Ll
o Afa,ENITy
4Ia
- - 7S
154fi0
3999 p
3 -STOREY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING- BASEMENT
I
To
uNrcs
ou
IFI
YPE B.BICYCLE x
SPACES{6]
II
PARKING
m I
SPACE n
Iwl
0
BIKE
I1
EXIT
s
j8]LOS
SPAC—I
LANDSCAPE
vI Ir:
m6-1
SITE PLAN
N 26 W30" W 27.40.2
1
ti
s
SCALE i: iso
W a
LL LL
6
Figure 3: Site Plan - First Submission
W
.I.., � �,
TIO BASEMENT
-1.300
Figure 4: Building Elevation (Wood Street Facade) - Revised May 2, 2025
Page 9 of 297
- TIO PENTHOUSE ROOF
13.300
UIS ROOF
10.500
1-
TIO THIRD FLOOR
L5
�
7.500 -
CV
r
z
TIO SECOND FLOOR
a
r"
4.500
co
TIO GROUND FLOOR
r
r 1.500
TIO,GRADE } BASEMENT LINES 1
;-1.300 `- - - ---- ---- �- - - - --- --- --y0.000
T/O ASEMENT
Figure 5: Building Elevation (Wood Street Facade) - First Submission
Figure 6: Existing House (Wood Street)
Figure 8: Existing House and Fence
(York Street)
Page 10 of 297
Figure 10: Wood Street Streetscape
Beside Existing House
Figure 7: Existing Driveway and
Garage
REPORT:
Planning Comments:
Figure 9: York Street Streetscape
Beside Existing House
Figure 11: Location of City Trees
Beside Subject Property
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 following submission materials were reviewed for this application:
• Site Plan and Development Data and Elevations prepared by Masri O Inc.
Architects, dated June 17, 2024, revised May 2, 2025.
• CofA Report prepared by Urban Insights, dated February 28, 2025, revised May 2,
2025.
• Cultural Heritage Impact Memo prepared by LRA Heritage, dated February 28,
2025, revised May 2, 2025.
• Tree Management Plan, Landscape Plan, and Landscape Details prepared by Hill
Design Studio Inc., dated February 27, 2025, revised April 29, 2025.
Page 11 of 297
• Vegetation Management Report prepared by Hill Design Studio Inc., dated
February 27, 2025, revised April 30, 2025.
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. The
proposed development would contribute to the diversity of housing types.
As per Official Plan Section 11.C.1.37 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 11, that form an essential
component of the streetscape character in addition to contributing to the high quality public
realm, as shown in Figures 6-10. Ensuring the retention of these trees is critical to
satisfying this Official Plan policy
To address the City trees, the Applicant prepared a Tree Management Plan and Arborist
Report which states that only one City tree will be removed to facilitate the development.
This tree is located on Wood Street directly beside the existing driveway as shown in
Figures 6 and 7. The Arborist Report indicates that this tree is in poor condition and will
not survive the required excavation or construction of the new walkway. City Forestry staff
agree that the tree's structural condition is poor and has a limited lifespan remaining. As
such, staff are agreeable to this tree removal with the understanding that sufficient
compensation will be required for replacement trees.
While staff agree with the Arborist evaluation for the tree on Wood Street, staff have
significant concerns with the evaluation of potential impacts to the large Sugar Maple tree
on York Street shown in Figure 8. The tree trunk is over 1 metre in diameter and requires
a minimum setback (Tree Protection Zone (TPZ)) of 6.8 metres from all site alterations.
The original Arborist Report prepared on February 27, 2025, states that this tree is in fair
condition but is sensitive to root disturbance and is expected to decline in health due to the
impacts of construction including hard surface elements that will require excavation and
compaction within 2 metres of the tree trunk, well within the required setback. As such, the
original Arborist Report recommend that the tree be removed. City Forestry, Planning, and
Heritage staff will not support the removal of a large, healthy City tree that forms an
essential component of the neighbourhood tree canopy coverage and streetscape
character to accommodate a request for a reduced exterior side yard setback. As such,
the Applicant was asked to revise their Tree Management Plan and Arborist Report. Staff
Page 12 of 297
noted that the tree might tolerate a minor encroachment into the required TPZ, likely by
maintaining the required 4.5 metre building setback. However, this minor encroachment
must be justified by a fulsome analysis and supported by adequate tree protection
measures to mitigate potential impacts.
rF
�.,,-
------L--------------- J
x�unmv us,
Figure 12: Tree Management Plan
Yey.+ Y61VO�LS1 YMLrvl
City of Kikhenm
Tree
management Pion
Hill
Des�<
The Applicant provided revised documents on May 2, 2025, which states that the large
tree on York Street would be preserved. The proposed new driveway and hard scaped
amenity area within the tree's rootzone had been removed as shown on Figure 2.
However, the building's location and extent of excavation had not changed as previously
recommended. The revised Arborist Report claims that since the revised site plan allows
for the rootzone to the north, west, and south to remain largely untouched, the tree should
tolerate some encroachment into the rootzone due to foundation excavation. However,
Forestry staff have significant concerns with this revised evaluation and lack of supporting
evidence. The revised Arborist Report does not provide sufficient rationale to support this
claim by analyzing the excavation required for the main building, other than stating that the
other areas of untouched rootzone should be sufficient to preserve the tree. For example.
the revised Arborist Report does not provide an analysis of low -impact exploratory root
investigations, exact area of disturbance within the tree protection zone required for
excavation, exact distance between the tree trunk and closest point of excavation, impacts
to rooting areas outside the tree protection zone, or any pruning required for the new
building. Without a comprehensive analysis of these factors, there is insufficient evidence
to justify the conclusion that the tree will survive the negative impacts for the long term,
particularly since the original Arborist Report clearly states this tree species is sensitive to
root disturbance and will suffer negative impacts due to excavation within 2 metres of the
Page 13 of 297
tree. As such, staff strongly disagree with the Arborist Report regarding this tree on York
Street and anticipate the potential impacts from the proposed development will result in
the tree's removal. Preservation of this tree for the long term is essential for adhering to
the Official Plan and as such, staff must recommend refusal for the requested variance to
permit reduced exterior side yard setback of 2.5 metres.
The subject property is located within the Gildner Green Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage
Landscape (CHL). The Gildner Green Neighbourhood CHL was identified in the City's
2014 Cultural Heritage Landscape Study and the boundaries were further refined and the
heritage attributes identified in the City's 2018 Cultural Heritage Landscape
Implementation (CHLI) for Cultural Heritage Landscapes within the K -W Hospital
Secondary Plan Area. The findings of these documents were implemented during the
City's Growing Together project (OPA 49), which culminated in new Official Plan policies
and new zoning.
Official Plan policy 12.C.1.23 states that the City has the authority to require a Heritage
Impact Assessment and/or Heritage Conservation plan for development, redevelopment,
and site alterations on properties within or adjacent to a CHL. After discussing the scope
of the proposed development with Heritage staff, it was determined that a Planning
Justification Report which directly address the relevant heritage and other Official Plan
policies could be provided instead of a Heritage Impact Assessment. Staff provided the
Applicant with terms of reference on October 4, 2024, detailing what must be included in
the Planning Justification Report to sufficiently address the relevant Official Plan policies
and heritage considerations. As mentioned above, the Applicant prepared a Planning
Justification Report and Cultural Heritage Impact Memo but did not follow the terms of
reference and did not adequately address the heritage concerns.
Official Plan Policy 11.C.1.35 states that new development or redevelopment within a CHL
will support, maintain, and enhance the major characteristics and attributes of the CHL,
support the adaptive reuse of existing buildings, be compatible with the existing
neighbourhood including streetscape and built form, and respond to the design, massing,
and materials of the adjacent and surrounding buildings. To address this Official Plan
policy, the Applicant's Cultural Heritage Impact Memo provides broad opinions that the
new building has been designed to reflect key architectural features and is compatible with
existing low-density and multi -unit residential uses in the area and reflects the historical
working-class housing patterns associated with the CHL. However, there is no evidence or
rationale to support these broad claims that the proposed development conserves the
cultural heritage values and attributes of the property, streetscape, and CHL. This is
particularly problematic since the proposed development appears to be a sharp contrast to
the established cultural heritage attributes in the following ways:
The architectural design of the proposed building does not feature common housing
design characteristics from the Gildner Green Neighbourhood CHL. In particular,
the roof style is flat whereas most buildings feature a front gable or hipped roof and
the materials are not identified on the building elevation drawings.
The proposed development removes a mature tree on Wood Street and
encroaches into the critical root zone of a mature City -owned tree on York Street,
which Forestry staff anticipates will result in significant negative impacts that leads
to the tree's untimely removal.
Page 14 of 297
• The 3.5 storey and 12 metre building height of the proposed building does not align
with the primarily 2 to 2.5 storey buildings in the Gildner Green Neighbourhood
CHL. In particular, the adjacent building and surrounding buildings range from 1.5
to 2 storeys in height.
• The proposed lot coverage is inconsistent with other properties in the Gildner Green
Neighbourhood CHL. In particular, the width and depth of the proposed building is
larger than the adjacent and surrounding buildings.
• There is no consideration for the adaptive reuse of the existing building.
These significant deviations from the established cultural heritage values and attributes
and the anticipated negative impacts on the CHL are incompatible with the Official Plan
requirement. As such, the proposed variances for increased height, reduced lot area, and
reduced exterior side and front yard setbacks do not maintain the general intent of the
Official Plan.
In addition to the heritage design considerations, Official Plan Section 15.D.2.5 states that
site specific applications which seek relief from the implementing SGA zoning must
consider factors such as compatibility with the planned function of the subject site and
adjacent land, suitability of the lot for the proposed use and/or built form, lot area and
consolidation outlined in Policy 3.C.1.34, compliance with the City's Urban Design Manual
and Official Plan policies, cultural heritage resources, and technical considerations and
other contextual or site-specific factories. Official Plan policy 4.C.1.8 also states that where
minor variances are requested to facilitate residential redevelopment, the overall impact of
the minor variances will be reviewed to ensure any new buildings are appropriate in
massing and scale, are compatible with the built form and community character of the
established neighbourhood, and the lands can function appropriately and do not create
unacceptable adverse impacts for adjacent properties by providing both an appropriate
number of parking spaces and an appropriate landscaped/amenity area on site, amongst
other provisions.
As discussed above, the proposed building design and anticipated negative impact on
existing street trees and streetscape are not compatible with the established
neighbourhood character, built form, or cultural heritage resources, which contradicts
Official Plan policies 15.D.2.5 and 4.C.1.8. In terms of the suitability of the lot, staff have
significant concerns with the proposed number of units on an undersized lot. The Zoning
By-law requires a lot area of 450 square metre for Multiple Dwellings with between 5 and
10 dwelling units to help ensure the lands can function appropriate by providing sufficient
amenity space while still adhering to the general character of the neighbourhood,
particularly related to setbacks and lot coverage. The subject property is 393 square
metres and the proposed building has a reduced exterior side and front yard setback while
meeting the minimum rear yard setback of 7.5 metres. This reduced lot area combined
with the bare minimum rear yard setback and reduced exterior side and front yard
setbacks significantly limits the available outdoor amenity space, thereby failing to adhere
to the general intent of Official Plan policy 15.D.2.5 and 4.C.1.8. Furthermore, staff have
concerns with the functionality of the site with respect to parking. While it is true the
Planning Act and Zoning By-law do not require any vehicle parking spaces within a
Protected Major Transit Station Area, it is beneficial for the functionality of the site to
provide at least one parking space or loading space for visitors, contractors, and/or
deliveries for the proposed 8 units. This would help avoid unacceptable adverse impacts
Page 15 of 297
on adjacent properties and the neighbourhood which already has challenges with high
demand for limited on street parking. Without at least one parking or loading space, staff
do not believe the proposed development maintains the general intent of Official Plan
policies 15.D.2.5 and 4.C.1.8.
General Intent of the Zoning By-law
The purpose of the `SGA -1: Low Rise Growth Zone' is to create opportunities for missing
middle housing and compatible non-residential uses in low-rise forms up to 11 metres in
height. While the proposed 8 -unit Multiple Dwelling creates opportunities for missing
middle housing, the building does not adhere to the maximum 11 metres in height. The
purpose of the 11 metre maximum building height is to ensure a consistent streetscape
and built form and that residential intensification is compatible with the existing
neighbourhood within the low rise growth zone. As discussed extensively above, the
proposed building does not follow the established streetscape or built form and is not
compatible with the existing neighbourhood character within the low rise growth zone. As
such, the proposed increase in building height does not maintain the general intent of the
Zoning By-law.
The general intent of the minimum required front and exterior side yard setbacks is to
maintain a consistent built form and streetscape character while providing some
opportunities for landscaping. To this regard, the proposed front and exterior side yard
setbacks are consistent with the existing surrounding properties on Wood Street and York
Street which have front yard setbacks generally ranging from 2 — 4 metres. However, the
existing houses on Wood Street and York Street are generally 2 to 2.5 storeys with gable
or hipped roofs and a front porch. This existing built form is significantly different from the
proposed building which has 3.5 storeys, 12 metres building height, flat roof, and no front
porch. This considerable difference in street line fagade does not maintain a consistent
streetscape character and built form and as such, does not maintain the general intent of
the Zoning By-law. Furthermore, as discussed above, the proposed 2.5 metre exterior
yard setback results in excavation occurring unacceptably close to an existing City tree
that is anticipated to result in the tree's removal. This does not maintain the general intent
of the Zoning By-law.
The subject property is currently 393 square metres which satisfies the minimum
requirement for a total of 4 residential dwelling units. The Applicant is proposing 8 units, 4
more than currently permitted, which requires a minimum lot area of 450 square metres.
The general intent of the minimum lot area requirement is to ensure appropriate massing,
consistent and compatible built form, and for sufficient outdoor amenity space and
landscaping. As discussed above, the reduced lot area combined with the bare minimum
rear yard setback and reduced exterior side and front yard setbacks significantly limits the
available outdoor amenity and landscaped space. Without suitable amenity and
landscaped areas, the proposed development does not maintain the general intent of the
Zoning By-law. Furthermore, the reduced lot area combined with reduced and bare
minimum setbacks is inconsistent with the existing neighbourhood built form and lot
coverage as noted in the heritage discussed above. This further demonstrates the
disconnect between the proposed variances and the general intent of the Zoning By-law.
Page 16 of 297
Is/Are the Effects of the Variance(s) Minor?
Staff is of the opinion that the effects of the proposed variances are not minor in nature. As
discussed extensively above, the proposed development deviates substantially from the
existing neighbourhood, established streetscape, and heritage values and attributes. The
proposed building with an increased height and reduced front and exterior side yard
setback creates a 12 metre street line fagade that is not compatible and does not
complement the existing neighbourhood, thereby resulting in negative effects that staff do
not consider minor in nature. The reduced lot area with minimal amenity space insufficient
for 8 dwelling units also creates negative effects by placing additional pressures and
potential nuisances on surrounding properties and increased demand for City owned
amenity space. This negative effect is not minor in nature. Furthermore, the complete lack
of parking or loading spaces for an undersized lot also has the potential to create negative
impacts. The existing on -street parking situation for this neighbourhood is already
problematic with demand normally far exceeding the supply, particularly due to the close
proximity to the Grand River Hospital. Without any on-site parking or loading spaces, all
visitors, deliveries, and contractors for any of the 8 dwelling units must utilize on street
parking thereby negatively impacting an already challenging situation. As such, staff do
not believe the effect of the requested variances are minor in nature.
Is/Are the Variance(s) Desirable For The Appropriate Development or Use of the Land,
Building and/or Structure?
The proposed development and requested variances are not desirable for the appropriate
development and use of the land. While it is true that the Official Plan designation
generally encourages missing middle house such as the proposed 8 -unit Multiple
Dwelling, the Official Plan is clear that any development must respect the low rise growth
objectives for this designation and requirement for compatibility with the existing
neighbourhood, streetscape, and cultural heritage values and attributes. As discussed
extensively above, the proposed building is not compatible with the existing
neighbourhood and streetscape and deviates significantly from the established cultural
heritage values and attributes.
Environmental Planning Comments:
A tree in potential shared ownership with 85 Mt. Hope Street should also be assessed for
impact from the proposed development.
Heritage Planning Comments:
The property municipally addressed as 96 Wood Street is in the Gildner Green
Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL). The Gildner Green Neighbourhood
CHL was identified in the City's 2014 Cultural Heritage Landscape Study. The boundaries
were refined, and the heritage attributes identified in the City's 2018 Cultural Heritage
Landscape Implementation (CHLI) for Cultural Heritage Landscapes within the K -W
Hospital Secondary Plan Area. The findings of these documents were implemented during
the City's Growing Together project, which culminated in new Official Plan (OP) policies
and new zoning. In addition to new OP policies, the Gildner Green Neighbourhood CHL is
identified on Map 9 — Cultural Heritage Resources — of the OP.
DSD -2024-530 dated November 28, 2024 recommended deferral until June 17, 2025
subject to two (2) conditions. Condition 2 required the Owner/Applicant to prepare, submit
and obtain approval of a Planning Justification Report to demonstrate how the proposal
Page 17 of 297
will meet the OP policies for the Gildner Green Neighbourhood CHL, with particular
attention to Policies 11.C.1.35 and 15.D.2.5, and have regard for the Tree Management
and Enhancement Plan, to support that the requested minor variances would meet the
four (4) tests of the Planning Act. A scoped Terms of Reference for the Planning
Justification Report in relation to the Gildner Green Neighbourhood CHL was provided to
the Applicant on October 4, 2024. A final Cultural Heritage Impact Memo to support the
Planning Justification Report has not been submitted.
Official Plan policy 11.C.1.35 provides direction for Design in Cultural Heritage
Landscapes and indicates that:
New Development or redevelopment in a cultural heritage landscape will.-
a)
ill:
a) Support, maintain and enhance the major characteristics and attributes of the
cultural heritage landscape further defined in the City's 2024 City of Kitchener
Cultural Heritage Landscape Study;
b) Support the adaptive reuse of existing buildings,-
c)
uildings,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.
It is the opinion of Heritage Planning staff that the proposed development does not meet
the general intent of:
OP Policy 11.C.1.35.a (support, maintain or enhance the identified heritage
attributes of the Gildner Green Neighbourhood CHL); OP Policy 11.C.1.35.c (be
compatible with the Gildner Green Neighbourhood CHL); and, OP Policy
11.C.1.35.d (respond to the design, massing and materials of the adjacent and
surrounding buildings in the Gildner Green Neighbourhood CHL) because:
o The proposed development removes mature trees and encroaches into the
critical root zone of a mature City -owned tree, which presents a significant
risk to the immediate and long-term health and retention of the tree.
o The architectural design of the proposed building does not feature common
housing design characteristics from the Gildner Green Neighbourhood CHL.
In particular, (i) the roof style is flat whereas most buildings feature a front
gable or hipped roof, and (ii) the materials are not identified on the building
elevation drawings.
o The 3.5 storey height of the proposed building does not align with the
primarily 2 to 2.5 storey buildings in the Gildner Green Neighbourhood CHL.
In particular, the adjacent building and surrounding buildings range from 1.5
to 2 storeys in height.
o The proposed lot coverage is not consistent with other properties in the
Gildner Green Neighbourhood CHL. In particular, the width and depth of the
proposed building is larger than the adjacent and surrounding buildings.
Page 18 of 297
OP Policy 11.C.1.35.b) because the proposed development demolishes the existing
building.
Official Plan policy 15.D.2.5 indicates that:
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)
actors:
a) Compatibility with the planned function of the subject lands and adjacent lands,-
b)
ands,b) Suitability of the lot for the proposed use and/or built form,-
c)
orm,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.
It is the opinion of Heritage Planning staff that the proposed development does not meet
the general intent of:
OP Policy 15.D.2.5.b because the lot is undersized for the proposed use with a built
form that does not meet the intent of OP Policy 11.C.1.35 (as outlined above).
OP Policy 15.D.2.5.f because a final Cultural Heritage Impact Memo in support of
the Planning Justification Report has not been provided.
Based on the above comments, Heritage Planning staff recommend refusal of Committee
of Adjustment Minor Variance Application A2024-075.
Building Division Comments:
The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance provided a 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 and Cemeteries Comments:
Cash -in -lieu of park land dedication will be required at time of future Site Plan application.
There are existing City -owned street trees within the right-of-way on Wood Street and York
Street. 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 Site Plan
approval.
Page 19 of 297
Forestry Division Comments:
4A York St tree (#142817)
• The tree has a DBH of 108cm, therefore its minimum setback (TPZ) is 6.8m.
• The proposed dwelling is located 3m from the trunk and further disturbance,
including excavation for the foundation, extends as close as 1.75m from the trunk.
The proposed extent of injury is substantial and exceeds the tree's expected
tolerance level, thus necessitating removal. Forestry does not support removal of
this tree.
If clearance pruning is needed, the arborist report and TMP must clearly specify the
extent of pruning.
1A Wood St tree (#150563)
• The tree has a DBH of 53cm, therefore its minimum setback (TPZ) is 4.2m.
• Forestry's assessment of this tree determined its structural condition to be poor.
Though its condition does not warrant immediate removal in itself, the tree has
limited lifespan remaining and it is unlikely to tolerant much injury. Therefore,
Forestry accepts its removal due to conflicts with the proposed design.
• Compensation for a tree of this DBH class is calculated at 5 replacement trees.
These funds will be allocated to planting trees in the neighborhood to restore
canopy cover.
Tree Protection Fencing (TPF)
• TPF should enclose around all sides of the TPZ, including along the sidewalk, to
protect trees and their soil habitat from potential impacts from traffic and stockpiling
materials.
Standard TPF consists of 1.2m tall orange safety fencing secured to a 2"x4" wood
frame or steel T -bars at minimum 2.4m spacing. However, sightlines must be
maintained within the corner visibility triangle.
Replanting
• Two proposed trees are indicated within the City right-of-way. However, tree
planting within the right-of-way is to be undertaken by Forestry. Funds received as
cash in lieu will be directed to replant and maintain trees to Forestry's standards
and specifications.
Transportation Planning Comments:
Transportation Services had 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. However, this variance is no longer applicable.
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.
Page 20 of 297
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 Planning Statement (PPS 2024)
• Regional Official Plan
• Official Plan (2014)
• Zoning By-law 2019-051
Page 21 of 297
Staff Report
a-velo n7ent Services Deoartr7ent
REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment
DATE OF MEETING: December 10, 2024
l
I�T��I�R
www.kitchenerca
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:
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 297
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 23 of 297
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 24 of 297
YORK S�REE�w„
95613 V LANA`'€i
' �VhSh84L � I; o AA�NIt•Y-
Y
i�
I"
75
N
W
PARKING
SPACE 4
n 16I
H K-
IiBi SPP.L'E3 _
SITE PLAN
Figure 2: Site Plan
TIC] PENTHOUSE ROOF
r
13.300
WS ROOF
10.50+0
r
['10 THIRD FLOOR
r
7.500
;1-
TIO SECOND FLOOR
4.540
TIO GROUND FLOOR
,),1-500
F rrORNER V18I8ILITI
TRIANGLE
l
LANDSCAPE
F yl
F a
d
U
15490 3590 0
3-STGREY RESIDENTIAL. BUILDING+BASEMENT
a UNITS 1
rk B•6KCVCLE f
W $fir.CES h6) ll
1FG1
w
F I
EXIT_ _
F �1
-ANCSCRPE rv" OF i
�rm
N 2G'16'3d"
w m
ff a
Y Y
W LL
d ri
r
7-
75 7
CV
z
m
TfO,GRADE L BASEMENT LINES
i
TIC) ASEMENT
1.300
Figure 3: Building Elevation (Wood Street Facade)
Page 25 of 297
Figure 4: Front of Existing House (Wood Street Facade)
low
Figure 5: Existing Driveway and Detached Garage
Page 26 of 297
41M
low
041*4
Figure 8: Proposed Driveway Location between City tree and Utility Box
Figure 9: Location of City Trees
Page 28 of 297
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 29 of 297
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
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 30 of 297
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 31 of 297
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(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/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 32 of 297
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 33 of 297
Staff Report
a-velo n7ent Services Deoartr7ent
REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment
DATE OF MEETING: September 17, 2024
l
I�T��I�R
www.kitchenerca
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 34 of 297
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 35 of 297
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
RB
�iSYVtI€' COS'dC
I frDRNER V131BILITI
TRIANGLE
6T2
LANDSCAPE r
_ I
I a
75 15a903590 0
1,�
PARKING
SPACE —
BIKE'
SITE PLAN
SCALE: i . 95D
Figure 2: Site Plan
3 -STOREY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING, BASEMENT
1p
I
& UNITS
�+
IY�C B -BICYCLE 1
SF°nC:r ;51 1
1ttl
sl
w
EXIT
_ARDSCAPE
N 26'16'30" W 27.402
w --
W m
w
ar a
s �
W LL
@ NM
1500
W
Page 36 of 297
TiO PENTHOUSE ROOF
13.300
�! JIS ROOF
10.500
TIO THIRD FLOOR
7.500
TIO SECOND FLOOR
4.500
TfO GROUND FLOOR
J. r' 1.540
TIC] GRADE BASEMv NT LINES
`r 0.0C
TIO ASEMENT
-1,30�J
Figure 3: Building Elevation (Wood Street Fagade)
Figure 4: Front of Existing House (Wood Street Fagade)
Page 37 of 297
-ma 4-i--
s
V`
i'77a k
°af �k
Dw
r i -• Y i
A
i
y
Figure 7: York Street Facing North Directly Beside Subject Property
Figure 8: Proposed Driveway Location between City tree and Utility Box
Page 39 of 297
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 40 of 297
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 41 of 297
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 42 of 297
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 43 of 297
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.
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 44 of 297
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 45 of 297
Region of Waterloo
June 11, 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 4A 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 June 17, City of Kitchener
Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and
have the following comments:
1)
A 2024 —
075 —
96 Wood Street — No Concerns
2)
A 2025 —
055 —
89 Matthew Street — No Concerns
3)
A 2025 —
056 —
9 Blucher Street — Region Staff have significant concerns
regarding the implementation of adequate crash protection measures along the
Waterloo Spur.
Region Staff require additional time to consider the application,
and request the application be deferred.
4)
A 2025 —
057 —
386 Wake Robin Cresent — No Concerns
5)
A 2025 —
058 —
175 Hoffman Street — No Concerns
6)
A 2025 —
059 —
22 Parkglen Street — No Concerns
7)
A 2025 —
060 —
181 Borden Aveune North — No Concerns
8)
A 2025 —
061 —
181 Borden Aveune North — 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 46 of 297
Please forward any decisions on the above-mentioned Application numbers to the
undersigned.
Yours Truly,
c71�",_ilUaw
Joshua Beech Falshaw
Transportation Planner
jbeechfalshaw@regionofwaterloo.ca
Document Number: 4976854
Page 47 of 297
June 2, 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 — June 17, 2025
Applications for Minor Variance
A 2024-075
96 Wood Street
A 2025-055
89 Matthew Street
A 2025-057
386 Wake Robin Crescent
A 2025-058
175 Hoffman Street
A 2025-059
22 Parkglen Street
A 2025-060
181 Borden Avenue North
A 2025-061
181 Borden Avenue North
Applications for Consent
B 2025-018 73 Second Avenue
B 2025-019 181 Borden Avenue North
B 2025-020 181 Borden Avenue North
via email
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-q rand 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 48 of 297
From:
Farah Farogue
To:
Committee of Adiustment (SM)
Cc:
Jenna Auger
Subject:
Kitchener Jun 17, 2025 Hearing
Date:
Thursday, May 29, 2025 2:43:38 PM
Attachments:
imaae001.ona
Afternoon Kitchener CofA,
Thank you for circulating the June17, 2025, Committee of Adjustments agenda for Kitchener. Please
be advised that all properties were found to be outside Metrolinx's designated review zones. As such,
we have no comments/concerns with the applications in this agenda.
Thankyou,
Farah Faroque (she/her)
Project Analyst, Adjacent Construction Review
Real Estate & Development
Metrolinx
20 Bay Street — Suite 600 1 Toronto I Ontario I M5J 2W3
T: 437.900.2291
=X: METROLINX
From: mail@sf-notifications.com <mail@sf-notifications.com>
Sent: May 23, 2025 10:45 AM
To: development.coordinator <development.coordinator@metrolinx.com>
Subject: Clerks CoK has shared the folder 'Committee of Adjustment - Applications' with you.
XTERNAL SENDER: Do not click any links or open any attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.
XPEDITEUR EXTERNE: Ne cliquez sur aucun lien et n'ouvrez aucune piece jointe a moins qu'ils ne proviennent d'un expediteur fiable,
)u que vous ayez I'assurance que Ie contenu provient d'une source sure.
Development,
Clerks CoK has shared the folder Committee of
Adjustment - Applications with you.
Page 49 of 297
Message from Clerks
Attached are the applications for the City of Kitchener
Committee of Adjustment meeting being held on June 17,
2025.
Please remember, your email address is your username to log
in. If you are unable to log in, select "Forgot my Password". For
those who comment regularly, your written report must be sent
to CofA@kitchener.ca no later than 12 noon on Monday, June
2, 2025.
You will need to download any files in this folder that you would
like to retain, as they will be deleted from this program when
the applications for the next month are circulated.
If you require any further assistance, please email
CofA@kitchener.ca.
Thank you.
Marilyn Mills, Legislated Services
Kitchener City Hall
Need help? We're here for you.
Visit sharefile.com/support and look for "Start chat."
I
This e-mail is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed. If you received
Page 50 of 297
this in error, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the e-mail together with any
attachments.
Page 51 of 297
From: Nembhard, O"Neil (MTO)
To: Committee of Adiustment (SM)
Subject: RE: Agenda - Committee of Adjustment - Tuesday, June 17, 2025
Date: Friday, June 6, 2025 3:11:13 PM
Attachments: imaoe001.ona
You don't often get email from o'neil.nembhard@ontario.ca. Learn why this is important
Good day,
Please see below MTO comments related to the June 17, 2025 Committee of
Adjustment Meeting.
1. The Ministry of Transportation (MTO) has no objection to this application. The
subject property is located beyond our limits of permit control and therefore
MTO review, approval and permits will not be required.
o A 2024-075 - 96 Wood Street
o A 2025-055 - 89 Matthew Street
o A 2025-057 - 386 Wake Robin Crescent
o A 2025-059 - 22 Parkglen Street
o B 2025-019, B 2025-020, A 2025-060 & A 2025-061 - 181 Borden Avenue
North
2. A 2025-058 - SP24/009/H/ES. 175 Hoffman Street - The subject property does
fall within MTO permit control area, however based on the modifications to site
proposed, MTO permits will not be required.
3. B 2025-018 - 73 Second Avenue- The subject property does fall within MTO
permit control area, however, based on the location in a buildup area, MTO
review, approval and permits will not be required.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments.
Regards,
O'Neil Nembhard
Corridor Management Planner I Operation West I Operations Division
Ministry of Transportation Ontario I Ontario Public Service
548-388-2571 1 o'neil.nembhard C_ontario.ca
Ontario 0
Taking pride in strengthening Ontario, its places and its people
Please note the Ministry no Ionizer accents Land Develooment review reauests thoueh its email
system. All Land Development Review requests to the Ministry must be submitted to the Ministry of
Transportation through the Highway Corridor Management Online portal at:
https://www.hcros.mto.gov.on.ca/
The Land Development Review module is designed to better serve stakeholders through
Page 52 of 297
streamlining all land development planning approvals by the Ministry.
From: Committee of Adjustment (SM) <CommitteeofAdjustment@kitchen er.ca>
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2025 11:55 AM
To: Committee of Adjustment (SM) <CommitteeofAdjustment@kitchen er.ca>
Subject: Agenda - Committee of Adjustment - Tuesday, June 17, 2025
CAUTION -- EXTERNAL E-MAIL - Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender.
Good morning,
The agenda for the June 17, 2025 Committee of Adjustment meeting is now available on our
Council/Committee calendar.
The combined agenda with reports will be posted to the meeting calendar by noon on Friday, June
13, 2025.
Connie Owen
Administrative Clerk I Legislated Services I City of Kitchener
519-904-1409 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 connie.owen(cbkitchener.ca
Page 53 of 297
From: Pui Ming Leung
To: Committee of Adiustment (SM)
Subject: COA, Kitchener
Date: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 11:37:04 AM
Attachments: 11111j)d
in
Sorry for my late response. I apologize for any inconvenience caused.
90 Wood ST- make sure to have clearance to primary cable on York St according to our
standard D11111 (attached here)
For all new service or upgrade, please send a request to Enova for hydro connection.
Thanks,
Pui Ming Leung (she/her) I Design Technologist
Direct Number: 226-896-2200 (EXT 6205)
Mobile Number: 519-589-2659
puiming. leunaQenovapower.com
301 Victoria Street South, Kitchener, Ontario, N2G 4L2
enovapower.com
121
This correspondence is directed in confidence solely to the addressees listed above. It may
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 notes the sender immediately. Click on the link to read the
additional disclaimer: https://enovapower.com/disclaimer
Page 54 of 297
N
O
r m� LO
�r U) LO
i o z LU�
N
ao ad � �
WZ °❑ a p d
F 2w'O H1 U O° Z W pK ~ w
W a O w U x f Z 2 O V z
o=p �w ww 3a §wzr o
a 0 2 Z Q Z F> x> O H 2 K U Z
Q W H ❑ Z❑ w O H m J y O
_ ~ ~ ~l 3 O
Z W J
0� 7 a O 0'. w m m p W ' K a O r�^ J Q
~ 1p y w m W m 0 2'U U Q O Y 2 z> v' U
3ovz ��� ow yv�¢ a �� New¢ o
wO=> �¢p W� OfVy ¢ QH Z� W N Z (� N
J Om MO Z. W J W yaz W mp ❑LU
JFQa m N N
w W W O V W> J OJ Z OF x O W W w m W O Q N N w w
ma �� W, m0 v)40 =O° Uxz(g Z p & O ``'
Q° O w v Q Q LL ? z m W z z to 07C m O Z /
zu yrs w ' wo z Y
y> j m00w yZ Ola-~ U U r �m a W z04
y°1 �
CK�� 7yLLJ
w0 aa¢ -w 0 pw ouz O M
m z o v w¢ O=W w w 00
��Ro _ov� �a ua- a n� �zm0n ¢ ¢ U) 0
maa(7 ~» my,y �xQ h m� Umm00 y fail W w
N Z~ z m 0 N J~ W N a = W ¢ j 0 F F Z W Z U (7
02ND w°z c°)o .0 Z, 3<w z yz 0i0os o°p o Z m 3
zo 0, Y H f70> r W wo w w fgNUf/)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 a' K O U ❑ w F0 0 fn w W
W O NF 0,LU
OUZ OU w Z Z Y O
r❑ OZ OOy o z m❑ w m0 >� UN O z0OW z (J, V Z
Z<MZ'^ ZmLLO xw W> = W O 6N W 0" GU> O W zp� N v Q U) W a J_
vJ ¢ W W F O j H w ¢ U J W Z ' O i- 2¢ ] O m a a K (❑ ❑ L) Q LL
U U U Q
w m 7 m w V w N m z m > O
a¢¢ O m J a a 2 ° W F-
m W Z J CO LL Z W Z O a - N
O 0 WJ 2 Z O~m wOJ 00 QO¢ OJOmx
zf2U ¢rn�._ z3a NUU U> Uam UU Nm 4 O 2 z
Z � n of a �n fo r � ;ry � � 3
T'yQ6/ �i� Wfn W�
a
S x
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 U W \ W
mar m
a\
N Z \
o \
U
Z W
O - 0
At Oe
e
0
\ NZ \.
\ T
~ / W
U W
N O
z Z
� LL
r
H
O
J
a
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 56 of 297
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
imaae008.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 57 of 297
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 58 of 297
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 59 of 297
• 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 60 of 297
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 61 of 297
Page 62 of 297
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 63 of 297
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 64 of 297
Sincerely,
Michele Grieco
a Da
Page 65 of 297
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 66 of 297
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 67 of 297
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 68 of 297
From:
To: Cmmittee of Adjustment (SM): Sean Harridan: Debbie Chapman
Cc:
Subject: Request for Variance/Adjustment - % Wood Street, Kitchener
Date: Friday, December 6, 2024 1:09:33 PM
IYou don't often get email from . Learn why this is im octant
Good afternoon,
I am writing you today to express my concerns with the proposed development at 96 Wood
Street, Kitchener.
While I recognize that increased density is our future and an area of focus for the Planning
Committee, there are several aspects of the proposed development that should be considered
when making a decision;
Maintaining the look and feel of the existing neighbourhood - The
proposed development abuts very closely to the property edges on several sides. While
some single-family and duplex properties in the area also extend towards their property
boundaries, they do follow the limits put in place and are significantly smaller
structures. Given the height and scope of this project, allowing this structure to extend
so close to the property line will create a "wall" like effect along York Street. While this
may be appropriate downtown, it seems completely inappropriate for a residential
neighbourhood.
Height - Again recognizing that there are other higher density developments in the
neighbourhood, these are all 2.5 floors or less. The proposed development is 3.5 floors,
exceeding the permitted height in the area and would be taller than every other building
in the area on a property of this size. It would extend well above adjacent properties and
give those on the top floor an unimpeded view into neighbouring residences.
Lack of Parking - The proposed development does not include any form of vehicle
parking on-site. While we are close to many transit stops, it is not realistic to assume
that zero occupants in the development will be without a vehicle. There are no paid
overnight parking options in the area, and the daytime street parking is already crowded
with hospital visitors. This is clearly visible in figure 7 of the Staff Report, and will lead
to illegal parking on the street or at the nearby Catalyst 137 development. The Catalyst
owners will not be appreciative of these extra visitors, as overnight parking there can
impact lot maintenance. More cars on the street will also present difficulties, as
sightlines when travelling eastbound across York from Mount Hope are already
impacted by the allowed parking on York Street. I have personally observed several
"near misses' at this intersection.
Design - This concern ties in to the first item relating to 'look and feel of the
neighbourhood'. The proposed development is a more contemporary, angled design than
other properties in the neighbourhood. Other proposed developments on Mount Hope
Street were forced to modify their designs to be closer aligned to that of other properties
in the neighbourhood. The materials chosen also appear to be in place to meet a certain
cost, rather than the brick and siding used by other properties in the area. Our
expectation as residents in the area is that larger developments also be subject to the
same level of scrutiny.
Thank you for taking the time to review our concerns. If there is any follow up required or you
Page 69 of 297
have any questions for us, please feel free to reach out.
Nathan Majury & Marybeth Reynolds
Page 70 of 297
September 18, 2024
Dear Appointees of the Committee of Adjustment
This email is in regards to the proceedings from September 17, 2024 item 6.8, A 2024-075 — 96
Wood St, DSD — 2024 — 422.
First of all, I would like to thank those members that have heard the community's concerns and
are taking them seriously. While our neighbourhood is small, it is a unique and historic community
in Kitchener.
Please note the Kitchener website for upcoming meetings provides a date of September 16`h
2024 for the Committee of Adjustments meeting, which may have had an impact on the number
of attendees.
I would like to respond to the comments of surprise that no one from the neighbourhood attended
the meeting. I was under the impression from the City that a written submission was equivalent to
voicing my concerns in person and that these carry the same weight when the committee is
making its deliberations. If attending the committee meeting somehow changes the outcome,
then of course I will make it my business to attend.
Additionally, I would like to point out that the meeting was held mid -week in the morning when
most people are working. As I am sure you can appreciate, this is a community of working
professionals and families and it is not always feasible to take half a day off during the week.
It should also be noted that the assertion from the applicant that the home is dilapidated in any
way is simply untrue. In fact, the current owner, who has never actually lived in the home or in our
community, is currently renting the house to family. It is also the same make, build and age as
most homes in the neighbourhood, including mine.
Once again, I appreciate your time, commitment and careful consideration of the proposal and for
hearing our concerns.
Sincerely,
Amanda Gordon
Page 71 of 297
From:
To: Committee of Adiustment (SM). Sean Harridan: Debbie Chapman
Subject: My opposition to the proposed development at 96 Wood St Kitchener
Date: Friday, December 6, 2024 3.13:41 PM
IYou don't often get email from Learn why this is important
Greetings all,
My wife and I are the homeowners of , the property directly behind 96 Wood
St. I have some concerns about the proposed development at 96 Wood St.
My first concern is sort of a general one that a building that needs this many variances is
simply not the right building for the lot:
• it exceeds setbacks in every direction;
• the building shape, build materials, and flat roof are not compatible with the existing
character of the neighbourhood.
The best way I can think to put it is that its trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.
Another concern is related visibility and safety along York St. This street is used as a
commuter bypass for Belmont and Park St traffic, since there's not a stop sign along York
between Union and Glasgow. The Wood St. intersection is the midway point and the apex of
speed as these commuters zip through our neighbourhood. Compound that with the street
parking of hospital visitors along York St, and visibility and safety is already very bad. I'm
worried that having a building extending into the setback by 2 metres is going to make the
York/Wood intersection safety even worse. This neighbourhood is full of young children
using the sidewalks, and I do not want a new construction to make traffic along York St. less
safe than it already is.
Finally, I am not satisfied that the proposed development adequately accounts for how
garbage, recycling, and food waste for these units will be handled. Is it going to be a dumpster
pushed tip against my back fence? Because it sure looks like it's probably going to be a
dumpster pushed up against my back fence. If that happens, what recourse do I have? We have
young children and we all spend a lot of time in our backyard, especially in the warmer
months. Hopefiilly you can understand why I'm genuinely worried about how the waste of 8
units will be managed.
We have owned since 2008, and in that time we've seen old housing stock in the
neighbourhood get removed and the lots densified. I have never voiced opposition to any of
that. I would also welcome the lot at 96 Wood to be redeveloped with a densified new
construction, if a proposal were put forward that was congruent with the lot size and character
of the neighbourhood, didn't negatively impact York St. safety, and had a reasonable plan for
how waste would be managed. But this proposal is not that. This proposal is a square peg and
96 Wood St is a round hole. I urge you to reject this proposed development.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my concerns.
- Cliff Snyder
Page 72 of 297
From: Sean Harrigan
To:
Cc: Committee of Adiustment (SM)
Subject: RE: Opposition to Proposed 8 -Unit Development at 96 Wood Street
Date: Monday, December 9, 2024 2:19:49 PM
Good afternoon Elizabeth,
Thank you for your detailed comments and concems. The Committee of Adjustment staff (cc'd) 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
City of Kitchener
519-783-89341 Sean.Harrigangkitchener.ca.
-----Original Message -----
From:
Sent: Monday, December 9, 2024 2:10 PM
To: Sean Harrigan <Sean.Harrigangkitchener.ca>
Subject: Opposition to Proposed 8 -Unit Development at 96 Wood Street
Dear Mr. Harrigan and Ms. Chapman,
I have lived on Wood Street for more than six decades. I understand the reason for development and that things
continue to change. My 2 major concems are safety and having developments that fit into the character of the
neighbourhood.
In terms of safety, this development will increase the amount of cars parking on Wood Street and Park Street. This is
because there are no parking spots allotted for this development. There are already many cars parked on the street
from staff and visitors of Grand River Hospital, which is at the top of Wood Street.
There are many children living on the street and a street lined with cars is always more dangerous because it limits a
child's view when crossing the street. In terms of driving one's own car, the parked cars limit your ability to see
when leaving your driveway. Also, when attempting to tum left from Wood Street onto York Street, one needs to
pull out dangerously far in order to see around the cars to see if there is a vehicle coming down the street. These
situations are accidents waiting to happen and once again make it dangerous for the children.
My neighbourhood consists of predominantly red brick homes from the 1920's. This creates an attractive, distinct
and enduring identity. The proposed building and position on the lot is not sensitive to the setting in any way. It will
erode the lovely street scape.
A city should strive to create an attractive environment that functions well for its citizens, provides buildings that
will stand the test of time, and result in its citizens taking pride in their individual neighbourhoods. I am asking for
the committee to value the streetscape and architectural style of the neighbourhood and not allow the development
of the lot at 96 Wood Street to go ahead as proposed.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Beyers
Page 73 of 297
From:
To: Committee of Adiustment [Sht]. Sean Harridan: Debbie Chapman
Subject: objection to Proposed 8 -Unit Development at 96 'Wood Street
Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2024 9:56:24 AM
You don't often get email from . Learn why this isim on rtant
Preview attachnietit Wood StreetJ12
8
Wood Street.ivs
3.3 MB
Good Morning,
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 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 thmofares 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 am unable to snake the Committee of Adjustment meeting today, as I am booked with other
Page 74 of 297
meetings all day, but I am happy to connect outside of that to further express my concerns.
Thank you!
Alison Marshall
Page 75 of 297
From:
Sean Harrigan
To:
Debbie Chapman; Committee of Adjustment (SM)
Subject:
RE: 96 Wood Street Development
Date:
Thursday, June 12, 2025 9:10:50 AM
Attachments:
image001.ona
imaae002.pna
image001ona
imaae004.pna
image005.png
imaae006.pna
image007.ona
imaae008.pna
Good morning James,
Thank you for your detailed comments and concerns. The Committee of Adjustment staff will ensure
your comments are provided 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 City of Kitchener
519-783-8934 Sean. HarrioanCcbkitchener.ca.
From: James Steckly
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2025 10:57 PM
To: Sean Harrigan <Sean.Harrigan@kitchener.ca>; Debbie Chapman
<Debbie.Chapman@kitchener.ca>; coa@kitchener.ca
Subject: 96 Wood Street Development
Proposed redevelopment of an 8 -unit rental building at 96 Wood Street.
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 the character of the
neighborhood at the current height proposed. What is the use of bylaws if they can be changed on a whim whenever
requested by a developer?
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.
Page 76 of 297
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.
Can you guarantee these units would not end up being short term rentals as Luisa D'Amato's Opinion Page in the
June 6th issue of the Record pointed out in her article: Too Many Short Term Rentals Are Bad For The
Neighbourhood. Already in some 800 units across the city. What kind of rent controls do you have in place that
will stop this type of rental model? Allowing such developments in an older mature established residential area is a
very slippery slope. Thanks for your consideration.
Regards.
James and Andrea Weber Steckly
Page 77 of 297
From:
To: Committee of Adjustment (SM); Sean Harrigan; Debbie Chapman
Subject: I am opposed to the proposed development at 96 Wood St Kitchener
Date: Thursday, June 12, 2025 11:58:43 AM
Greetings,
I have lived in this neighbourhood for 17 years, and I am writing to register my opposition to
the proposed development at 96 Wood St.
I encourage you to refer back to voluminous neighbourhood opposition to this development
already on record from the previous two times this development was put forward in 2024.
The proposed development attempts to squeeze as large a building as possible onto a tiny plot
of land, exceeding municipal setbacks in width, length, and height. I am not opposed to
redevelopment on this lot, but this proposed development is simply too large for this lot.
It's also not the right fit for the neighbourhood. There really are no comparable buildings in the
neighbourhood to this proposed development. The approval of this development would be
precedent setting in a way that could completely change the character of this mature and
vibrant neighbourhood.
Finally, over the last few months the current house on the lot has been undergoing
renovations, presumably in anticipation of a no vote on this development. The current house is
not dilapidated and does not need to be demolished.
I encourage you to vote no to this proposed development.
Thanks,
- Cliff Snyder
Page 78 of 297
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 79 of 297
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 80 of 297
MX7
Page 81 of 297
IY
`• �, - 4 P � r p � � Few
xir
w INP
r,
�.'■
'y r __ ■� ,rte x.�} Py �'�•�,�•�' � � � 1, � '" � � ! .s -■ '' :�
� - o✓ r -re •C�'" 'ti •gip �P.� � 7° P G � 'ry �e,a.. ��a' .
^'•' • �+� S•� r i�p°'�tl .�,� "E+'s�tl� '#� `k'•'� "� �k.,�r � rr�t$' ya�a o• •' �:,.`'.� , •r '■
s'r• 'F"' .{i'R,",�"_ e• lra 7 ��I�.�'sA};�•r' grtl L,J �'A•.i .:i� j: �: -_ `..fk .
�,��• � d r '-} a 'mss }°'� i,.F d _ � b9y' r- �y� L � � $fi , r5° 5•, � -° r '�
T
�
'�•
■ �
A
, °
� -4p
•
$amu
dwL
s
4
Y
ir
i
'y r __ ■� ,rte x.�} Py �'�•�,�•�' � � � 1, � '" � � ! .s -■ '' :�
� - o✓ r -re •C�'" 'ti •gip �P.� � 7° P G � 'ry �e,a.. ��a' .
^'•' • �+� S•� r i�p°'�tl .�,� "E+'s�tl� '#� `k'•'� "� �k.,�r � rr�t$' ya�a o• •' �:,.`'.� , •r '■
s'r• 'F"' .{i'R,",�"_ e• lra 7 ��I�.�'sA};�•r' grtl L,J �'A•.i .:i� j: �: -_ `..fk .
�,��• � d r '-} a 'mss }°'� i,.F d _ � b9y' r- �y� L � � $fi , r5° 5•, � -° r '�
T
Page 84 of 297
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 85 of 297
Page 87 of 297
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 88 of 297
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 89 of 297
• 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 90 of 297
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 AA wsll
Z
Mti
M
QJ
W
N
�F O
a
Uz
M
W
N
u'1
P
W
N
4
BJ co
0-
L) 0
M
N
N
N
N
M
a
w
LL
N
�
MM
tij
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
wW0O7�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
m -
N1HM3O1S 313MONOO ONI1SIX3
0
ur li-1-1-1
£6244 3..OS.ZZu£9N
N � /
Sr/
1 /
AMJd AA WB'£
3 098 AA wsll
w
xO
O
0 0
Q LL
LULU Z 0 0 z
w 7 LL LL O
J
Of m Of N M m
♦
Z
r -
r rn
QJ
N
�F O
a
Uz
W
w�
Y
a
�Q
L) 0
"
`Q
w
LL
N
�
MM
tij
w
xO
O
0 0
Q LL
LULU Z 0 0 z
w 7 LL LL O
J
Of m Of N M m
♦
Z
d
J
a
W
Y
� w o p ❑ ❑
w
c
O M cn a O O O 2 O
H- H
z
Q
F-
LU W
F-
ui
a
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 92 of 297
Please let me know if you have any questions for me,
Thanks!
Andrew Wong
Page 93 of 297
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 94 of 297
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 95 of 297
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 96 of 297
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 97 of 297
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 98 of 297
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 99 of 297
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 100 of 297
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 101 of 297
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 102 of 297
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 103 of 297
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 104 of 297
z �a U
sn P o zm F— o
oW � E° ff O w
v8 z z
o� oz N w Q p
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 AA wsll
Z
M
M
ti
J
N
J
M
W
N
u'1
P
W
N
4
�z
co co
0-
LLJ
M
N
N
N
N
M
L) 0
"
a
LL
N
LO
1M
Lo
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 AA wsll
w
xO
O
0 0
Q LL
LULU Z 0 0 z
w 7 LL LL O
J
m N M m
♦
Z
r -
r rn
J
N
J
O
Y
LO
0
�z
LLJ
Q
L) 0
"
`Q
LL
N
LO
1M
Lo
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
� w o p ❑ ❑
w
c
O M cn a O O O 2 O
H- H
z
Q
F-
LU W
F-
ui
a
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 106 of 297
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 107 of 297
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 108 of 297
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 109 of 297
A
Page 110 of 297
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 111 of 297
- 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 112 of 297
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 113 of 297
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 114 of 297
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 IDN.
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 115 of 297
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 116 of 297
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 117 of 297
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 118 of 297
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 119 of 297
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 120 of 297
From:
1. Fowler
To:
Committee of Adiustment (SM)
Cc:
Sean Harrigan
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
haps://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 121 of 297
From: T. Foster -Grieco
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 122 of 297
From: D. Kennedy
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 concems 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 concems that this development creates.
I find no reason to repeat on subjects and concems 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 123 of 297
4e-
64-eila-A. NL
- r cur-
� ��
S
►tatamme &," ?' lcle ' • F' rt !ef".._
--AD Co�� L. J- el — eA.04�CJAI &Aqq 5-1
IOJL��Mc. file
le
if- nr 1,rc"
O"V 041
Page 124 of 297
December 9, 2024
Dear Appointees of the Committee of Adjustment,
am writing to you as one of the owners of 96 Wood Street, Waterloo, regarding the proposed
development. I'd like to express my gratitude for your consideration as well as for the input from
the community. We appreciate the time and effort that everyone has dedicated to this matter.
Living in this particular neighbourhood is something that I've aspired to for many years. tiVe.
purchased this property due to its significant location, rich history, and the close-knit community.
Our intention with this project is to create somewhere I will be able to call home that also
contributes to the area's growth and sustainability for future generations to come.
The central location of this property near uptown, downtown, public transit, and many major
businesses, makes it an ideal candidate for redevelopment. Given the excellent accessibility,
owning a vehicle isn't a necessity, and would help reduce emissions, prevent additional traffic,
and attract tenants who are vehicle -free. I know numerous individuals who rent/own property in
the, area and don't have veh cies or sere a treed for them`. Thrs It a growtng trend in cities, and as
Kitchener -Waterloo continues to expand, we believe this approach aligns with evolving needs.
As a current resident of Uptown Waterloo, I'm renting a unit similar to the ones proposed at 96
Wood Street and I have firsthand experience with the demand for more centrally located rental
options: For long -tame homeowners, it might be diffiGult to relate to the Ghallenges faced by
renters. In Uptown Waterloo, rental options are often limited to either overpriced high-rises or
very dated homes. The proposed development would help address a gap in the market by
offering a modern alternative in a mature neighbourhood.
Ultimately, our goal with this project at 96 Wood Street is to revitalize and enhance the value of
an aging property. As the region continuos to oxporiohce rapid development, we, hope this
property could be a positive, family-owned contribution to the future of this vibrant community.
Once again, thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Nadia Vladco
Owner, 96 Wood Street, Waterloo
Page 125 of 297
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 126 of 297
IN
I�
uu
eli
ego
FEN C
M Uk JtWE
w�
41 jw I} ,
a an a[E7 FrrP..�
WOOD STREET
4
Page 127 of 297
�
ego
6 _ . x �rrrJJ7AA00
m E�
Eb¢]
S.
N
WOOD STREET
4
Page 127 of 297
Apilrillill 0 00-4
MAL
I
0
0
cU
u
E
<
0
>
>
U
kn
0
S�-
0
-E
—0
QJ
CIJ
u
E
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 NWXL(AW
suo'llinSilsur.)l pldl!'d PunOJV Bu!uu
0
VJVV NOUVIS NWXL(AW
suo'llinSilsur.)l pldl!'d PunOJV Bu!uu
P4%rl
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+
P4%rl
-
_.
N
O
VQ
M
MX.
Cfu
a .
3
�
O
-•
n
r+
0
0
0
Z
n
N
o
L'
r
r+
r
_.
P4%rl
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 131 of 297
3
i,n
3
o0
3
0
%
cin
0
<.
f�
w
N
O
m
Page 131 of 297
W
W
w
Page 132 of 297
133�US a00M
9
m
_
-
wi
cz
m
w
m
92
L`
Z
A
WAW 4�.R,4A
^_j
4lb6 �dlMt-`
LU
aai
T
3AO9V
a
I^ t
iO3,u lr
�
.1VG.l
.. it
00900
Z
W
.I
L
11J
_
a
s
Q
_
m
lw
� Z i
ui
U)
6
r
W
VJ
w
T
Y
co
'I
I
0
m S
OG
/Ic9xim x I, 733..IPJ
Page 132 of 297
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 133 of 297
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 134 of 297
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 134 of 297
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 137 of 297
,�� ;�
1332US DOOM I -i;-
I—
W
W
r)
O
O
rn
Page 138 of 297
Page 139 of 297
Staff Report
r
JR
Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca
REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment
DATE OF MEETING: June 17, 2025
SUBMITTED BY: Tina Malone -Wright, Manager, Development Approvals
519-783-8913
PREPARED BY: Adiva Saadat, Planner, 519-783-7658
WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 1
DATE OF REPORT: June 3, 2025
REPORT NO.: DSD -2025-257
SUBJECT: Minor Variance Application A2025-055 — 89 Matthew Street
RECOMMENDATION:
That Minor Variance Application A2025-055 for 89 Matthew Street requesting relief
from Section 4.12.3 e) of Zoning By-law 2019-051, to permit an Additional Dwelling
Unit (ADU) (Detached) to have an area of 93 square metres instead of the maximum
permitted 80 square metres, generally in accordance with drawings prepared by
Southwood Homes Architectural Design, dated April 24, 2025, BE APPROVED.
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS:
• The purpose of this report is to review a Minor Variance Application to permit the
development of a detached Additional Dwelling Unit (ADU) with an increased area.
• The key finding of this report is that the requested minor variance meets all four tests
of the Planning Act.
• 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.
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
Page 140 of 297
BACKGROUND:
The subject property is located on the north-west side of Matthew Street and Marketa
Crescent. It is in the Grand River North neighbourhood which is primarily comprised of
low-rise residential uses.
' A "
Figure 1: Location Map — 89 Matthew Street (Outlined in Red)
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.
The property is zoned `Low Rise Residential Two Zone (RES -2)' in Zoning By-law 2019-
051.
The applicant is proposing to build a detached Additional Dwelling Unit (ADU) in the rear
yard of the property having an area of 93 square metres. However, the maximum
permitted building footprint of an ADU is 80 square metres. Since the proposed ADU
exceeds the maximum permitted building footprint, a minor variance is required to the
permit the development.
Page 141 of 297
M+
., N64'31'S0'E 200-N' �
0 �
---� — ---�— — -- — — -- — — — — --------------- -�
N64°01`66'E 200.58'
Figure 2: Proposed ADU Site Plan
Front (East) Elevation
Figure 3: Proposed ADU Front Elevation
Right -Side (North) Elevation
Figure 4: Proposed ADU Right Elevation
z
m
m
Page 142 of 297
------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------
Rear (West) Elevation
Figure 5: Proposed ADU Rear Elevation
Left -Side (South) Elevation
■+
Figure 6: Proposed ADU Left Elevation
Planning Staff conducted a site visit on May 29, 2025.
Figure 7: Existing Site Conditions as of May 29, 2025
Page 143 of 297
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 subject property is designated `Low Rise Residential' in the City's Official Plan. This
designation emphasizes the importance of ensuring compatibility in building form with
regard to massing, scale, and design, to facilitate the successful integration of diverse
housing and building types while maintaining the low-density character of the
neighbourhood.
Policy 4.C.1.23 permits up to 3 Additional Dwelling Units (ADUs) subject to meeting any
other applicable policies in the Official Plan and Zoning By-law regulations.
4. C. 1.23. The City may permit up to three additional dwelling units, attached
and/or detached, on a lot which contains a single detached dwelling, a
semi-detached dwelling or a street -townhouse dwelling as the
principal use, unless otherwise limited by the policies of this Plan, and
in accordance with the City's Zoning By-law, in order to provide
additional housing options to Kitchener homeowners and residents.
The proposed Additional Dwelling Unit use of the property conforms to the land use
designation and is a desirable addition to a residential property. Staff is in opinion that
requested variance to be able to construct the Additional Dwelling Unit (ADU) (Detached)
meets the general intent of the Official Plan.
General Intent of the Zoning By-law
The intent of the maximum building footprint is to ensure that accessory buildings remain
secondary to the primary building. Although the building footprint of the accessory building
exceeds the maximum permitted building footprint of 80 square metres as per Section
5.22.1 b) by 13 square metres, this increase remains proportionally smaller than the
primary dwelling and does not overwhelm the primary dwelling. Staff is of opinion that the
variance meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law by remaining secondary to the
primary building.
Is/Are the Effects of the Variance(s) Minor?
The variance is minor in nature. The 13 square metres excess building footprint is not
noticeable from the streetscape and will not impact the visual appearance of the property.
The ADU will be located at the far rear of the property. Although the building footprint
exceeds the maximum permitted area, the structure will maintain the maximum height of
4.5 metres. The structure's appearance will be compatible with adjacent viewpoints and
visually consistent with its surroundings.
Page 144 of 297
Is/Are the Variance(s) Desirable for The Appropriate Development or Use of the Land,
Building and/or Structure?
Planning staff is of the opinion that the variance is desirable for the appropriate
development of the lands as it will facilitate the construction to an Additional Dwelling Unit
at the rear of the primary dwelling. The larger footprint allows for improved internal
functionality and livability. This will facilitate a gentle intensification of the subject property
and support the City's Housing Pledge.
Environmental Planning Comments:
No concerns. The placement of the ADU has respected the existing trees on site. It is
recommended that tree protection fencing be installed at the dripline of the trees to protect
them during construction.
Heritage Planning Comments:
No comments or concerns.
Building Division Comments:
The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance. A Building Permit
Application has been made for the detached ADU.
Engineering Division Comments:
No comments or concerns.
Parks and Cemeteries/Forestry Division Comments:
No comments or concerns.
Transportation Planning Comments:
No comments or concerns.
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 145 of 297
PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES:
• Planning Act
• Provincial Planning Statement (PPS 2024)
• Regional Official Plan
• Official Plan (2014)
• Zoning By-law 2019-051
Page 146 of 297
Region of Waterloo
June 11, 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 4A 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 June 17, City of Kitchener
Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and
have the following comments:
1)
A 2024 —
075 —
96 Wood Street — No Concerns
2)
A 2025 —
055 —
89 Matthew Street — No Concerns
3)
A 2025 —
056 —
9 Blucher Street — Region Staff have significant concerns
regarding the implementation of adequate crash protection measures along the
Waterloo Spur.
Region Staff require additional time to consider the application,
and request the application be deferred.
4)
A 2025 —
057 —
386 Wake Robin Cresent — No Concerns
5)
A 2025 —
058 —
175 Hoffman Street — No Concerns
6)
A 2025 —
059 —
22 Parkglen Street — No Concerns
7)
A 2025 —
060 —
181 Borden Aveune North — No Concerns
8)
A 2025 —
061 —
181 Borden Aveune North — 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 147 of 297
Please forward any decisions on the above-mentioned Application numbers to the
undersigned.
Yours Truly,
c71�",_ilUaw
Joshua Beech Falshaw
Transportation Planner
jbeechfalshaw@regionofwaterloo.ca
Document Number: 4976854
Page 148 of 297
June 2, 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 — June 17, 2025
Applications for Minor Variance
A 2024-075
96 Wood Street
A 2025-055
89 Matthew Street
A 2025-057
386 Wake Robin Crescent
A 2025-058
175 Hoffman Street
A 2025-059
22 Parkglen Street
A 2025-060
181 Borden Avenue North
A 2025-061
181 Borden Avenue North
Applications for Consent
B 2025-018 73 Second Avenue
B 2025-019 181 Borden Avenue North
B 2025-020 181 Borden Avenue North
via email
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-q rand 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 149 of 297
From:
Farah Farogue
To:
Committee of Adiustment (SM)
Cc:
Jenna Auger
Subject:
Kitchener Jun 17, 2025 Hearing
Date:
Thursday, May 29, 2025 2:43:38 PM
Attachments:
imaae001.ona
Afternoon Kitchener CofA,
Thank you for circulating the June17, 2025, Committee of Adjustments agenda for Kitchener. Please
be advised that all properties were found to be outside Metrolinx's designated review zones. As such,
we have no comments/concerns with the applications in this agenda.
Thankyou,
Farah Faroque (she/her)
Project Analyst, Adjacent Construction Review
Real Estate & Development
Metrolinx
20 Bay Street — Suite 600 1 Toronto I Ontario I M5J 2W3
T: 437.900.2291
=X: METROLINX
From: mail@sf-notifications.com <mail@sf-notifications.com>
Sent: May 23, 2025 10:45 AM
To: development.coordinator <development.coordinator@metrolinx.com>
Subject: Clerks CoK has shared the folder 'Committee of Adjustment - Applications' with you.
XTERNAL SENDER: Do not click any links or open any attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.
XPEDITEUR EXTERNE: Ne cliquez sur aucun lien et n'ouvrez aucune piece jointe a moins qu'ils ne proviennent d'un expediteur fiable,
)u que vous ayez I'assurance que Ie contenu provient d'une source sure.
Development,
Clerks CoK has shared the folder Committee of
Adjustment - Applications with you.
Page 150 of 297
Message from Clerks
Attached are the applications for the City of Kitchener
Committee of Adjustment meeting being held on June 17,
2025.
Please remember, your email address is your username to log
in. If you are unable to log in, select "Forgot my Password". For
those who comment regularly, your written report must be sent
to CofA@kitchener.ca no later than 12 noon on Monday, June
2, 2025.
You will need to download any files in this folder that you would
like to retain, as they will be deleted from this program when
the applications for the next month are circulated.
If you require any further assistance, please email
CofA@kitchener.ca.
Thank you.
Marilyn Mills, Legislated Services
Kitchener City Hall
Need help? We're here for you.
Visit sharefile.com/support and look for "Start chat."
I
This e-mail is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed. If you received
Page 151 of 297
this in error, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the e-mail together with any
attachments.
Page 152 of 297
From: Nembhard, O"Neil (MTO)
To: Committee of Adiustment (SM)
Subject: RE: Agenda - Committee of Adjustment - Tuesday, June 17, 2025
Date: Friday, June 6, 2025 3:11:13 PM
Attachments: imaoe001.ona
You don't often get email from o'neil.nembhard@ontario.ca. Learn why this is important
Good day,
Please see below MTO comments related to the June 17, 2025 Committee of
Adjustment Meeting.
1. The Ministry of Transportation (MTO) has no objection to this application. The
subject property is located beyond our limits of permit control and therefore
MTO review, approval and permits will not be required.
o A 2024-075 - 96 Wood Street
o A 2025-055 - 89 Matthew Street
o A 2025-057 - 386 Wake Robin Crescent
o A 2025-059 - 22 Parkglen Street
o B 2025-019, B 2025-020, A 2025-060 & A 2025-061 - 181 Borden Avenue
North
2. A 2025-058 - SP24/009/H/ES. 175 Hoffman Street - The subject property does
fall within MTO permit control area, however based on the modifications to site
proposed, MTO permits will not be required.
3. B 2025-018 - 73 Second Avenue- The subject property does fall within MTO
permit control area, however, based on the location in a buildup area, MTO
review, approval and permits will not be required.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments.
Regards,
O'Neil Nembhard
Corridor Management Planner I Operation West I Operations Division
Ministry of Transportation Ontario I Ontario Public Service
548-388-2571 1 o'neil.nembhard C_ontario.ca
Ontario 0
Taking pride in strengthening Ontario, its places and its people
Please note the Ministry no Ionizer accents Land Develooment review reauests thoueh its email
system. All Land Development Review requests to the Ministry must be submitted to the Ministry of
Transportation through the Highway Corridor Management Online portal at:
https://www.hcros.mto.gov.on.ca/
The Land Development Review module is designed to better serve stakeholders through
Page 153 of 297
streamlining all land development planning approvals by the Ministry.
From: Committee of Adjustment (SM) <CommitteeofAdjustment@kitchen er.ca>
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2025 11:55 AM
To: Committee of Adjustment (SM) <CommitteeofAdjustment@kitchen er.ca>
Subject: Agenda - Committee of Adjustment - Tuesday, June 17, 2025
CAUTION -- EXTERNAL E-MAIL - Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender.
Good morning,
The agenda for the June 17, 2025 Committee of Adjustment meeting is now available on our
Council/Committee calendar.
The combined agenda with reports will be posted to the meeting calendar by noon on Friday, June
13, 2025.
Connie Owen
Administrative Clerk I Legislated Services I City of Kitchener
519-904-1409 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 connie.owen(cbkitchener.ca
Page 154 of 297
From: Pui Ming Leung
To: Committee of Adiustment (SM)
Subject: COA, Kitchener
Date: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 11:37:04 AM
Attachments: 11111j)d
in
Sorry for my late response. I apologize for any inconvenience caused.
90 Wood ST- make sure to have clearance to primary cable on York St according to our
standard D11111 (attached here)
For all new service or upgrade, please send a request to Enova for hydro connection.
Thanks,
Pui Ming Leung (she/her) I Design Technologist
Direct Number: 226-896-2200 (EXT 6205)
Mobile Number: 519-589-2659
puiming. leunaQenovapower.com
301 Victoria Street South, Kitchener, Ontario, N2G 4L2
enovapower.com
121
This correspondence is directed in confidence solely to the addressees listed above. It may
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 notes the sender immediately. Click on the link to read the
additional disclaimer: https://enovapower.com/disclaimer
Page 155 of 297
N
� � O
Z
�r U) LO
LU J J O
` �
a O m
F2fzo WW U 0° zwp� ~ w d
W LL O w U 2 f Z z W O `J z
25, f7=f7 Cw ww 3a 3Uzf O
a 0 2 Z Q Z F> x> O H 2 K U Z
Q W H ❑ Z❑ w O H m J y O
_ ~ ~ ~l 3 O
Z W J
O� 7a O ON W R'K p W 'Ka O r�r^^ J Q
~ 1p y W mW W C m O w U U <0 Y 2 2> v/ U
3ovz ow
o
w O= F 2 Q O W O N y ¢ Q H z O W- W N Z (� N
J LU
O a. K N W J W y a Z W C O of F Q a K N N
w W W O V W J OJ Z OF x O W W W w W Q N N w w
ma �� W, m0 vJ40 =O° Oxz FD Z O & O ``'
?Zm W zz tnUQ� O Z 8 /
zu yrs w ' wo z Y
y> j m�� fxg2 W la-~ U U r Hm a W z LU04
z¢� 'gym zF i¢w LL 0w ozoF i o O M
�aQfn o°� �a yE> ❑m Owl -� o ¢LLJ
�i z �� ° U w¢ .2O=LL w w M
�FrEo _ov� �a uQ a n� ozm°n ¢ ¢ U) s
¢aa(7 ~» mfwn.: �xQ h m� Um COO aai fail W w
N Z~ z m C 0 N J~ W N a = W Q j° F F Z W Z U (7
O 2ND w°z (°_�o oZm 3<w z yz 0i0os o°O o Z m 3
zo 0, y H (70� r W fn W W fgNUf/)F 7 7 Q 3
Z LLU W Q W QO ZNa K OO w 2N W KKLL'Z �� LNL m N VJ (7
O W S H N O O LL' K O U O W, 00 fn w W
LU
m¢�O N F U U m W O rnjH ¢ Q~= NF 0,it
OUz 00 w Z Z Y O
r❑wz OOyU zaz W m0 >� UNO ZU(9>Z (J 9 C) � Z
'^ Z�LLO Do a. x W W> w W O aN W =W ❑O� O W ZOZ N v Q U) W a J_
vJ ¢ W W F 0jH W ¢ U J W Z 'O i-2¢ O(7K a s K (❑ ❑ L) Q LL
U U U Q
w a 7 7 W X 0 0 N z > O m Q a J� f � z O 0 5
a 6Q0 �CJa (12� °m W Z= Jf9w Zw ZOa - N
O O W W J 2 F Z W O H m W O J 0 0 Q O¢ O J O x x
z U ¢ w _ z 3 a N U U U> U a N U U N m F 4 O 2 z
Z � N of a �n fo r � ;ry � � 3
T'yQ6/ �i� Wfn W�
S x
a £
s°
Cys l >O n N z rc
�aa
K 6 w O K O a
T pp N
w
3 0 orb'
ISL
0 le
cC U
LD — U Wa z a
m
MU w r N 14
a W \ W
a r ¢
a\
N z \
o \
U
Z -
Z W
O - ~
At O
e
e
F
\ NZ \.
\ T
~ / W
U W
N O
z Z
� LL
r
H
O
J
a
Staff Report
r
JR
Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca
REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment
DATE OF MEETING: June 17, 2025
SUBMITTED BY: Tina Malone -Wright, Manager, Development Approvals
519-783-8913
PREPARED BY: Andrew Pinnell, Senior Planner, 519-783-8915
WARD INVOLVED: Ward 5
DATE OF REPORT: June 6, 2025
REPORT NO.: DSD -2025-277
SUBJECT: Minor Variance Application A2025-057 - 386 Wake Robin Cres.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Minor Variance Application A2025-057 for 386 Wake Robin Crescent requesting
relief from the following Sections of Zoning By-law 2019-051:
i) Relief from Section 4.12.3 g) to permit a lot width of 9.2 metres instead of the
minimum required 10.5 metres;
ii) Relief from Section 4.12.3 h) to permit an ADU (Detached) to have a building
height of 5.4 metres (flat roof) instead of the maximum permitted 3.0 metres;
iii) Relief from Section 4.12.3 k) to permit an ADU (Detached) to have a setback
from the interior side lot line of 0.1 metres instead of the minimum required
0.9 metres;
iv) Relief from Section 4.12.3 1) to permit an ADU (Detached) to be located in the
area created by extending 4 metres from and parallel to any wall of the rear
fagade of the principal dwelling, whereas an ADU (Detached) shall not be
located in this area;
v) Relief from Section 4.12.3 n) to permit a 1.1 metre wide unobstructed
walkway from the sidewalk to the principal entrance of the Additional
Dwelling Unit (Detached) to be periodically obstructed by vehicles that are
actively passing to and from a required parking space;
vi) Relief from Section 4.14.1 to permit eaves, as an Architectural Feature, to
project 0.9 metres into the required minimum interior side yard setback
instead of the maximum permitted projection of 0.6 metres;
vii) Relief from Section 5.4 d) to permit a driveway to have a width of 1.8 metres,
instead of the minimum required width of 2.6 metres; and
viii) Relief from Section 5.6, Table 5-5-1, to permit 1 parking space for a Single
Detached Dwelling with an ADU (Detached) instead of the minimum required
2 parking spaces;
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
Page 157 of 297
to facilitate the development of a second storey addition onto an existing detached
garage, in order to facilitate the conversion of the detached garage into an
Additional Dwelling Unit (Detached), generally in accordance with AttachmentA —
Drawings prepared by Perspective Views Architectural Design, dated May 13, 2025,
as revised by Attachment B — Red -Line Revisions to Site Plan Drawing, prepared by
Transportation Services, both attached to Report DSD -2025-277, BE APPROVED,
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
The Owner shall implement Attachment A — Drawings prepared by
Perspective Views Architectural Design, dated May 13, 2025, as revised by
Attachment B — Red -Line Revisions to Site Plan Drawing, prepared by
Transportation Services, both attached to Report DSD -2025-277, including,
but not limited to, the Additional Dwelling Unit (Detached), modified driveway,
delineated parking space, unobstructed walkway, and `No Parking' signage,
to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Transportation Services and City's
Director of Development and Housing Approvals. As shown on said drawings,
the driveway shall be comprised of a material that is consistent throughout
the driveway and delineated parking space, and that is different and
distinguishable (by colour and texture, or material) from any other ground
cover or surfacing on the lot including, but not limited to, landscaping and
unobstructed walkway.
2. That the Owner shall complete the work, identified in Condition No. 1 above,
by June 17, 2026. Any request for a time extension must be approved in
writing by the Manager, Development Approvals prior to completion date set
out in this decision. Failure to complete the condition will result in this
approval becoming null and void.
3. That the Owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener, to be
prepared by the City Solicitor, to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and the
City's Director, Development and Housing Approvals, which shall include the
following:
i) The following clause(s) shall be included in all future Agreements of
Purchase and Sale and all future lease/rental agreements for all
residential dwelling units on the Subject Property:
"No parking shall be permitted on any part of the driveway or
unobstructed walkway, as shown in Attachment B — Red -Line Revisions to
Site Plan Drawing, prepared by Transportation Services, to Report DSD -
2025 -277. The only permitted on-site parking space is the one delineated
parking space shown on said drawing located at the rear of the primary
dwelling unit. Take note that parking on part of the driveway or
unobstructed walkway where not permitted or removal of the required `no
parking' signage may lead to penalties, including, without limitation, fines
imposed in accordance with the Planning Act and City of Kitchener By-
laws."
Page 158 of 297
ii) No parking shall be permitted on any part of the driveway or unobstructed
walkway, as shown in Attachment B — Red -Line Revisions to Site Plan
Drawing, prepared by Transportation Services, to Report DSD -2025-277.
The only permitted on-site parking space is the one delineated parking
space shown on said drawing.
iii) The owner shall maintain the driveway, parking space, unobstructed
walkway, and `No Parking' signage, as shown on Attachment B — Red -
Line Revisions to Site Plan Drawing, prepared by Transportation Services,
to Report DSD -2025-277, to the satisfaction of the City's Director of
Transportation Services for the life of the Additional Dwelling Unit
(Detached).
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS:
• The purpose of this report is to review an application for Minor Variances to facilitate
the development of a second storey addition onto an existing detached garage, in
order to facilitate the conversion of the detached garage into an Additional Dwelling
Unit (Detached).
• 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.
w
y w � � 7� .. � .. ems` ��.a`' � � . as• � c .:� <>
Figure 1 — Subject Property (outlined in 'gid) in context of surrounding
neighbourhood
BACKGROUND:
The subject property is located on the north side of Wake Robin Cres, in the Laurentian
West Planning Community. The property contains a single detached dwelling, constructed
in approximately 2000, with a detached garage in the rear yard that was constructed
Page 159 of 297
around the same time. The surrounding area is predominately comprised of low rise
residential development, primarily detached dwellings.
The property was the subject of Minor Variance Application A2024-090 that was heard by
the Committee of Adjustment in November 2024. The application requested relief from
Section 4.1 d) of Zoning By-law 2019-051 to permit a maximum height to the underside of
the fascia of 4 metres instead of the maximum permitted 3 metres, and to permit a building
height of 6.3 metres instead of the maximum permitted 5.5 metres, to facilitate the
construction of a second storey addition to an existing accessory structure [not an
Additional Dwelling Unit (Detached)].
Through Report DSD -2024-476, Development and Housing Approvals (DHA) staff
recommended refusal, since the proposal did not meet the 4 tests for variances outlined in
the Planning Act. The report noted that, "It is unclear of the need or purpose of the
increase building height of the accessory structure and staff have concerns with the
accessory structure being utilized for human habitation based on conversations with the
homeowner and the drawing illustrating the first floor being used for a `rec room"'.
The Committee of Adjustment refused the Minor Variance Application. The applicant
subsequently appealed the decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT). An OLT hearing
to decide the appeal has not yet occurred but is scheduled for August 2025. At this time,
the applicant has concurrently submitted subject Minor Variance Application A2025-057,
for a separate proposal. The Committee is legally authorized to decide this separate
application.
The detached dwellings on the street on which the subject property is located are unique,
each (including the subject property) having been legally constructed with zero metre (or
minimal) side yard setbacks on one side and subject to easements to allow maintenance
easements and eave encroachments from the abutting property. This condition was in
accordance with Section 5.20 of Zoning By-law 85-1, the By-law under which the dwellings
were constructed (no longer -in effect), which stated:
5.20 MAINTENANCE EASEMENTS AND EAVE ENCROACHMENTS FOR
DWELLINGS AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS HAVING A 0 METRE
SIDEYARD
The development of dwellings and accessory buildings in excess of 9.3
square metres with 0 to 0.2 metre side yards which do not form part of a
common wall with a building on an adjacent lot, shall be permitted provided
that a maximum encroachment of 0.45 metres into abutting lands is provided
for the projection of eaves and a 1.5 metre easement is granted by the owner
of the subject abutting lands for the maintenance of walls, eaves and real
property.
The subject property is identified as `Community Areas' on Map 2 — Urban Structure of the
2014 Official Plan and is designated as `Low Rise Residential' on Map 3 — Land Use. The
property is zoned `Low Rise Residential Four Zone' (RES -4) under By-law 2019-051.
Development and Housing Approvals staff visited the site on June 4, 2025.
Page 160 of 297
Figure 2 — Photo of Subject Property
The purpose of the application is to facilitate the development of a second storey addition
onto an existing detached garage, in order to facilitate the conversion of the detached
garage into an Additional Dwelling Unit (Detached) [ADU (Detached)]. To this end, eight
(8) variances are required:
i) Relief from Section 4.12.3 g) to permit a lot width of 9.2 metres instead of the
minimum required 10.5 metres;
ii) Relief from Section 4.12.3 h) to permit an ADU (Detached) to have a building
height of 5.4 metres (flat roof) instead of the maximum permitted 3.0 metres;
iii) Relief from Section 4.12.3 k) to permit an ADU (Detached) to have a setback from
the interior side lot line of 0.1 metres instead of the minimum required 0.9 metres;
iv) Relief from Section 4.12.3 1) to permit an ADU (Detached) to be located in the area
created by extending 4 metres from and parallel to any wall of the rear facade of
the principal dwelling, whereas an ADU (Detached) shall not be located in this
area;
v) Relief from Section 4.12.3 n) to permit a 1.1 -metre -wide unobstructed walkway
from the sidewalk to the principal entrance of the Additional Dwelling Unit
(Detached) to be periodically obstructed by vehicles that are actively passing to
and from a required parking space-,
vi) Relief from Section 4.14.1 to permit eaves, as an Architectural Feature, to project
0.9 metres into the required minimum interior side yard setback instead of the
maximum permitted projection of 0.6 metres;
Page 161 of 297
vii) Relief from Section 5.4 d) to permit a driveway with a width of 1.8 metres, instead
of the minimum required width of 2.6 metres ; and
viii) Relief from Section 5.6, Table 5-5-1 to permit 1 parking space for a Single
Detached Dwelling with an ADU (Detached) instead of the minimum required 2
parking spaces.
It should be noted that the design of the second storey addition to the accessory structure
proposed via A2024-090 is noticeably different than the second storey addition proposed
via the subject application to convert the accessory structure (detached garage) to an
Additional Dwelling Unit (Detached), as shown in Figures 2 and 3, below.
1
[1�i IGWGNTIOMWMklfOlCIIWb I
i
lL1t215-�L — I — — _ — — — — — — _
I
1 PROP. SOUTH ELEVATION FRO
A200 v. 41' i s
fvwt
h
Figure 2: South Elevation (Front) proposed via Application A2024-090.
Page 162 of 297
w C�N6.
smart
1
[1�i IGWGNTIOMWMklfOlCIIWb I
i
lL1t215-�L — I — — _ — — — — — — _
I
1 PROP. SOUTH ELEVATION FRO
A200 v. 41' i s
fvwt
h
Figure 2: South Elevation (Front) proposed via Application A2024-090.
Page 162 of 297
�l I�
I�
�
Ha!
�.
1
111111111111
=
1�
1111
1
[1�i IGWGNTIOMWMklfOlCIIWb I
i
lL1t215-�L — I — — _ — — — — — — _
I
1 PROP. SOUTH ELEVATION FRO
A200 v. 41' i s
fvwt
h
Figure 2: South Elevation (Front) proposed via Application A2024-090.
Page 162 of 297
E
r„ PROP. SIDWG FIN. TO
12
MATCHEMSTING —
2
U
E 2 E�T.34�ER4P.SE44LIQEL4M _ _ _ _
2 G la= EXISi,�091ILLHO_
O
7
PROP.SCVPPER fa
I /I
ry
1=1=11MM
EMI .. EO LINOATIGN W ALLTO REMAIN
1 PROP. SOUTH ELEVATION(FRONT)
A200 SCALE: 31a• -r-7
Figure 3: South Elevation (Front) proposed via Subject Application A2025-057.
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 2014 Official Plan contains several policies that are relevant to the subject application,
for example:
3.C.2.50. The planned function of Community Areas is to provide for residential
uses as well as non-residential supporting uses intended to serve the
immediate residential areas.
3.C.2.52. Limited intensification may be permitted within Community Areas in
accordance with the applicable land use designation on Map 3 and
the Urban Design Policies in Section 11. The proposed development
Page 163 of 297
PROP'. FLATROOF
j
—
_ — _ —
Y
_ - — — -
1
i
�•
1
1 �
1
11
—
PROP.SCIIPPER
Y
1 PROP. HATROOF
EMI .. EO LINOATIGN W ALLTO REMAIN
1 PROP. SOUTH ELEVATION(FRONT)
A200 SCALE: 31a• -r-7
Figure 3: South Elevation (Front) proposed via Subject Application A2025-057.
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 2014 Official Plan contains several policies that are relevant to the subject application,
for example:
3.C.2.50. The planned function of Community Areas is to provide for residential
uses as well as non-residential supporting uses intended to serve the
immediate residential areas.
3.C.2.52. Limited intensification may be permitted within Community Areas in
accordance with the applicable land use designation on Map 3 and
the Urban Design Policies in Section 11. The proposed development
Page 163 of 297
must be sensitive to and compatible with the character, form and
planned function of the surrounding context.
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:
a) Any new buildings and any additions and/or modifications to
existing buildings are appropriate in massing and scale and are
compatible with the built form and the community character of the
established neighbourhood and will have regard to Section 11 of
this Plan, the City's Urban Design Manual, and any site-specific
Urban Design Brief or Urban Design Report and Urban Design
Scorecard...
b) New additions and modifications to existing buildings are to be
directed to the rear yard and are to be discouraged in the front
yard and side yard abutting a street, except where it can be
demonstrated that the addition and/or modification is compatible in
scale, massing, design and character of adjacent properties and is
in keeping with the character of the streetscape.
c) New buildings, additions, modifications and conversions are
sensitive to the exterior areas of adjacent properties and that the
appropriate screening and/or buffering is provided to mitigate any
adverse impacts, particularly with respect to privacy.
d) 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.
e) 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.
4.C.1.10. Where appropriate, and without limiting opportunities for
intensification, the City will encourage and support the ongoing
maintenance and stability of existing housing stock in the city by:
a) supporting the reuse and adaption of the housing stock through
renovation, conversion and rehabilitation;
Page 164 of 297
4.C.1.23. The City may permit up to three additional dwelling units, attached
and/or detached, on a lot which contains a single detached dwelling, a
semi-detached dwelling or a street -townhouse dwelling as the
principal use, unless otherwise limited by the policies of this Plan, and
in accordance with the City's Zoning By-law, in order to provide
additional housing options to Kitchener homeowners and residents.
Additional dwelling units will be permitted as follows:...
b) The addition of up to two additional dwelling units (attached)
within a single detached dwelling, a semi-detached dwelling or
a street -townhouse dwelling and one additional dwelling unit
(detached); and...
Additional dwelling units (attached) and additional dwelling units
(detached) may be further regulated by the City's Zoning By-law.
4.C.1.24. The following criteria will be considered as the basis for permitting
additional dwelling unit(s) (detached):
a) The use is subordinate to the main dwelling on the lot;
b) The use can be integrated into its surroundings with negligible
visual impact to the streetscape;
c) The use is compatible in design and scale with the built form on
the lot and the surrounding residential neighbourhood in terms of
massing, height and visual appearance;
d) The site layout considers other requirements including servicing,
pedestrian and vehicular access, stormwater management,
grading and drainage, tree reservation, and provision of amenity
areas, landscaped buffers and visual screening; and,
e) Up to one parking space may be required for each Additional
Dwelling Unit.
13.C.8.4. All parking areas or facilities will be designed, constructed and
maintained:... b) for the safe and efficient movement of all users, on
the site, and at points of ingress and egress related to the site;
15.D.3.8. The Low Rise Residential land use designation will accommodate a
full range of low density housing types which may include single
detached dwellings, additional dwelling units, attached and detached,
semi-detached dwellings, street townhouse dwellings, townhouse
dwellings in a cluster development, low-rise multiple dwellings, special
needs housing, and other forms of low-rise housing.
In this regard, DHA staff is satisfied that the requested variances would facilitate the
establishment of an ADU (Detached) in the rear yard that is appropriate in massing and
Page 165 of 297
scale and that is compatible with the built form and the community character of the
established neighbourhood. The ADU (Detached) would be established within an existing
building and with a second storey addition that meets the above criteria. The existing
maintenance easement is in place will help to provide buffering to the abutting property.
The Official Plan permits the establishment of an ADU (Detached) on a property
containing a Single Detached Dwelling, such as this case. The proposed ADU (Detached)
would be subordinate to the principal dwelling and would be integrated into its
surroundings with negligible visual impact to the streetscape. Also, the ADU (Detached) is
compatible in design and scale with the built form on the lot and the surrounding
residential neighbourhood in terms of massing, height and visual appearance.
Despite 8 variances being requested, DHA staff is satisfied that the variances do not
compromise the site in achieving objectives of compatible and appropriate site design.
Transportation Services and Fire Services have commented that they are supportive of the
application, subject to conditions to allow enforcement of no parking in the area on the east
side of the dwelling where the driveway is shared with the walkway, including:
Signage prohibiting parking alongside the house in the walkway;
The driveway and walkway need to be implemented with separate material; and
A notice provision to future owners/occupants to maintain the walkway free of
vehicles.
In addition, Transportation Services has suggested the extension of the walkway treatment to
the west side of the parking space, to provide a more durable delineation of the parking
space and to identify an alternative walkway around the vehicle should the front of vehicle
overhang into the walkway. This has been incorporated in the recommended approval
conditions.
Staff is satisfied that the requested variances meet the general intent of the Official Plan.
General Intent of the Zoning By-law
Variances i), v), and vii).-
The
ii):The zoning requires a greater minimum lot width to permit a single detached dwelling with
an ADU (i.e., 10.5 metres) than for a single detached dwelling without an ADU (9.0
metres). The intent of the minimum lot width regulation is to ensure that all the facilities
and features required to support an Additional Dwelling Unit (Detached) can be provided,
such as the required 1.1 -metre -wide unobstructed walkway and an adequately sized
driveway. The intent of the unobstructed walkway regulation is to allow emergency
services personnel to access the ADU in the event of an emergency. The intent of the
minimum driveway width regulation is to ensure that a driveway is sufficiently sized to
allow the passage of a vehicle to a parking space.
In this case, the distance between the side of the principal dwelling and the side lot line is
3.2 metres. An existing window well consumes approximately 0.3 metres of this width,
while the proposed unobstructed walkway that is proposed consumes 1.1 metres of this
width. This leaves approximately 1.8 metres of width for a driveway. However, the
Page 166 of 297
minimum driveway width is 2.6 metres. To compensate for this 0.8 metre deficiency, the
applicant is requesting a variance to allow the walkway to be periodically (and partially)
obstructed by vehicles that are actively passing to and from a required parking space. The
only proposed on-site parking space is located directly in front of the proposed ADU
(Detached). The applicant has expressed agreement with DHA staff recommended
approval conditions to require 1) an agreement to be registered on title to prohibit parking
on the driveway and 2) "No Parking" signage along the driveway.
It should be noted that if there is non-compliance with the variance conditions,
enforcement can occur in accordance with the Zoning By-law. The City's By-law
Enforcement Division will be circulated on any approval conditions and will be able to
enforce the Zoning By-law by way of a ticket (charge) or by towing the
vehicle. Additionally, the approval conditions for this minor variance will be flagged in the
City's staff database.
With these conditions, DHA staff is satisfied that Variances i), v), and vii) meet the general
intent of the Zoning By-law.
Variances ii), iii), and iv), vi.-
The
i:The intent of regulations for ADUs (Detached) relative to maximum building height,
setback to the interior side lot line, setback to the principal dwelling, and maximum eaves
projection, is to ensure that an ADU is appropriate in massing and scale and is compatible
with the built form and the community character of the neighbourhood, and to ensure that
adequate buffering to the principal dwelling and abutting properties is provided.
The proposed ADU (Detached) has a flat roof design. ADUs with other roof styles / shapes
(i.e., hip, gable, shed, or gambrel roof, mansard) have a markedly higher minimum
building height (i.e., 4.5 metres vs 3 metres). The reason is that a flat roof maximizes
building bulk (and, therefore, potential impacts), whereas other roof styles / shapes have
reduced building bulk to varying degrees. Also, the minimum setback regulation applies to
ADUs (Detached) which exceed a building height of 4.5 metres. In this case, the ADU
(Detached) is proposed to have a height of 5.4 metres. However, it should be noted that
the existing detached garage is currently set back 0.1 metres. As part of the conversion of
the garage to an ADU (Detached), a second storey would be added. This second storey
would be set back approximately 1.3 metres from the side lot line. Accordingly, the side
yard variance is only required to legalize the existing setback, and is not required for the
proposed second storey. And, while a flat roof is proposed, massing / bulk directly
adjacent to the side yard is mitigated because of the increased second storey setback.
Regarding the requested relief from the minimum setback of the ADU (Detached) to the
principal dwelling, it should be noted that the existing detached garage that would be
converted into an ADU is already deficient, being set back 3.4 metres, rather than the
required 4 metres. In essence, the requested variance would legalize the existing
condition.
The variance for the maximum eaves projection would permit the eaves for the proposed
ADU (Detached) to encroach beyond the typical limits. However, the aforementioned
maintenance easement will permit the eaves, and side of the ADU (Detached) that is
closest to the applicable interior side lot line, to be legally maintained from the abutting
Page 167 of 297
property. This variance is only required to legalize the existing eaves projection, and is not
required for the proposed second storey.
DHA staff recommends a condition that the owner implement the plans attached to this
report. With conditions, DHA staff is satisfied that Variances ii), iii), and iv), vi meet the
general intent of the Zoning By-law.
Variance viii.-
Under
iii:
Under Table 5-1-1, the proposed ADU (Detached) is categorized within the column
entitled, Lands farther than 800 metres from a Light Rail Transit (LRT) Station as shown
on Appendix E, and outside the Central Neighbourhood Area (Appendix C). The minimum
number of parking spaces is 0.6 per ADU. The required minimum parking calculations are
as follows:
ADU (Detached): 0.6 x 1 = 0.6, rounded up to 1 space
Single Detached Dwelling (Principal Dwelling): 1 space
Total: 1 + 1 = 2 spaces
The applicant is requesting a reduction in parking from 2 spaces to 1 space. The intent of
the minimum parking requirements is to ensure that adequate on-site parking is provided,
to prevent excessive parking from spilling over onto the street. In this case, Transportation
Services has reviewed the requested parking reduction and has no concerns. The
applicant is advised that only one parking space is available on site. DHA staff
recommends conditions to ensure that parking will only occur in the delineated parking
space in front of the ADU (Detached) and that no parking occurs elsewhere on site. As
noted above, non-compliance will be acted upon by the City's By-law Enforcement
Division. With this condition, DHA staff satisfied that Variance viii) meets the general intent
of the Zoning By-law.
Are the Effects of the Variances Minor?
DHA staff is of the opinion that the requested variances are minor in that they are not
anticipated to cause unacceptably adverse impacts on adjacent properties or on the City's
right-of-way, as long as the recommended conditions are implemented.
Are the Variances Desirable For The Appropriate Development or Use of the Land, Building
and/or Structure?
DHA staff is of the opinion that the proposal is justified and will facilitate gentle residential
intensification to occur, in the form of an Additional Dwelling Unit (Detached), within an area
that permits such use. The ground floor of the ADU (Detached) already exists in the form of
an accessory building (detached garage) and a second storey addition that is set back 1.3
metres from the interior side lot line will be constructed. Several requested variances would
essentially legalize an existing condition.
Environmental Planning Comments:
There are no concerns as there are no natural heritage features/functions or trees subject
to the Tree Management Plan Policy on the subject property.
Heritage Planning Comments:
No heritage comments or concerns.
Page 168 of 297
Building Division Comments:
The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance provided a building permit
for the detached ADU is obtained prior to construction. Please contact the Building Division at
building(akitchener.ca with any questions.
Fire Services Comments:
For the no parking signs there should be one located at either side of the house facing the
laneway with the arrows indicating the area where no parking is allowed. That is the only
comment since we have learned they can enforce the no parking through conditions.
Engineering Division Comments:
No concerns.
Parks and Cemeteries/Forestry Division Comments:
There is an existing City -owned street tree within the boulevard on Wake Robin Cres. 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:
Transportation Services approval is contingent on the enforcement of No Parking in the
area on the east side of the dwelling where the driveway is shared with the walkway,
which is understood to be enforceable by City by-law enforcement through a conditional
variance.
This should include:
1. Signage prohibiting parking alongside the house in the walkway.
2. The driveway and walkway need to be implemented with separate material
3. A notice provision to future owners/occupants to maintain the walkway free of vehicles.
Transportation Services recommends the extension of the walkway treatment to the west
side of the parking space, to provide a more durable delineation of the parking space and to
identify an alternative walkway around the vehicle should the front of vehicle overhang into
the walkway.
Grand River Conservation Authority Comments:
No objections.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
This report supports the delivery of core services.
Page 169 of 297
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 Planning Statement (PPS 2024)
• Regional Official Plan
• Official Plan (2014)
• Zoning By-law 2019-051
• DSD -2024-476 regarding Minor Variance Application A2024-090
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - Drawings prepared by Perspective Views Architectural Design, dated May
13, 2025
Attachment B - Red -Line Revisions to Site Plan Drawing, prepared by Transportation
Services
Page 170 of 297
Attachment A - Drawings prepared by Perspective Views Architectural Design,
dated May 13, 2025
CONSULTANTS-
A AI DE<Ir ENfidEEB
PERSPERIYEVIEWS RORERTTAUNTON
DravAng Fist
APD covER a.
A]OL F NDATION ELAN
Alf@ FIRSTFLOORPLAN
A1W SECOND FLOOR PLAN
A1W ROOF PLAN
AWL EKI ST. S PROP. WESTELEVATIONS
AM FXIST.6PROP.MORTHELEVATIONS
AM EXISTS PROP. EASTELEVATIONS
AJ*1 CROSSSECTIONS
Page 171 of 297
TOREMAIN
�
L'
� mw•umw.minn
`
sT
i
9
EXIST.
•�T•
u
ETR.EE
HVVS
we
I ■
EXIST.
II
Q ,«.w.
SETBACKS'IU
REMAIN
INTER nEK A I
I
--
EX15T.
��
HATCHEDAREA
RE IUN BACKS To 4 -
•I
1
INDICATES PROP,
PAYERW KAImxNGA
CONVERT
IXIST.
BASEMENT
DASHEDLINE
WALKOUT
INDICATES EXIST
DWELLING
1
DECKTOR
REMOVED
UNIT
j
PROP, SAINTED
LINETDDELINEATE
PARNINGSPACE
-
EXIST.ACUNIT
�^ g
nR
_,..
_..
EX15T.GATETO
BE REMOVED
ENT
:T.VSANICAL
PROTECTION LESS
FA,
i1
THAN 12"
HATCHEDAREA
INDICATESPROP,
EXIST
iNTERLGCKING
"D WELL
PAYER WAD(WAY
EXIST-
33
EICCF L j
POT€HTIAL
METER]
LOCATIONTO
j
1
LOCATENO
EXIST.
PARKIINGSIGN
COVEREO
PORCH
j
.,;
I
EMST.WNDWELL
9
POTENTIAL
LOCATiONTO
1 SITE PIANIHTERLOCKINc
Y"`91d'-`a -
LCCATENC
A1G0
EXIST.
.
PARKINGSIGN
A.A
AREA
WAKE ROBIN CRESCENT
Page 171 of 297
1 EOIANGATION Ri.AIN INOCFWNGEI
11 EXI§T.FIRSTFLOOR
A102 u.ia arc o
RENOVATION MG—
E IFIFIGCGMOITRACTTO
PRIOR
N R
PRIOR TOC SWXTI FN
OFCONSTRVCTION
CONTRACTORTOYERIFY
LOCATION OFALL BEAMSANO
COLVMM BEFORE
sEE STRIICTIIRE GRAN9NG5
FLOORFRAMINGAND
PO NOATIONSPECIFUTICNS
Page 172 of 297
PROP -DFU-
MM
T-01�
2 -,.T�OFgtlOF
,194 - ..., v
Page 173 of 297
ELEVATION IrRONT)
A2 l
Page 174 of 297
Page 175 of 297
Page 176 of 297
Attachment B — Red -Line Revisions to Site Plan Drawing, prepared by
Transportation Services
D 63
'm �a
a�
z g -3
�m
� a :
�t I
m �+ 3aaom
A °�X zX pVOX X $ic oyX pNX zX �wX xX
o -
D O a y
AH ryi y y O y is Y y y a m ti m
7 7
z sn n. O z p
s .
_ oA
TMST. DRIVEWAY _ �•7
Pkv P -
.�N
D OOQ i< DOOCl) znnna=itim o �v,nnOnnztimn mA�x�a n�b nm
6 a< Z
0 ;0v °z,Oz
•
8Nm
xnmoo°� <oE";
�zpp
z O z 4� �Lz10n z o ti nm0 mXmLz10n 0 n�.
m
T P
(x71 �' p� ►0000
G BB
�N 2 g
rn
X m3
(� N
m
z A
q91 gin 11
t
Page 177 of 297
Region of Waterloo
June 11, 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 4A 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 June 17, City of Kitchener
Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and
have the following comments:
1)
A 2024 —
075 —
96 Wood Street — No Concerns
2)
A 2025 —
055 —
89 Matthew Street — No Concerns
3)
A 2025 —
056 —
9 Blucher Street — Region Staff have significant concerns
regarding the implementation of adequate crash protection measures along the
Waterloo Spur.
Region Staff require additional time to consider the application,
and request the application be deferred.
4)
A 2025 —
057 —
386 Wake Robin Cresent — No Concerns
5)
A 2025 —
058 —
175 Hoffman Street — No Concerns
6)
A 2025 —
059 —
22 Parkglen Street — No Concerns
7)
A 2025 —
060 —
181 Borden Aveune North — No Concerns
8)
A 2025 —
061 —
181 Borden Aveune North — 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 178 of 297
Please forward any decisions on the above-mentioned Application numbers to the
undersigned.
Yours Truly,
c71�",_ilUaw
Joshua Beech Falshaw
Transportation Planner
jbeechfalshaw@regionofwaterloo.ca
Document Number: 4976854
Page 179 of 297
June 2, 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 — June 17, 2025
Applications for Minor Variance
A 2024-075
96 Wood Street
A 2025-055
89 Matthew Street
A 2025-057
386 Wake Robin Crescent
A 2025-058
175 Hoffman Street
A 2025-059
22 Parkglen Street
A 2025-060
181 Borden Avenue North
A 2025-061
181 Borden Avenue North
Applications for Consent
B 2025-018 73 Second Avenue
B 2025-019 181 Borden Avenue North
B 2025-020 181 Borden Avenue North
via email
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-q rand 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 180 of 297
From:
Farah Farogue
To:
Committee of Adiustment (SM)
Cc:
Jenna Auger
Subject:
Kitchener Jun 17, 2025 Hearing
Date:
Thursday, May 29, 2025 2:43:38 PM
Attachments:
imaae001.ona
Afternoon Kitchener CofA,
Thank you for circulating the June17, 2025, Committee of Adjustments agenda for Kitchener. Please
be advised that all properties were found to be outside Metrolinx's designated review zones. As such,
we have no comments/concerns with the applications in this agenda.
Thankyou,
Farah Faroque (she/her)
Project Analyst, Adjacent Construction Review
Real Estate & Development
Metrolinx
20 Bay Street — Suite 600 1 Toronto I Ontario I M5J 2W3
T: 437.900.2291
=X: METROLINX
From: mail@sf-notifications.com <mail@sf-notifications.com>
Sent: May 23, 2025 10:45 AM
To: development.coordinator <development.coordinator@metrolinx.com>
Subject: Clerks CoK has shared the folder 'Committee of Adjustment - Applications' with you.
XTERNAL SENDER: Do not click any links or open any attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.
XPEDITEUR EXTERNE: Ne cliquez sur aucun lien et n'ouvrez aucune piece jointe a moins qu'ils ne proviennent d'un expediteur fiable,
)u que vous ayez I'assurance que Ie contenu provient d'une source sure.
Development,
Clerks CoK has shared the folder Committee of
Adjustment - Applications with you.
Page 181 of 297
Message from Clerks
Attached are the applications for the City of Kitchener
Committee of Adjustment meeting being held on June 17,
2025.
Please remember, your email address is your username to log
in. If you are unable to log in, select "Forgot my Password". For
those who comment regularly, your written report must be sent
to CofA@kitchener.ca no later than 12 noon on Monday, June
2, 2025.
You will need to download any files in this folder that you would
like to retain, as they will be deleted from this program when
the applications for the next month are circulated.
If you require any further assistance, please email
CofA@kitchener.ca.
Thank you.
Marilyn Mills, Legislated Services
Kitchener City Hall
Need help? We're here for you.
Visit sharefile.com/support and look for "Start chat."
I
This e-mail is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed. If you received
Page 182 of 297
this in error, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the e-mail together with any
attachments.
Page 183 of 297
From: Nembhard, O"Neil (MTO)
To: Committee of Adiustment (SM)
Subject: RE: Agenda - Committee of Adjustment - Tuesday, June 17, 2025
Date: Friday, June 6, 2025 3:11:13 PM
Attachments: imaoe001.ona
You don't often get email from o'neil.nembhard@ontario.ca. Learn why this is important
Good day,
Please see below MTO comments related to the June 17, 2025 Committee of
Adjustment Meeting.
1. The Ministry of Transportation (MTO) has no objection to this application. The
subject property is located beyond our limits of permit control and therefore
MTO review, approval and permits will not be required.
o A 2024-075 - 96 Wood Street
o A 2025-055 - 89 Matthew Street
o A 2025-057 - 386 Wake Robin Crescent
o A 2025-059 - 22 Parkglen Street
o B 2025-019, B 2025-020, A 2025-060 & A 2025-061 - 181 Borden Avenue
North
2. A 2025-058 - SP24/009/H/ES. 175 Hoffman Street - The subject property does
fall within MTO permit control area, however based on the modifications to site
proposed, MTO permits will not be required.
3. B 2025-018 - 73 Second Avenue- The subject property does fall within MTO
permit control area, however, based on the location in a buildup area, MTO
review, approval and permits will not be required.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments.
Regards,
O'Neil Nembhard
Corridor Management Planner I Operation West I Operations Division
Ministry of Transportation Ontario I Ontario Public Service
548-388-2571 1 o'neil.nembhard C_ontario.ca
Ontario 0
Taking pride in strengthening Ontario, its places and its people
Please note the Ministry no Ionizer accents Land Develooment review reauests thoueh its email
system. All Land Development Review requests to the Ministry must be submitted to the Ministry of
Transportation through the Highway Corridor Management Online portal at:
https://www.hcros.mto.gov.on.ca/
The Land Development Review module is designed to better serve stakeholders through
Page 184 of 297
streamlining all land development planning approvals by the Ministry.
From: Committee of Adjustment (SM) <CommitteeofAdjustment@kitchen er.ca>
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2025 11:55 AM
To: Committee of Adjustment (SM) <CommitteeofAdjustment@kitchen er.ca>
Subject: Agenda - Committee of Adjustment - Tuesday, June 17, 2025
CAUTION -- EXTERNAL E-MAIL - Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender.
Good morning,
The agenda for the June 17, 2025 Committee of Adjustment meeting is now available on our
Council/Committee calendar.
The combined agenda with reports will be posted to the meeting calendar by noon on Friday, June
13, 2025.
Connie Owen
Administrative Clerk I Legislated Services I City of Kitchener
519-904-1409 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 connie.owen(cbkitchener.ca
Page 185 of 297
From: Pui Ming Leung
To: Committee of Adiustment (SM)
Subject: COA, Kitchener
Date: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 11:37:04 AM
Attachments: 11111j)d
in
Sorry for my late response. I apologize for any inconvenience caused.
90 Wood ST- make sure to have clearance to primary cable on York St according to our
standard D11111 (attached here)
For all new service or upgrade, please send a request to Enova for hydro connection.
Thanks,
Pui Ming Leung (she/her) I Design Technologist
Direct Number: 226-896-2200 (EXT 6205)
Mobile Number: 519-589-2659
puiming. leunaQenovapower.com
301 Victoria Street South, Kitchener, Ontario, N2G 4L2
enovapower.com
121
This correspondence is directed in confidence solely to the addressees listed above. It may
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 notes the sender immediately. Click on the link to read the
additional disclaimer: https://enovapower.com/disclaimer
Page 186 of 297
N
O
n r Z U) 00
LU r�
J J O
` �
a O m
F2fzo WW U 0° zwp� ~ w d
W LL O w U 2 f Z z W O `J z
25, f7=f7 Cw ww 3a 3Uzf O
a 0 2 z¢ Z F> x> O H 2 K U Z
Q W H ❑ Z❑ w O H m J y O
_ ~ ~ ~l 3 O
Z W J
O� 7a O ON W R'K p W 'Ka O r�r^^ J Q
~ 1p y w m W C m O U U Q O Y 2 2> v/ U
3ovz ��� ow yv�¢ a �� New¢ o
w O= F 2 Q O W O N y ¢ Q H z0 F- O W- W N Z (� N
J LU
O a. K N W J W y a Z W C O ❑J F a a K N N
w W W O V W J OJ Z OF x O W W W w W Q N N w w
ma �� W, m0 vJ40 =O° Oxz FD Z O & O ``'
Q° O w v Q Q LL ? Z m W z z to U Q O Z 8 /
zu yrs w ' wo z Y
y> j m�� fxg2 Ola-~ U U r Hm a W z LU04
z¢� 'gym zF i¢w LL 0w ozoF i o O M
�aafn o°� �a yE> ❑m Owl -� o ¢LLJ
�i z �� ° U w¢ .2O=LL w w M
�FrEo _ov� �a ua a n� ozm°n ¢ ¢ U) s
¢aa(7 ~» mfwn.: �xQ h m� Um COO aai fail W w
N Z~ z m C 0 N J~ W N a = W Q j° F F Z W Z U (7
O 2ND w°z (°_�o oZm 3<w z yz 0i0os o°O o Z m 3
zo 0, y H (70� r W fn W w fgNUf/)F 7 7 Q 3
Z LLU W ¢w¢O ZNa K OO w 2N W KKLL'Z �� LNL m N VJ (7
O W S z N O O LL' K O U ❑ w F0 0 fn w W
LU
m¢�O N F U U m W O rnjH ¢ Q~= N~Om0 OUz 00 w Z Z Y O
r❑wz OOyU zaz wm0 >� UNO ZU(9>Z (J (_0 C) � Z
'^ Z�LLO Do a. x W W> w W O aN W =W °U� O W ZOZ N v Q U) W a J_
vJ ¢ W W F 0 j H W ¢ U J W Z ' O i- 2¢ O (7 K a a K (❑ ❑ L) Q LL
U U U ¢
w a 7 7 W X 0 0 N z > O m Q a =2> f � Z O 0 5
a 6¢O �CJa 9L F- °m W Z= Jf9w Zw ZOa - N
O O W W J 2 F Z W O H m W O J 0 0 a 0¢ O J O x x
zf�U arn�._ z3a NUU U> Uam UU Nm 4 O 2 z
Z � N of a �n fo r � ;ry � � 3
T'yQ6/ �i� Wfn W�
S x
a £
s°
Cys l >O n N z rc
�aa
K 6 w O K O a
T pp N
w
3 0 orb'
ISL
0 le
cC U
LD f — Q w a z A
m
U w r N N
a U W \ W
a r ¢
a\
N z \
o \
U
Z -
Z W
O - ~
At O
e
e
F
\ NZ \.
\ T
~ / W
U W
N O
z Z
� LL
r
H
O
J
a
the property owner of
(first name) (last name)
declare that I have seen the
(address)
proposed architectural drawings completed by Perspective Views Inc, dated
August 19th, 2624, converting existing garage to a 2 -storey accessory dwelling
unit, at 386 Wake Robin Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario.
This letter is to state that I have reviewed and understand the proposed
architectural drawings, and I have no concerns or objections with this proposal.
Thank you,
Signature
Date
Page 188 of 297
Lan d'e � � the property owner of
(first name) (last name)_.
declare that I have seen the
(address)
proposed architectural drawings completed by Perspective Views Inc, dated
August 19th, 2024, converting existing garage to a 2 -storey accessory dwelling
unit, at 386 Wake Robin Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario,
This letter is to state that I have reviewed and understand the proposed
architectural drawings, and I have no concerns or objections with this proposal,
Thank you,
Date
061
Page 189 of 297
I �,ekrb k the property owner of
ffire4 nim^) � Ilact nnmPl
declare that I have seen the
(address)
proposed architectural drawings completed by Perspective Views Inc, dated
August 19th, 2024, converting existing garage to a 2 -storey accessory dwelling
unit, at 380 Wake Robin Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario.
This letter is to state that I have reviewed and understand the proposed
architectural drawings, and I have no concerns or Objections with this proposal.
Thank you,
Signature
Date
i
Page 190 of 297
I L4 7 r ), k7e01- the property owner of
(first name) (last name)
declare that I have seen the
(address)
proposed architectural drawings completed by Perspective Views Inc, dated
August 19th, 2024, converting existing garage to a 2 -storey accessory dwelling
unit, at 386 Wake Robin Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario,
This letter is to state that I have reviewed and understand the proposed
architectural drawings, and I have no concerns or objections with this proposal.
Thank you,
Signature
z lir
Date
Page 191 of 297
the property owner of
(first name) (la name)
declare that I have seen the
(address)
proposed architectural drawings completed by Perspective Views Inc, dated
August 19tH, 2024, converting existing garage to a 2 -storey accessory dwelling
unit, at 385 Wake Robin Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario.
This letter is to state that I have reviewed and understand the proposed
architectural drawings, and I have no concerns or objections with this proposal.
Thank you,
I� a 2`
Date
y
Page 192 of 297
I 02:�2 I A5 the property owner of
(first name) t name)
declare that I have seen the
(address)
proposed architectural drawings completed by Perspective Views Inc, dated
August 19th, 2024, converting existing garage to a 2 -storey accessory dwelling
unit, at 386 Wake Robin Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario.
This letter is to state that I have reviewed and understand the proposed
architectural drawings, and I have no concerns or objections with this proposal.
Thank you,
170 Z `
Date
Page 193 of 297
t�nU RWTV
(first name)
(address)
'CTA14H
(last name)
the property owner of
declare that. I have seen the
proposed architectural drawings completed by Perspective Views Inc, dated
August 19th, 2024, converting existing garage to a 2 -storey accessory dwelling
unit, at 386 Wake Robin Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario,
This letter is to state that I have reviewed and understand the proposed
architectural drawings, and I have no concerns or objections with this proposal.
Thank you,
Cate
rA
Page 194 of 297
_�'A LMS AUL- the property owner of
(Mi nems) (last nerre)
declare that I have seen the
(addrem)
proposed architectural drawings completed by perspectNm Views Inc, dated
August 19th, 2024, converting existing garage to a 2 -storey accessory dwelling
unit, at 386 Wake Robin Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario.
This letter Is to state that I have reviewed and understand the proposed
architectural drawings, and I have no concerns or objections with this proposal
Thank you,
` y
Debs
930 iLO191ne 140-YA
I t IiA ]z ,`C, c4e-4^ the property owner of
(first name) (last name)
n
Pec are that I have seen the
(address)
proposed architectural drawings completed by Perspective Views Inc, dated
August 19th, 2024, converting existing garage to a 2 -storey accessory dwelling
unit, at 386 Wake Robin Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario.
This letter is to state that I have reviewed and understand the proposed
architectural drawings, and I have no concerns or objections with this proposal.
Thank you,
Date l
Page 196 of 297
l
10 V -the property owner of
(first name) (last name)
declare that I have seen the
(address)
proposed architectural drawings completed by Perspective Views Inc, dated
August 19th, 2324, converting existing garage to a 2 -storey accessory dwelling
unit, at 388 Wake Robin Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario.
This letter is to state that I have reviewed and understand the proposed
architectural drawings, and I have no concerns or objections with this proposal.
Thank you,
Page 197 of 297
I r r Cl � , . the property ovffMr of
(first name) (last na e)
declare that I have seen the
(address)
proposed architectural drawings completed by Perspective Views Inc, dated
August 19th, 2024, converting existing garage to a 2 -storey accessory dwelling
unit, at 386 Wake Robin Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario.
This letter is to state that I have reviewed and understand the proposed
architectural drawings, and I have no concerns or objections with this proposal.
Thank you,
�IA 5el 20zp
Date
11
Page 198 of 297
k S the property owner of
(first name) (last name)
declare that I have seen the
(address)
proposed architectural drawings completed by Perspective Views Inc, dated
August 19th, 2024, converting existing garage to a 2 -storey accessory dwelling
unit, at 386 Waite Robin Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario.
This letter is to state that I have reviewed and understand the proposed
architectural drawings, and I have no concerns or objections with this proposal.
Thank you,
S�4�
Date
iM
Page 199 of 297
13
I 'C�t l/y'j L the property owner of
_ � U1 _ p p Y
(first namel (last name]
declare that I have seen the
(address)
proposed architectural drawings completed by Perspective Views Inc, dated
August 19th, 2024, converting existing garage to a 2 -storey accessory dwelling
unit, at 386 Wake Robin Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario.
This letter is to state that I have reviewed and understand the proposed
architectural drawings, and I have no concerns or objections with this proposal.
Thank you,
Page 200 of 297
I Lp _ the property owner of
(first name) (last name)
declare that I have seen the
(address)
proposed architectural drawings completed by Perspective Views Inc, dated
August 19th, 2024, converting existing garage to a 2 -storey accessory dwelling
unit, at 366 Wake Robin Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario,
This letter is to state that I have reviewed and understand the proposed
architectural drawings, and I have no concerns or objections with this proposal.
Thank you,
LQ�` 01? -
Date
14
Page 201 of 297
the property owner of
(W name) (lot name)
declare that i have seen the
(addrese)
proposed archftectural drawings completed by Perspective Views Inc, dated
August 191h, 2024, converting existing garage to a 2 -storey accessary dweVing
unit, at 386 Wake Robin Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario.
This letter is to state that I have reviewed and understand the proposed
architectural drawings, and I have no concerns or objections with this proposal.
" _9
Date
W-1
Page 202 of 297
A
Page 203 0 297
V)
�
a
■
0
ƒ
2
A
«
3:7
o2
C
C
tf
m
2
0
CD
u
CLCL
M>
$
7
7
2
U
k
6
-E
2
E
Q
E
\
o
E
CD
2
c
4)
\
\
%
2
E
C:
2
>
2
�
2
c
CCD
@
®
c
k
2
m
2
c
C4
#
m
w
Go
e
ID
Ln
L
w
-x
@
q
cn
—
—
2
c
@
2
CL
0
«
'
2
Page 203 0 297
(first name)
(address)
the property owner of
(last name)
declare that I have seen the
proposed architectural drawings completed by Perspective Views Inc, dated
August 19th, 2024, converting existing garage to a 2 -storey accessory dwelling
unit, at 386 Wake Robin Crescent, Kitchener, {Ontario.
This letter is to state that I have reviewed and understand the proposed
architectural drawings, and I have no concerns or objections with this proposal.
Thank you,
Date
17
Page 204 of 297
I �� f►,l Y( I 'T Me �u A the property owner of
(first name) (last name)
declare that I have seen the
(address)
proposed architectural drawings completed by Perspective Views Inc, dated
August 19th, 2024, converting existing garage to a 2 -storey accessary dwelling
unit, at 386 Wake Robin Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario.
This letter is to state that I have reviewed and understand the proposed
architectural drawings, and I have no concerns or objections with this proposal.
Thank you,
iE:
SES v z°)-,
Date
Page 205 of 297
Md
h the property owner of
(first name) (last name)
(address)
declare that I have seen the
proposed architectural drawings completed by Perspective Views Inc, dated
August 19th, 2024, converting existing garage to a 2 -storey accessory dwelling
unit, at 386 Wake Robin Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario.
This letter is to state that I have reviewed and understand the proposed
architectural drawings, and I have no concerns or objections with this proposal,
Thank you,
710�
Date
`&7
Page 206 of 297
- \ � I -� p-r"N J OW S �4 the property owner of
(first n mel haat namal
declare that I have seen the
(address)
proposed architectural drawings completed by Perspective Views Inc, dated
May 01st, 2025, converting existing garage to a 2 -storey accessory dwelling unit,
at 386 Wake Rabin Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario.
This letter is to state that I have reviewed and understand the proposed
architectural drawings, and I have no concerns or objections with this proposal.
Thank you,
Date
New owner
Page 207 of 297
Staff Report
r
JR
Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca
REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment
DATE OF MEETING: June 17, 2025
SUBMITTED BY: Tina Malone -Wright, Manager, Development Approvals
519-783-8913
PREPARED BY: Jade McGowan, Student Planner, 519-707-4759
WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 9
DATE OF REPORT: June 4, 2025
REPORT NO.: DSD -2025-259
SUBJECT: Minor Variance Application A2025-058 —175 Hoffman Street
RECOMMENDATION:
That Minor Variance Application A2025-058 for 175 Hoffman Street requesting relief
from Section 4.14.2 (b) of Zoning By-law 2019-051, to permit balconies to project 1.5
metres with columns supported by the ground instead of being unsupported by the
ground as required, generally in accordance with drawings prepared by Schickler
Design, dated April 21, 2025, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition:
That the Owner shall submit an updated Stamp Plan B Site Plan Application or
update Site Plan Application SP24/009/H/ES, to the satisfaction of the City's
Manager of Site Plans.
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS:
• The purpose of this report is to review and make a recommendation with respect to a
Minor Variance Application to facilitate the construction of balconies in the eastern
interior side yard of an existing multiple dwelling at 175 Hoffman Street.
• The key finding of this report is that the requested variance meets the 4 tests of the
Planning Act
• 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.
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
Page 208 of 297
BACKGROUND:
The subject property is located on the south side of Hoffman Street between Southdale
Avenue and Kehl Street. The subject lands are adjacent to Queen Elizabeth Public
School.
WI_ 7
PI
000
Asp
:■
9
40
Figure 1: Location Map
The subject property is identified as a `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.
The property is zoned `Low Rise Residential Five Zone (RES -5)' in Zoning By-law 2019-
051.
The 3 storey multiple dwelling building was recently converted from 8 dwelling units to 14
dwelling units within the interior of the existing building in accordance with Site Plan
Application SP24/009/H/ES. As a condition of the Site Plan Application, a minor variance
application (A2024-058) was approved August 20th, 2024, permitting a parking
requirement of 9 parking spaces (0.64 parking spaces per dwelling unit) instead of the
minimum required 14 parking spaces (1.0 parking space per dwelling unit).
The purpose of the application is to facilitate the construction of balconies projecting in the
eastern interior side yard of an existing multiple dwelling, providing additional amenity
space to residents. Section 4.14.2 (b) permits balconies associated with dwelling units to
project into any required yard, provided they are not supported by the ground. A minor
variance is required to allow the balconies to project into a required yard and be supported
by the ground. The proposed balconies project 1.5 metres into the eastern interior side
yard, which has an existing setback of 2.9 metre, where a 3.0 metre setback is required.
The applicant has stated that structural requirements for cantilevered balconies (not
supported by the ground) are not feasible due to structural limitations of the existing
building..
Page 209 of 297
W
NC. CUM
PMP05E0 GALCONIES.ZIL 20104514142 d ADIACEN
UNENCLOSED, SUPPOfuEDgN GNGIMB
4a
�g a
NMSCAPEBAAEAin
OrcT
1008
1
�
ExrG.IANBscnPMAREA
' I
CLASG'A'NCYIE
PARKING PLO EER)
EXISTING 3 -STOREY
MULTIPLE DWELLING
b�
W
UNITS EXISTING, 14 UNITS PROPOSE)
REQUIRED M TYAr
SETBACK.®lapel
G
IS
CTAGS'B'GficI
PARKING. I2HOOPSI
t
FATG.
AETAININGWAIL
HPRPSCA
SIUEWAL
8
DVT EXTO. CONCAEfE
I
-----------------------------
b
NTIALZONE
I
EATGCHAINLINNFENCEBMRIMIREE 1.&n H. VISUALBAPAIEFlFENpNG PICNICTI EFOR
r OUTBOOR AMENITY
5992dm 1
N 25' 3P P'W 59.926.
ADWCM INK NUTML ZONE (QUEEN
EU BEIM PMUC SOHO Q
uxoscAPED
R R R R I^ AMA
iT+� RT1t� II9ITT�9 PSITIs�
I ° SNOW SFOINGE
�TYPf'A'HAPoIIER FAEE I
PAflKING SPACE I
EEgUTAEB REAA YAM
BEIBACI(]50I9� b
-PT-0VATE GAMAGEPICK NP I -
II �
EKTG. CNANLINK
FENCE
E%TTOIF REL IEDAOE J g
TO IF REPIACM I
La ---------------------------------------
O
Figure 2: Proposed Site Plan
Figure 3: Street View of Existing Multiple Dwelling
A site visit was completed by Staff on May 30th, 2025.
Page 210 of 297
T F
UlE
J TM F FL
,,.n r T 1 T
T F R
hl1V��am�
f-�'1' 6r. Y¢ra imN
b 1
� SIT •'¶
T'" -Fc:: L-,
R .T rL
R4EHE': - E ` x v r.
TCP OF CONC.
-]4
E E- T ELE P :`
.LE = -
---------------------------
E iH ELE -71
LLE - -
Figure 4: Proposed Elevations & Balcony Projections
FJ
11
Page 211 of 297
E TET
::CHEM,, IT
LE' E.T- 1
I EU0 P.7 THE
'T - I LI
'E mz El
EFE E�
T "E + T I' F
I- El
E :.HE T I'
E -TE - E-
HE IE - E I
E,. - -TE - E-
E T E�IE
N7- T E
IL 1 T F TI
E ,TI
.1 4LL E E
T E E E
7RE4TE
a ALL F= TE -.E T
E I '.
kECh T=.T
HE -E E
EE -' F EI
- T E -
'I HI H
T F
UlE
J TM F FL
,,.n r T 1 T
T F R
hl1V��am�
f-�'1' 6r. Y¢ra imN
b 1
� SIT •'¶
T'" -Fc:: L-,
R .T rL
R4EHE': - E ` x v r.
TCP OF CONC.
-]4
E E- T ELE P :`
.LE = -
---------------------------
E iH ELE -71
LLE - -
Figure 4: Proposed Elevations & Balcony Projections
FJ
11
Page 211 of 297
Figure 5: Eastern Side Yard (location of proposed balconies)
Figure 6: Street View of Neighbouring Properties to the East
Page 212 of 297
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 subject property is designated `Low Rise Residential' in the Official Plan. The intent of
the Low Rise Residential land use designation is to accommodate a full range of low
density housing types, including the existing multiple dwelling use. The Low Rise
Residential designation encourages the mixing and integrating of different forms of
housing to achieve and maintain a low rise built form. Section 15.D.3.4 of the Official Plan
also provides direction that additions and/or modifications to existing residential buildings
in predominantly low density neighbourhoods should be compatible with and respect the
massing, scale, design and physical character of the established neighbourhood and have
both appropriate landscaped areas and parking areas provided on site.
The requested variance to facilitate the construction of balconies supported by the ground
maintains a low-rise form of development and is compatible with the neighbourhood scale
and design. Therefore, Planning Staff are of the opinion that the proposed variance
maintains the general intent of the Official Plan.
General Intent of the Zoning By-law
The intent of restricting ground -supported balconies to project into required yards is to
maintain open and unobstructed yards, ensure adequate sightlines and separation
between buildings and adjacent properties, protect sightlines, and minimize the visual
massing of structures. In this case, the existing eastern interior side yard is already limited
in size and usability. The proposed balconies are modest in scale and design, with
columns that do not create a negative impact and do not create a significant massing
effect as per the elevation drawing (Figure 4). The proposed balconies will provide a
functional outdoor amenity space that is compatible with the residential character of the
neighbourhood, as the nearby multiple dwelling at 165 Hoffman Street also has balconies
supported by the ground that appear to project into the western interior side yard (Figure
6). In addition, the privacy concerns will be mitigated as the balconies are oriented towards
a driveway, which will create additional buffer on the abutting property to the east.
Therefore, Planning Staff are of the opinion that the proposed variance maintains the
general intent of the Zoning By-law.
Is/Are the Effects of the Variance(s) Minor?
The proposed balconies project 1.5 metres into the required interior side yard and will
maintain a setback of 1.3 metres from the side lot line, providing an adequate buffer to
minimize impacts on the adjacent property. The proposed balconies will occupy a small
portion of the side elevation, which will not create a major impact on the abutting lot. The
balconies are supported with small columns that do not create a major obstruction,
ensuring that the overall massing and functionality of the side yard remain largely
unaffected. Therefore, Planning Staff are of the opinion that the effects of the requested
variance are minor in nature.
Page 213 of 297
Is/Are the Variance(s) Desirable For The Appropriate Development or Use of the Land,
Building and/or Structure?
The proposed balconies will provide additional amenity space for the new units within the
existing multiple dwelling. As such, Planning Staff are of the opinion that the requested
variance is desirable and appropriate for the development of the lands.
Environmental Planning Comments:
No comments.
Heritage Planning Comments:
No comments or concerns.
Building Division Comments:
The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance. A Building Permit has
been issued for the interior renovations to the existing apartment building.
Engineering Division Comments:
No concerns.
Parks/Operations Division Comments:
Parkland dedication is not required for this application as it has been satisfied though the
Site Plan Application Process. Parkland dedication of $22,980.00 was received January
17, 2025.
There is an existing City -owned street tree located on Hoffman St that should be protected
in place throughout all construction. A Tree Protection and Enhancement Plan (TPEP) and
Arborist's Report is required showing tree protection fencing to City standards, please see
Urban Design Manual Part C, Section 13 and www.kitchener.ca/treemanagement. A
valuation of the existing tree should be included in the Arborist Report. 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 comments.
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
Page 214 of 297
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 Planning Statement (PPS 2024)
• Regional Official Plan
• Official Plan (2014)
• Zoning By-law 2019-051
• SP24/009/H/ES
• DSD -2024-362
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A — Proposed Site Plan
Attachment B — Proposed Elevations
Page 215 of 297
Region of Waterloo
June 11, 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 4A 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 June 17, City of Kitchener
Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and
have the following comments:
1)
A 2024 —
075 —
96 Wood Street — No Concerns
2)
A 2025 —
055 —
89 Matthew Street — No Concerns
3)
A 2025 —
056 —
9 Blucher Street — Region Staff have significant concerns
regarding the implementation of adequate crash protection measures along the
Waterloo Spur.
Region Staff require additional time to consider the application,
and request the application be deferred.
4)
A 2025 —
057 —
386 Wake Robin Cresent — No Concerns
5)
A 2025 —
058 —
175 Hoffman Street — No Concerns
6)
A 2025 —
059 —
22 Parkglen Street — No Concerns
7)
A 2025 —
060 —
181 Borden Aveune North — No Concerns
8)
A 2025 —
061 —
181 Borden Aveune North — 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 216 of 297
Please forward any decisions on the above-mentioned Application numbers to the
undersigned.
Yours Truly,
c71�",_ilUaw
Joshua Beech Falshaw
Transportation Planner
jbeechfalshaw@regionofwaterloo.ca
Document Number: 4976854
Page 217 of 297
June 2, 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 — June 17, 2025
Applications for Minor Variance
A 2024-075
96 Wood Street
A 2025-055
89 Matthew Street
A 2025-057
386 Wake Robin Crescent
A 2025-058
175 Hoffman Street
A 2025-059
22 Parkglen Street
A 2025-060
181 Borden Avenue North
A 2025-061
181 Borden Avenue North
Applications for Consent
B 2025-018 73 Second Avenue
B 2025-019 181 Borden Avenue North
B 2025-020 181 Borden Avenue North
via email
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-q rand 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 218 of 297
From:
Farah Farogue
To:
Committee of Adiustment (SM)
Cc:
Jenna Auger
Subject:
Kitchener Jun 17, 2025 Hearing
Date:
Thursday, May 29, 2025 2:43:38 PM
Attachments:
imaae001.ona
Afternoon Kitchener CofA,
Thank you for circulating the June17, 2025, Committee of Adjustments agenda for Kitchener. Please
be advised that all properties were found to be outside Metrolinx's designated review zones. As such,
we have no comments/concerns with the applications in this agenda.
Thankyou,
Farah Faroque (she/her)
Project Analyst, Adjacent Construction Review
Real Estate & Development
Metrolinx
20 Bay Street — Suite 600 1 Toronto I Ontario I M5J 2W3
T: 437.900.2291
=X: METROLINX
From: mail@sf-notifications.com <mail@sf-notifications.com>
Sent: May 23, 2025 10:45 AM
To: development.coordinator <development.coordinator@metrolinx.com>
Subject: Clerks CoK has shared the folder 'Committee of Adjustment - Applications' with you.
XTERNAL SENDER: Do not click any links or open any attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.
XPEDITEUR EXTERNE: Ne cliquez sur aucun lien et n'ouvrez aucune piece jointe a moins qu'ils ne proviennent d'un expediteur fiable,
)u que vous ayez I'assurance que Ie contenu provient d'une source sure.
Development,
Clerks CoK has shared the folder Committee of
Adjustment - Applications with you.
Page 219 of 297
Message from Clerks
Attached are the applications for the City of Kitchener
Committee of Adjustment meeting being held on June 17,
2025.
Please remember, your email address is your username to log
in. If you are unable to log in, select "Forgot my Password". For
those who comment regularly, your written report must be sent
to CofA@kitchener.ca no later than 12 noon on Monday, June
2, 2025.
You will need to download any files in this folder that you would
like to retain, as they will be deleted from this program when
the applications for the next month are circulated.
If you require any further assistance, please email
CofA@kitchener.ca.
Thank you.
Marilyn Mills, Legislated Services
Kitchener City Hall
Need help? We're here for you.
Visit sharefile.com/support and look for "Start chat."
I
This e-mail is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed. If you received
Page 220 of 297
this in error, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the e-mail together with any
attachments.
Page 221 of 297
From: Nembhard, O"Neil (MTO)
To: Committee of Adiustment (SM)
Subject: RE: Agenda - Committee of Adjustment - Tuesday, June 17, 2025
Date: Friday, June 6, 2025 3:11:13 PM
Attachments: imaoe001.ona
You don't often get email from o'neil.nembhard@ontario.ca. Learn why this is important
Good day,
Please see below MTO comments related to the June 17, 2025 Committee of
Adjustment Meeting.
1. The Ministry of Transportation (MTO) has no objection to this application. The
subject property is located beyond our limits of permit control and therefore
MTO review, approval and permits will not be required.
o A 2024-075 - 96 Wood Street
o A 2025-055 - 89 Matthew Street
o A 2025-057 - 386 Wake Robin Crescent
o A 2025-059 - 22 Parkglen Street
o B 2025-019, B 2025-020, A 2025-060 & A 2025-061 - 181 Borden Avenue
North
2. A 2025-058 - SP24/009/H/ES. 175 Hoffman Street - The subject property does
fall within MTO permit control area, however based on the modifications to site
proposed, MTO permits will not be required.
3. B 2025-018 - 73 Second Avenue- The subject property does fall within MTO
permit control area, however, based on the location in a buildup area, MTO
review, approval and permits will not be required.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments.
Regards,
O'Neil Nembhard
Corridor Management Planner I Operation West I Operations Division
Ministry of Transportation Ontario I Ontario Public Service
548-388-2571 1 o'neil.nembhard C_ontario.ca
Ontario 0
Taking pride in strengthening Ontario, its places and its people
Please note the Ministry no Ionizer accents Land Develooment review reauests thoueh its email
system. All Land Development Review requests to the Ministry must be submitted to the Ministry of
Transportation through the Highway Corridor Management Online portal at:
https://www.hcros.mto.gov.on.ca/
The Land Development Review module is designed to better serve stakeholders through
Page 222 of 297
streamlining all land development planning approvals by the Ministry.
From: Committee of Adjustment (SM) <CommitteeofAdjustment@kitchen er.ca>
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2025 11:55 AM
To: Committee of Adjustment (SM) <CommitteeofAdjustment@kitchen er.ca>
Subject: Agenda - Committee of Adjustment - Tuesday, June 17, 2025
CAUTION -- EXTERNAL E-MAIL - Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender.
Good morning,
The agenda for the June 17, 2025 Committee of Adjustment meeting is now available on our
Council/Committee calendar.
The combined agenda with reports will be posted to the meeting calendar by noon on Friday, June
13, 2025.
Connie Owen
Administrative Clerk I Legislated Services I City of Kitchener
519-904-1409 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 connie.owen(cbkitchener.ca
Page 223 of 297
From: Pui Ming Leung
To: Committee of Adiustment (SM)
Subject: COA, Kitchener
Date: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 11:37:04 AM
Attachments: 11111j)d
in
Sorry for my late response. I apologize for any inconvenience caused.
90 Wood ST- make sure to have clearance to primary cable on York St according to our
standard D11111 (attached here)
For all new service or upgrade, please send a request to Enova for hydro connection.
Thanks,
Pui Ming Leung (she/her) I Design Technologist
Direct Number: 226-896-2200 (EXT 6205)
Mobile Number: 519-589-2659
puiming. leunaQenovapower.com
301 Victoria Street South, Kitchener, Ontario, N2G 4L2
enovapower.com
121
This correspondence is directed in confidence solely to the addressees listed above. It may
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 notes the sender immediately. Click on the link to read the
additional disclaimer: https://enovapower.com/disclaimer
Page 224 of 297
N
O
r r N
rr U)LO
N
ifri �fri LU � N
f>)
a p m
F2mo wW U 0° zwp� ~ w d
W a O w U 2 f Z 2 W O`J z
25, o=p =w w3a 3wzr o
a 0 2 Z Q Z F> x>w OH 2 K U z
O H m
Q W H ❑ Z❑ w J y O
_ ~ ~ ~l 3 O
Z W J
O
1.21.
a O p N w m m
�
p1y W 'Yzv^
p2U U Q O N2> U
oy¢ovz w H �w¢� w=p WOZ J
Q
(� N
J Om mfn W J W yaz W mp ❑LU
JFQa m N N
w W W O V W> J OJ z OF x O W W W m W O Q N N w w
ma �� W, m0 F =O° Uxz FD Z p & O ``'
Q° O w v Q Q LL ? z m W z z to U Q m O Z /
zu yrs w ' wo z Y
y> j mow fxgZ Ola-~ U U r �m C7 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 (°_�o .0 Z, 3<w z yz 0i0os o°p o Z m 3
zo 0, Y H f70> r W wo w w fgNUf/)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 a' K O U ❑ w F0 0 fn w W
LU
- OUz OU w OJQ(N
Z
❑ O O y o >� O Zmm NOQ(9> U) W a
xwW= O 6ZW GzV
ZUOmUQ J
U) ¢ W O ] ❑ L) l_L¢ W W F jH aa v,
mLLO O W W UW
wm 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 — Aw a Z a
m
U w r N N
7 U 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
Staff Report
r
J R
Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca
REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment
DATE OF MEETING: June 17, 2025
SUBMITTED BY: Tina Malone -Wright, Manager, Development Approvals
519-783-8913
PREPARED BY: Jade McGowan, Student Planner, 519-707-4759
WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 5
DATE OF REPORT: June 4, 2025
REPORT NO.: DSD -2025-267
SUBJECT: Minor Variance Application A2025-059 — 22 Parkglen Street
RECOMMENDATION:
That Minor Variance Application A2025-059 for 22 Parkglen Street requesting relief
from Special Regulation Provision 605R of Zoning By-law 85-1, to permit a rear yard
setback of 2.6 metres instead of the minimum 7 metres, to facilitate a sunroom
addition to the existing detached dwelling, generally in accordance with drawings
prepared by KS Group of Designers Inc., dated February 2025, BE APPROVED.
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS:
• The purpose of this report is review and make a recommendation with respect to the
Minor Variance Application to facilitate the construction of a sunroom addition in the
rear yard of 22 Parkglen Street.
• The key finding of this report is that the requested variance meets the 4 tests of the
Planning Act
• 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 northeastern side of Parkglen Street between
Amand Drive and Seabrook Drive, in the Rosenburg neighbourhood.
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
Page 226 of 297
Figure 1: Location Map
The subject property is identified as `Neighbourhood Area' on Map 22a — Rosenberg
Community Structure Plan and is designated `Low Density Residential One' on Map 22e —
Rosenberg Secondary Plan Land Use Plan.
The property is zoned `Residential Four Zone (R-4) with Special Regulation Provisions
604R, 605R, 612R' in Zoning By-law 85-1.
The purpose of the application is to facilitate the construction of a sunroom addition to the
existing dwelling in the rear yard. The proposed sunroom would be in the location of an
existing deck and will provide additional amenity space. A minor variance is required to
allow a rear yard setback of 2.6 metres where 7 metres is required.
Page 227 of 297
Figure 2: Proposed Site Plan
Figure 3: Street View of Existing Detached Dwelling
A site visit was completed by Staff on May 30th, 2025.
Page 228 of 297
Figure 4: View of Existing Deck in Rear Yard
Figure 5: Woodlot Abutting Rear Yard to the Northeast
Page 229 of 297
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 subject property is designated as `Low Density Residential One' in the City's
Rosenberg Secondary Plan. The intent of this designation is to encourage a range of
different housing to achieve a low rise built form in the neighbourhood. The proposed rear
yard addition for a sunroom is a natural extension of the existing detached dwelling and
will still be used for amenity area in the form of indoor rather than outdoor amenity area.
Therefore, Planning Staff's are of the opinion that the requested variance maintains the
general intent of the Official Plan.
General Intent of the Zoning By-law
The subject property is zoned `R-4 Zone, 604R, 605R, 612R' in Zoning By-law 85-1.
Special Regulation Provision 605R states that notwithstanding Section 38.2.1 of the By-
law, the minimum required rear yard setback for a single detached dwelling in the R-4
zone is 7 metres. The rear yard setback of the proposed addition is 2.6 metres,
representing a variance of 4.4 metres.
The intent of the Zoning By-law rear yard setback regulation is to provide a sufficient
amenity area and privacy from neighbouring dwellings. Due to the irregular shape of the
property as shown in Figure 2, it is Staff's opinion that sufficient amenity area for the
dwelling will still be provided in the northwest area of the rear yard. The proposed sunroom
will also function as an indoor amenity area for residents. In addition, Staff do not
anticipate any privacy concerns as the subject property abuts Williamsburg Woods South,
part of the Williamsburg Cemetery, in the rear (Figure 5). Therefore, Planning Staff are of
the opinion that the requested variance maintains the general intent of the Zoning By-law.
Is/Are the Effects of the Variance(s) Minor?
The proposed sunroom addition will be in the location of an existing deck and will
generally maintain the same footprint. Staff do not anticipate any significant or adverse
impacts resulting from the new addition and proposed reduced rear yard setback.
Therefore, Planning Staff are of the opinion that the effects of the requested variance are
minor in nature.
Is/Are the Variance(s) Desirable For The Appropriate Development or Use of the Land,
Building and/or Structure?
The proposed sunroom addition will provide additional interior amenity space for the
existing dwelling. Therefore, Planning Staff are of the opinion that the requested variance
is desirable and appropriate for the use of the land.
Environmental Planning Comments:
No comments.
Page 230 of 297
Heritage Planning Comments:
No comments.
Building Division Comments:
The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance. A Building Permit
Application has been made for the sunroom addition.
Engineering Division Comments:
No concerns.
Parks/Operations Division Comments:
There is an existing City -owned street tree within the boulevard on Park Glen Street. 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. 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 comments.
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 Planning Statement (PPS 2024)
• Regional Official Plan
• Official Plan (1994)
• Zoning By-law 85-1
ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Proposed Site Plan
Page 231 of 297
Region of Waterloo
June 11, 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 4A 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 June 17, City of Kitchener
Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and
have the following comments:
1)
A 2024 —
075 —
96 Wood Street — No Concerns
2)
A 2025 —
055 —
89 Matthew Street — No Concerns
3)
A 2025 —
056 —
9 Blucher Street — Region Staff have significant concerns
regarding the implementation of adequate crash protection measures along the
Waterloo Spur.
Region Staff require additional time to consider the application,
and request the application be deferred.
4)
A 2025 —
057 —
386 Wake Robin Cresent — No Concerns
5)
A 2025 —
058 —
175 Hoffman Street — No Concerns
6)
A 2025 —
059 —
22 Parkglen Street — No Concerns
7)
A 2025 —
060 —
181 Borden Aveune North — No Concerns
8)
A 2025 —
061 —
181 Borden Aveune North — 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 232 of 297
Please forward any decisions on the above-mentioned Application numbers to the
undersigned.
Yours Truly,
c71�",_ilUaw
Joshua Beech Falshaw
Transportation Planner
jbeechfalshaw@regionofwaterloo.ca
Document Number: 4976854
Page 233 of 297
June 2, 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 — June 17, 2025
Applications for Minor Variance
A 2024-075
96 Wood Street
A 2025-055
89 Matthew Street
A 2025-057
386 Wake Robin Crescent
A 2025-058
175 Hoffman Street
A 2025-059
22 Parkglen Street
A 2025-060
181 Borden Avenue North
A 2025-061
181 Borden Avenue North
Applications for Consent
B 2025-018 73 Second Avenue
B 2025-019 181 Borden Avenue North
B 2025-020 181 Borden Avenue North
via email
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-q rand 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 234 of 297
From:
Farah Farogue
To:
Committee of Adiustment (SM)
Cc:
Jenna Auger
Subject:
Kitchener Jun 17, 2025 Hearing
Date:
Thursday, May 29, 2025 2:43:38 PM
Attachments:
imaae001.ona
Afternoon Kitchener CofA,
Thank you for circulating the June17, 2025, Committee of Adjustments agenda for Kitchener. Please
be advised that all properties were found to be outside Metrolinx's designated review zones. As such,
we have no comments/concerns with the applications in this agenda.
Thankyou,
Farah Faroque (she/her)
Project Analyst, Adjacent Construction Review
Real Estate & Development
Metrolinx
20 Bay Street — Suite 600 1 Toronto I Ontario I M5J 2W3
T: 437.900.2291
=X: METROLINX
From: mail@sf-notifications.com <mail@sf-notifications.com>
Sent: May 23, 2025 10:45 AM
To: development.coordinator <development.coordinator@metrolinx.com>
Subject: Clerks CoK has shared the folder 'Committee of Adjustment - Applications' with you.
XTERNAL SENDER: Do not click any links or open any attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.
XPEDITEUR EXTERNE: Ne cliquez sur aucun lien et n'ouvrez aucune piece jointe a moins qu'ils ne proviennent d'un expediteur fiable,
)u que vous ayez I'assurance que Ie contenu provient d'une source sure.
Development,
Clerks CoK has shared the folder Committee of
Adjustment - Applications with you.
Page 235 of 297
Message from Clerks
Attached are the applications for the City of Kitchener
Committee of Adjustment meeting being held on June 17,
2025.
Please remember, your email address is your username to log
in. If you are unable to log in, select "Forgot my Password". For
those who comment regularly, your written report must be sent
to CofA@kitchener.ca no later than 12 noon on Monday, June
2, 2025.
You will need to download any files in this folder that you would
like to retain, as they will be deleted from this program when
the applications for the next month are circulated.
If you require any further assistance, please email
CofA@kitchener.ca.
Thank you.
Marilyn Mills, Legislated Services
Kitchener City Hall
Need help? We're here for you.
Visit sharefile.com/support and look for "Start chat."
I
This e-mail is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed. If you received
Page 236 of 297
this in error, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the e-mail together with any
attachments.
Page 237 of 297
From: Nembhard, O"Neil (MTO)
To: Committee of Adiustment (SM)
Subject: RE: Agenda - Committee of Adjustment - Tuesday, June 17, 2025
Date: Friday, June 6, 2025 3:11:13 PM
Attachments: imaoe001.ona
You don't often get email from o'neil.nembhard@ontario.ca. Learn why this is important
Good day,
Please see below MTO comments related to the June 17, 2025 Committee of
Adjustment Meeting.
1. The Ministry of Transportation (MTO) has no objection to this application. The
subject property is located beyond our limits of permit control and therefore
MTO review, approval and permits will not be required.
o A 2024-075 - 96 Wood Street
o A 2025-055 - 89 Matthew Street
o A 2025-057 - 386 Wake Robin Crescent
o A 2025-059 - 22 Parkglen Street
o B 2025-019, B 2025-020, A 2025-060 & A 2025-061 - 181 Borden Avenue
North
2. A 2025-058 - SP24/009/H/ES. 175 Hoffman Street - The subject property does
fall within MTO permit control area, however based on the modifications to site
proposed, MTO permits will not be required.
3. B 2025-018 - 73 Second Avenue- The subject property does fall within MTO
permit control area, however, based on the location in a buildup area, MTO
review, approval and permits will not be required.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments.
Regards,
O'Neil Nembhard
Corridor Management Planner I Operation West I Operations Division
Ministry of Transportation Ontario I Ontario Public Service
548-388-2571 1 o'neil.nembhard C_ontario.ca
Ontario 0
Taking pride in strengthening Ontario, its places and its people
Please note the Ministry no Ionizer accents Land Develooment review reauests thoueh its email
system. All Land Development Review requests to the Ministry must be submitted to the Ministry of
Transportation through the Highway Corridor Management Online portal at:
https://www.hcros.mto.gov.on.ca/
The Land Development Review module is designed to better serve stakeholders through
Page 238 of 297
streamlining all land development planning approvals by the Ministry.
From: Committee of Adjustment (SM) <CommitteeofAdjustment@kitchen er.ca>
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2025 11:55 AM
To: Committee of Adjustment (SM) <CommitteeofAdjustment@kitchen er.ca>
Subject: Agenda - Committee of Adjustment - Tuesday, June 17, 2025
CAUTION -- EXTERNAL E-MAIL - Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender.
Good morning,
The agenda for the June 17, 2025 Committee of Adjustment meeting is now available on our
Council/Committee calendar.
The combined agenda with reports will be posted to the meeting calendar by noon on Friday, June
13, 2025.
Connie Owen
Administrative Clerk I Legislated Services I City of Kitchener
519-904-1409 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 connie.owen(cbkitchener.ca
Page 239 of 297
From: Pui Ming Leung
To: Committee of Adiustment (SM)
Subject: COA, Kitchener
Date: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 11:37:04 AM
Attachments: 11111j)d
in
Sorry for my late response. I apologize for any inconvenience caused.
90 Wood ST- make sure to have clearance to primary cable on York St according to our
standard D11111 (attached here)
For all new service or upgrade, please send a request to Enova for hydro connection.
Thanks,
Pui Ming Leung (she/her) I Design Technologist
Direct Number: 226-896-2200 (EXT 6205)
Mobile Number: 519-589-2659
puiming. leunaQenovapower.com
301 Victoria Street South, Kitchener, Ontario, N2G 4L2
enovapower.com
121
This correspondence is directed in confidence solely to the addressees listed above. It may
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 notes the sender immediately. Click on the link to read the
additional disclaimer: https://enovapower.com/disclaimer
Page 240 of 297
N
�r U
N
ifri �fri LU � N
f>)
a O m
F2mo wW U 0° zwpz ~ w d
W a O w U 2 f Z z W O `J z
25, o=p =w ww 3a 3wzr o
a 0 2 Z Q Z F> x> O H 2 K U Z
Q W H ❑ Z❑ w O H m J y O
_ ~ ~ ~l 3 O
Z W J
O
1.21.
a O p N w m m
�
p1y W 'Yzv^
p2U U Q O N2> U
oy¢ovz w H �w¢� w=p WOZ J
Q
(� N
J Om mfn W J W yaz W mp ❑LU
JFQa m N N
w W W O V W> J OJ Z OF x O W W W m W O Q N N w w
ma �� W, m0 F =O° Uxz FD Z p & O ' �
?zm w zz yam o Z Q>
zu �m w a wo z Y
y> j mow fxgZ Ola-~ U U r �m a W z04
y°1
CK�� 7y w0 aa¢ -w LL pw ozoF O M
7 a Q m 0° m x a fn E> p m ° w s-- ❑ ¢LLJ
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
O2N� w°z (°_�o .0 Z, 3<w z yz 0i0
os o°p o Z m 3
zo 0, Y H f70> r W wo w w fgNUf/)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 a' K O U ❑ w F0 0 fn w W
LU
- OUZ OU w OJQ(N
Z
❑ O O y o >� O 2 Zmm NOQ(9> U) W a
xwW= O 6zW GzV
ZUOmUQ J
U) ¢ W O ] ❑ L) l_L¢ W W F jH aa v,
mLLO O W W UW
wm wNmz > Va O
°
¢¢ O J m Z CO Z W Z O a
O 0 W2ZWOWO00QOOJOm
zf2¢nz3aNUU> UUU Nm z
C6 O
;ry S 3 I
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 — Aw a Z a
m
U w r N N
7 U 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
Staff Report
r
JR
Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca
REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment
DATE OF MEETING: June 17, 2025
SUBMITTED BY: Tina Malone -Wright, Manager, Development Approvals
519-783-8913
PREPARED BY: Eric Schneider, Senior Planner, 519-783-8918
WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 3
DATE OF REPORT: June 5, 2025
REPORT NO.: DSD -2025-283
SUBJECT: Consent Application B2025-018 — 73 Second Avenue
RECOMMENDATION:
That Consent Application B2025-018 requesting consent to sever a parcel of land
having a lot width of 10 metres on Second Avenue, a lot depth of 40.2, metres and a
lot area of 404.7 square metres, BE APPROVED subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Owner's solicitor shall provide draft transfer documents and associated
fees for the Certificate of Official to the satisfaction of the Secretary -Treasurer and
City Solicitor, if required.
2. That the Owner shall obtain a tax certificate from the City of Kitchener to verify
that there are no outstanding taxes on the subject property(ies) to the
satisfaction of the City's Revenue Division.
3. That the owner provides a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared
by an Ontario Land Surveyor in PDF and either .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn
(Microstation) format, as well as two full size paper copies of the plan(s). The
digital file needs to be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital
Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist.
4. That the Owner obtains a Demolition Permit, for the existing detached dwelling
and any accessory buildings/structures proposed to be demolished, to the
satisfaction of the Chief Building Official, and removes the existing dwelling and
any accessory buildings/structures prior to deed endorsement.
5. That the Owner pay to the City of Kitchener a cash -in -lieu contribution for park
dedication of $11, 862.00.
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
Page 242 of 297
6. That the Owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener, to be
prepared by the City Solicitor and registered on title to the Severed and Retained
lands, which shall include the following:
i) That the Owner shall prepare a Tree Preservation and Enhancement Plan, in
accordance with the City's Tree Management Policy, demonstrating protection
and preservation of the City -owned tree that is located adjacent to the severed
and/or retained lands, to the satisfaction of and approval by the City's Director
Parks and Cemeteries. Said plan shall include, among other matters, the
identification of a proposed building envelope/work zone, a landscaped area
and the vegetation to be preserved. No changes to the said plan shall be
granted except with the prior approval of the City's Director, Parks and
Cemeteries.
ii) The Owner shall implement the Tree Protection and Enhancement Plan, prior to
any tree removal, grading, servicing or the issuance of any demolition and/or
building permits, to the satisfaction of the City's Director, Parks and
Cemeteries.
iii) The Owner shall maintain the Severed and Retained lands, in accordance with
the approved Tree Preservation and Enhancement Plan, for the life of the
development.
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS:
• The purpose of this report is to review an application for Consent to create a new lot
for a new duplex dwelling on the severed parcels of land. The retained parcel of land
is also proposed to contain a new duplex dwelling.
• The key finding of this report is that the requested severance meets the criteria of the
Planning Act and Provincial, Regional and City policies.
• 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 an interior lot located on the East side of Second Avenue between
Kingsway Drive and Connaught Street.
Page 243 of 297
riuurt: is wcauun vi Ouult:cL rrvut:
Figure 2: View of Existing Detached Dwelling (May 27, 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 244 of 297
The property is zoned `Low Rise Residential Four Zone (RES -4)' in Zoning By-law 2019-
051.
The purpose of the application is to create a new lot to construct a new detached duplex
dwelling on the severed lands. A duplex dwelling would also be built on the retained lands.
The existing detached dwelling is proposed to be demolished.
On April 18, 2023, the Committee of Adjustment approved severance application B2023-
016 for the subject lands, which proposed the same severance as the subject application.
The applicant has completed some of the conditions, including installation of services.
However, the 24 month deadline to complete conditions has now lapsed and the applicant
is re -applying for severance on the subject lands.
The Development and Housing Approvals Division approved a Demolition Control
application on April 25, 2025.
Figure 3: Severance Sketch
REPORT:
Planning Comments:
In considering all the relevant Provincial legislation, Regional and City policies and
regulations, Planning staff offer the following comments:
Provincial Planning Statement (PPS 2024)
Staff are satisfied that the proposed severance application is consistent with the Provincial
Planning Statement in general and as it related to housing policies in Chapter 2 regarding
intensification and facilitating housing options. Section 2.2 1 (b) states that Planning
authorities shall provide for an appropriate range and mix of housing options and densities
to meet projected needs of current and future residents of the regional market area by
permitting and facilitating all housing options required to meet the social, health, economic
and well-being requirements of current and future residents.
Page 245 of 297
13AM IAM 17.6M
I- I-
RETA YlJ/ UI 7.1M
� 0M
ErL91r
DWI?
:'SRt�i.E GAR C^Af GRIYEW'AY
Y�
20.1M
1.2M
—__—__ F7lPP. ➢Pr`GPFR _Y LR�E � 20Am
pi
FRLPG.D
V 1
GAR y f MWWAY
!�EVFTE' LOT TAM
Awa srapy lam
V47 57 M.
pLF[r7; PVVM1 M
13.4M
i?.6id 9.1M
De
Figure 3: Severance Sketch
REPORT:
Planning Comments:
In considering all the relevant Provincial legislation, Regional and City policies and
regulations, Planning staff offer the following comments:
Provincial Planning Statement (PPS 2024)
Staff are satisfied that the proposed severance application is consistent with the Provincial
Planning Statement in general and as it related to housing policies in Chapter 2 regarding
intensification and facilitating housing options. Section 2.2 1 (b) states that Planning
authorities shall provide for an appropriate range and mix of housing options and densities
to meet projected needs of current and future residents of the regional market area by
permitting and facilitating all housing options required to meet the social, health, economic
and well-being requirements of current and future residents.
Page 245 of 297
Regional Official Plan (ROP):
ROP Urban Area policies state that the focus of the Region's future growth shall be within
the Urban Area. The subject lands fall within the `Urban Area' and are designated `Built -Up
Area' in the ROP. The proposed development conforms to Policy 2. D.1 of the ROP as this
neighbourhood provides for the physical and community infrastructure required for the
proposed residential development, including transportation networks, municipal water and
wastewater systems, and a broad range of social and public health services. Regional
polices require municipalities to plan for a range of housing in terms of form, tenure,
density, and affordability to satisfy the various physical, social, economic, and personal
support needs of current and future residents. Staff are satisfied that the proposed
severance applications adhere to these policies and conforms to the ROP.
City's Official Plan (2014)
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 Official Plan.
Section 17.E.20.5 of the Official Plan implements Section 51 of the Planning Act and
contains policies regarding infill development and lot creation (Consent Policies).These
policies state the following:
"17.E.20.5 Applications for consent to create new lots will only be granted where:
a) the lots comply with the policies of this Plan, any Community Plan and/or
Secondary Plan, and that the lots are in conformity with the Zoning By-law,
or a minor variance has been granted to correct any deficiencies;
b) the lots reflect the general scale and character of the established
development pattern of surrounding lands by taking into consideration lot
frontages, areas, and configurations;
c) all of the criteria for plan of subdivision are given due consideration;
d) the lot will have frontage on a public street;
e) municipal water services are available;
f) municipal sanitary services are available except in accordance with Policy
14.C.1.19-1
g) a Plan of Subdivision or Condominium has been deemed not to be
necessary for proper and orderly development; and,
h) the lot(s) will not restrict the ultimate development of adjacent properties."
The proposed lot widths and lot areas of the proposed severed and retained lots will meet
the minimum `RES -4' zone lot width and lot area requirements and minor variances are
not required. Planning staff is of the opinion that the size, dimension and shape of the
proposed lots are suitable for the use of the lands and compatible with the surrounding
Page 246 of 297
neighbourhood which is developed with single detached, semi detached and multiple
dwellings with lots sizes that vary in width, depth, and area. The lands front onto a public
street and full services are available. There are no natural heritage features that would be
impacted by the proposed consent application. Planning staff is of the opinion that the
proposed severance conforms with the City of Kitchener Official Plan.
Zoning By-law 2019-051
The subject property is zoned as 'Low Rise Residential Four Zone (RES -4)' in Zoning By-
law 2019-051. The'RES-4' zone permits a range of low density dwelling types such as
duplex dwellings. The 'RES -4' Zone requires a minimum lot width of 9 metres (internal
lots) and 12.8 metres (corner lots) and minimum lot area of 235 square metres for duplex
dwellings. The proposed lot widths and lot areas of the proposed severed and retained lots
meet the minimum 'RES -4' zone lot width and lot area requirements.
Planning Conclusions/Comments:
With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51(24) of the
Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, staff is satisfied that the creation of the severed lots are
desirable and appropriate. The uses of both the severed and retained parcels are
permitted in the City's Official Plan and Zoning By-law. The severed lands front onto
Second Avenue is an established public street and is serviced with municipal services.
Staff is further of the opinion that the proposal is consistent with the Region of Waterloo
Official Plan, the Provincial Planning Statement, and is good planning and in the public
interest.
Environmental Planning Comments:
Standard condition for Tree Protection/Enhancement Plan to apply.
Heritage Planning Comments:
No Heritage Planning Comments.
Building Division Comments:
The Building Division has no objections to the proposed consent. Region of Waterloo and
Area Municipalities' Design Guidelines and Supplemental Specifications for Municipal
Services (DGSSMS) allows only one service per lot. Separate building permit(s) will be
required for the demolition of the existing building, as well as construction of the new
residential buildings.
Engineering Division Comments:
Off-site works already completed through previous application, Engineering has no further
comments
Parks and Cemeteries/Forestry Division Comments:
Cash -in -lieu of park land dedication will be required on the severed parcel as 1 new
development lot will be created. The cash -in -lieu dedication required is $11,862.00. Park
Dedication is calculated at 5% of the new development lot only, with a land valuation
calculated by the lineal frontage of 10.05 metres at a land value of $36,080.00 per
frontage metre, which equals $18,130.20. In this case, a per unit cap of $11,862.00 has
been applied.
Page 247 of 297
Transportation Planning Comments:
Transportation Services have no concerns with this application.
Region of Waterloo Comments:
No comments.
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 Planning Statement (PPS 2024)
• Regional Official Plan (ROP)
• Official Plan (2014)
• Zoning By-law 2019-051
• DSD -2023-185
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A — Severance Sketch
Page 248 of 297
6
N
O
W
Q
Q Z
F-
00
Z
O LU
LZ
W
( W
n =
ch U
~
F—
F—
LU a Y
2
U
H
0 W
W Y
C/)
N
O w
0-0
O Z
a w
LU
N� b NNNNN
J Q N
LU
Q
�� LU
I
I
41
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
N
I
I
JI
�
I
Iz
�
IJ
I
I
I
�
I
I
o
I
I
N
I
J
J g
o
LO
o
M
z �
I
I
I
----------------------
I
W7 AJ�E ,* 9NI151X3
6
N
O
W
Q
Q Z
F-
00
Z
O LU
LZ
W
( W
n =
ch U
~
F—
F—
LU a Y
2
U
H
0 W
W Y
C/)
N
O w
0-0
O Z
a w
LU
Region of Waterloo
Connie Owen
Administrative Clerk, Legislative Services
City of Kitchener
200 King Street West
Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7
CofA(a)kitchener.ca
PLANNING, DEVELOPMENTAND
LEGISLATIVE SERVICES
150 Frederick Street, 81" floor
Kitchener Ontario N2G 4J3 Canada
Telephone: 519-575-4400
Fax: 519-575-4449
www. regionofwaterloo.ca
Susanna Reid, MCIP, RPP
519-502-8298
File: D20-20/25 KIT
June 11, 2025
Re: Comments on Consent Application: B2025-018; B2025-019; B2025-020
Committee of Adjustment Hearing, June 17, 2025
City of Kitchener
Please accept the following comments for the above -noted consent applications to be
considered at the upcoming Committee of Adjustment Hearing.
Document Number: 5004291
Page 250 of 297
File No:
B2025-018
Address:
73 Second Ave.
Description: Plan 254 Lot 33
Owner:
Weijie Zhang
Applicant:
Boban Jokanovic, Bobicon Ltd.
The purpose of the application is to demolish the existing dwelling on the property and
to create two lots for a duplex on each of the severed and retained lands.
Source Water Protection: The subject property is within a Part IV area, as defined by
the Clean Water Act. The owner/applicant has provided a Section 59 notice.
Environmental Threats: There are no high or medium threats in the Threat Inventory
Database (TID) on or adjacent to 73 Second Ave.
Regional Fees: Regional staff have not received the required $350 fee for review of a
consent application.
Regional staff have no objection to this application subject to the following condition:
1. That the Owner/Developer submit the consent review fee of $350 to the Regional
Municipality of Waterloo.
Document Number: 5004291
Page 251 of 297
File No: B2025-019
Address: 181 Borden Ave North
Description: Part Lot 7, Part Lot 8, Plan 655
Owner: Craig McRae Robson Professional Corporation
Applicant: Matthew Warzecha, Polocorp Inc
This is a residential lot with a single detached dwelling, with a total lot area of 621.9 m2.
The owner/applicant has applied to sever a 310.7 m2 parcel. The area of the retained
parcel will be 311.2 m2.
The severed parcel is proposed to be developed with one primary dwelling and three
attached ADUs.
The retained parcel is proposed to be developed with one primary dwelling and three
attached ADUs.
Source Water Protection: The subject property, 181 Borden Ave North, is outside a
Part IV area as defined by the Clean Water Act.
Environmental Threats: There are no high or medium threats in the Threats Inventory
Database identified on 181 Borden Ave North, or on properties adjacent to 181 Borden
Ave North.
Regional Fees: Regional staff have not received the required $350 fee for review of a
consent application.
Regional staff have no objection to this application subject to the following condition:
1. That the Owner/Developer submit the consent review fee of $350 to the Regional
Municipality of Waterloo.
Document Number: 5004291
Page 252 of 297
File No: B2025-020
Address: 181 Borden Ave North
Description: Part Lot 7, Part Lot 8, Plan 655
Owner: Craig McRae Robson Professional Corporation
Applicant: Matthew Warzecha, Polocorp Inc
The existing residential lot is proposed to be severed into two parcels by Consent File
B2025-019. The lots are proposed to share a single driveway access area onto Borden
Avenue, approximately 3.6 m wide
Consent file B2025-020 requests a shared access easement to straddle the lot line
between the two properties, extending the full depth of the lot (approximately 30.5
metres). The total area of the proposed easement is 120.7 m2.
Source Water Protection: The subject property, 181 Borden Ave North, is outside the
Part IV area.
Environmental Threats: There are no high or medium threats in the Threats Inventory
Database identified on 181 Borden Ave North, or on properties adjacent to 181 Borden
Ave North.
Regional Fees: Regional staff have not received the required $350 fee for review of a
consent application.
Regional staff have no objection to this application subject to the following condition:
1. That the Owner/Developer submit the consent review fee of $350 to the Regional
Municipality of Waterloo.
Document Number: 5004291
Page 253 of 297
General Comments:
If any other applications are required to facilitate the application additional fees and/or
requirements may apply. Any submission requirements may be subject to peer review,
at the owner/applicant's expense as per By-law 24-052.
Any future development on the lands subject to the above -noted consent applications
will be subject to the provisions of Regional Development Charge By-law 19-037 or any
successor thereof.
Prior to final approval, City staff must be in receipt of the above -noted Regional
condition clearance.
Please accept this letter as our request for a copy of the staff reports, decisions and
minutes pertaining to each of the consent applications noted above.
Thank you,
Susanna Reid, MCIP RPP
Senior Planner
Regional Growth, Development and Sustainability Services
Regional Municipality of Waterloo
Document Number: 5004291
Page 254 of 297
June 2, 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 — June 17, 2025
Applications for Minor Variance
A 2024-075
96 Wood Street
A 2025-055
89 Matthew Street
A 2025-057
386 Wake Robin Crescent
A 2025-058
175 Hoffman Street
A 2025-059
22 Parkglen Street
A 2025-060
181 Borden Avenue North
A 2025-061
181 Borden Avenue North
Applications for Consent
B 2025-018 73 Second Avenue
B 2025-019 181 Borden Avenue North
B 2025-020 181 Borden Avenue North
via email
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-q rand 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 255 of 297
From:
Farah Farogue
To:
Committee of Adiustment (SM)
Cc:
Jenna Auger
Subject:
Kitchener Jun 17, 2025 Hearing
Date:
Thursday, May 29, 2025 2:43:38 PM
Attachments:
imaae001.ona
Afternoon Kitchener CofA,
Thank you for circulating the June17, 2025, Committee of Adjustments agenda for Kitchener. Please
be advised that all properties were found to be outside Metrolinx's designated review zones. As such,
we have no comments/concerns with the applications in this agenda.
Thankyou,
Farah Faroque (she/her)
Project Analyst, Adjacent Construction Review
Real Estate & Development
Metrolinx
20 Bay Street — Suite 600 1 Toronto I Ontario I M5J 2W3
T: 437.900.2291
=X: METROLINX
From: mail@sf-notifications.com <mail@sf-notifications.com>
Sent: May 23, 2025 10:45 AM
To: development.coordinator <development.coordinator@metrolinx.com>
Subject: Clerks CoK has shared the folder 'Committee of Adjustment - Applications' with you.
XTERNAL SENDER: Do not click any links or open any attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.
XPEDITEUR EXTERNE: Ne cliquez sur aucun lien et n'ouvrez aucune piece jointe a moins qu'ils ne proviennent d'un expediteur fiable,
)u que vous ayez I'assurance que Ie contenu provient d'une source sure.
Development,
Clerks CoK has shared the folder Committee of
Adjustment - Applications with you.
Page 256 of 297
Message from Clerks
Attached are the applications for the City of Kitchener
Committee of Adjustment meeting being held on June 17,
2025.
Please remember, your email address is your username to log
in. If you are unable to log in, select "Forgot my Password". For
those who comment regularly, your written report must be sent
to CofA@kitchener.ca no later than 12 noon on Monday, June
2, 2025.
You will need to download any files in this folder that you would
like to retain, as they will be deleted from this program when
the applications for the next month are circulated.
If you require any further assistance, please email
CofA@kitchener.ca.
Thank you.
Marilyn Mills, Legislated Services
Kitchener City Hall
Need help? We're here for you.
Visit sharefile.com/support and look for "Start chat."
I
This e-mail is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed. If you received
Page 257 of 297
this in error, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the e-mail together with any
attachments.
Page 258 of 297
From: Nembhard, O"Neil (MTO)
To: Committee of Adiustment (SM)
Subject: RE: Agenda - Committee of Adjustment - Tuesday, June 17, 2025
Date: Friday, June 6, 2025 3:11:13 PM
Attachments: imaoe001.ona
You don't often get email from o'neil.nembhard@ontario.ca. Learn why this is important
Good day,
Please see below MTO comments related to the June 17, 2025 Committee of
Adjustment Meeting.
1. The Ministry of Transportation (MTO) has no objection to this application. The
subject property is located beyond our limits of permit control and therefore
MTO review, approval and permits will not be required.
o A 2024-075 - 96 Wood Street
o A 2025-055 - 89 Matthew Street
o A 2025-057 - 386 Wake Robin Crescent
o A 2025-059 - 22 Parkglen Street
o B 2025-019, B 2025-020, A 2025-060 & A 2025-061 - 181 Borden Avenue
North
2. A 2025-058 - SP24/009/H/ES. 175 Hoffman Street - The subject property does
fall within MTO permit control area, however based on the modifications to site
proposed, MTO permits will not be required.
3. B 2025-018 - 73 Second Avenue- The subject property does fall within MTO
permit control area, however, based on the location in a buildup area, MTO
review, approval and permits will not be required.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments.
Regards,
O'Neil Nembhard
Corridor Management Planner I Operation West I Operations Division
Ministry of Transportation Ontario I Ontario Public Service
548-388-2571 1 o'neil.nembhard C_ontario.ca
Ontario 0
Taking pride in strengthening Ontario, its places and its people
Please note the Ministry no Ionizer accents Land Develooment review reauests thoueh its email
system. All Land Development Review requests to the Ministry must be submitted to the Ministry of
Transportation through the Highway Corridor Management Online portal at:
https://www.hcros.mto.gov.on.ca/
The Land Development Review module is designed to better serve stakeholders through
Page 259 of 297
streamlining all land development planning approvals by the Ministry.
From: Committee of Adjustment (SM) <CommitteeofAdjustment@kitchen er.ca>
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2025 11:55 AM
To: Committee of Adjustment (SM) <CommitteeofAdjustment@kitchen er.ca>
Subject: Agenda - Committee of Adjustment - Tuesday, June 17, 2025
CAUTION -- EXTERNAL E-MAIL - Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender.
Good morning,
The agenda for the June 17, 2025 Committee of Adjustment meeting is now available on our
Council/Committee calendar.
The combined agenda with reports will be posted to the meeting calendar by noon on Friday, June
13, 2025.
Connie Owen
Administrative Clerk I Legislated Services I City of Kitchener
519-904-1409 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 connie.owen(cbkitchener.ca
Page 260 of 297
From: Pui Ming Leung
To: Committee of Adiustment (SM)
Subject: COA, Kitchener
Date: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 11:37:04 AM
Attachments: 11111j)d
in
Sorry for my late response. I apologize for any inconvenience caused.
90 Wood ST- make sure to have clearance to primary cable on York St according to our
standard D11111 (attached here)
For all new service or upgrade, please send a request to Enova for hydro connection.
Thanks,
Pui Ming Leung (she/her) I Design Technologist
Direct Number: 226-896-2200 (EXT 6205)
Mobile Number: 519-589-2659
puiming. leunaQenovapower.com
301 Victoria Street South, Kitchener, Ontario, N2G 4L2
enovapower.com
121
This correspondence is directed in confidence solely to the addressees listed above. It may
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 notes the sender immediately. Click on the link to read the
additional disclaimer: https://enovapower.com/disclaimer
Page 261 of 297
N
O
n (
rr O
N
ifri �fri LU � N
f>)
a p m
F2mo wW U 0° zwp� ~ w d
W a O w U 2 f Z 2 W O`J z
25, o=p =w w3a 3wzr o
a 0 2 Z Q Z F> x>w OH 2 K U z
O H m
Q W H ❑ Z❑ w J y O
_ ~ ~ ~l 3 O
Z W J
O
1.21.
a O p N w m m
�
p1y W 'Yzv^
p2U U Q O N2> U
oy¢ovz w H �w¢� w=p WOZ J
Q
(� N
J Om mfn W J W yaz W mp ❑LU
JFQa m N N
w W W O V W> J OJ z OF x O W W W m W O Q N N w w
ma �� W, m0 F =O° Uxz FD Z p & O ``'
Q° O w v Q Q LL ? z m W z z to U Q m O Z /
zu yrs w ' wo z Y
y> j mow fxgZ Ola-~ U U r �m C7 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 (°_�o .0 Z, 3<w z yz 0i0os o°p o Z m 3
zo 0, Y H f70> r W wo w w fgNUf/)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 a' K O U ❑ w F0 0 fn w W
LU
W O NF OmO OUz OU w Z Z Y O
r❑ O Z O O y o z m❑ w m 0 >� U N O O Q (9 > z (J, V Z
'^ ZmLLOoom xw W> = W O 6N W 0" GU> O W zp� N v Q U) W a J_
vJ ¢ W W F O j H w ¢ U J W Z ' O i- 2¢ ] O m a a K (❑ ❑ L) Q LL
U U U Q
w m 7 m w V w N m z m > O m Q a J f > 2
a 6 Q 0 m J a a 2 ° m W Z= J CO LL Z w Z O a - N
O 0 WJ 2 Z OHm WOJ 00 QO¢ OJOmx
zf2U ¢rn�._ z3a NUU U> Uam UU Nm 4 O 2 z
Z � n of a �n fo r � ;ry � � 3
T'yQ6/ �i� Wfn W�
a
S x
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 — Aw a Z a
m
U w r N N
7 U 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
Staff Report
r
JR
Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca
REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment
DATE OF MEETING: June 17, 2025
SUBMITTED BY: Tina Malone -Wright, Manager, Development Approvals
519-783-8913
PREPARED BY: Arwa Alzoor, Planner, 519-783-8903
WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 10
DATE OF REPORT: May 26, 2025
REPORT NO.: DSD -2025-285
SUBJECT: Minor Variance Application A2025-060 - 181 Borden Avenue
North (Proposed Severed Parcel)
Minor Variance Application A2025-061 - 181 Borden Avenue
North (Proposed Retained Parcel)
Consent Application B2025-019 - 181 Borden Avenue North
(Proposed New Lot)
Consent Application B2025-020 - 181 Borden Avenue North
(Proposed Easement)
RECOMMENDATION:
A. Minor Variance Application A2025-060 (Proposed Severed Parcel)
That Minor Variance Application A2025- 060 for 181 Borden Avenue North
requesting relief from the following Sections of Zoning By-law 2019-051:
i) Section 4.14.2 b) to permit a balcony with columns supported by the
ground to project 1.5 metres into the front yard where balconies supported
by the ground are not permitted to project; and
ii) Section 5.3.3 vi) to permit a driveway width of 8.7 metres instead of the
maximum permitted 8 metres;
to permit the redevelopment of the severed parcel proposed to be created
through Consent Application B2025-019, generally in accordance with drawings
prepared by Polocorp, dated May 13, 2025, BE APPROVED.
B. Minor Variance Application A2025-061 (Proposed Retained Parcel)
That Minor Variance Application A2025- 061 for 181 Borden Avenue North
requesting relief from the following Sections of Zoning By-law 2019-051:
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
Page 263 of 297
iii) Section 4.14.2 b) to permit a balcony with columns supported by the
ground to project 1.5 metres into the front yard where balconies supported
by the ground are not permitted to project; and
iv) Section 5.3.3 vi) to permit a driveway width of 8.7 metres instead of the
maximum permitted 8 metres;
to permit the redevelopment of the retained parcel proposed to be created
through Consent Application B2025-019, generally in accordance with drawings
prepared by Polocorp, dated May 13, 2025, BE APPROVED.
C. Consent Application B2025-019 (Proposed Severed Parcel and Easement)
That Consent Application B2025-019 requesting consent to sever a parcel of land
having a lot width of 10.2 metres, a lot depth of 30.5, metres and a lot area of
310.7 square metres, including an easement with a width of 1.9 to 3.0 metres,
depth of 30.5 metres, and area of 65.1 square metres BE APPROVED subject to
the following conditions:
That Minor Variance Application A2025-060 and A2025-061 receive final
approval.
2. That Consent application B2025-020 receive final approval.
3. That the Owner's solicitor shall provide draft transfer documents and
associated fees for the Certificate of Official to the satisfaction of the Secretary -
Treasurer and City Solicitor, if required.
4. That the Transfer Easement document(s) required to create the Easement(s)
being approved herein shall include the following, and shall be approved by the
City Solicitor in consultation with the City's Manager, Development
Applications:
a) a clear and specific description of the purpose of the Easement(s) and of
the rights and privileges being granted therein (including detailed terms
and/or conditions of any required maintenance, liability and/or cost sharing
provisions related thereto); and
b) a clause/statement/wording confirming that the Easement(s) being granted
shall be maintained and registered on title in perpetuity and shall not be
amended, released or otherwise dealt with without the express written
consent of the City.
5. That a satisfactory Solicitor's Undertaking to register the approved Transfer
Easement(s) and to immediately thereafter provide copies thereof to the City
Solicitor be provided to the City Solicitor.
6. That the Owner shall obtain a tax certificate from the City of Kitchener to
verify that there are no outstanding taxes on the subject property(ies) to the
satisfaction of the City's Revenue Division.
Page 264 of 297
7. That the owner provides a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s)
prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in PDF and either .dwg (AutoCad) or
.dgn (Microstation) format, as well as two full size paper copies of the plan(s).
The digital file needs to be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital
Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist.
8. That the Owner obtains Demolition Control Approval, in accordance with the
City's Demolition Control By-law, to the satisfaction of the City's Director,
Development and Housing Approvals.
9. That the Owner obtains a Demolition Permit for the existing single detached
dwelling proposed to be demolished, to the satisfaction of the Chief Building
Official, and removes the existing dwelling prior to deed endorsement.
10. That the Owner pay to the City of Kitchener a cash -in -lieu contribution for park
dedication of $11,862.00.
11. That the Owner shall prepare a Tree Preservation and Enhancement Plan, in
accordance with the City's Tree Management Policy, to the satisfaction of the
City's Manager, Site Plans, for the Severed and Retained lands. Such plans
shall include, among other matters, the identification of a proposed building
envelope/work zone, a landscaped area and the vegetation to be preserved,
including permission letters from contiguous landowners whose trees will be
potentially impacted by the development. If necessary, the Plan shall include
required mitigation and or compensation measures.
12. That the Owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener, to be
prepared by the City Solicitor and registered on title to the Severed and
Retained lands, which shall include the following:
a) That the Owner shall prepare a Tree Preservation and Enhancement Plan, in
accordance with the City's Tree Management Policy, demonstrating
protection and preservation of the City -owned tree that is located adjacent
to the severed and/or retained lands, to the satisfaction of and approval by
the City's Director Parks and Cemeteries. Said plan shall reflect the Plan
approved by the Manager, Site Plans including, among other matters, the
identification of a proposed building envelope/work zone, a landscaped
area and the vegetation to be preserved. No changes to the said plan shall
be granted except with the prior approval of the City's Director, Parks and
Cemeteries and Manager, Site Plans.
b) The Owner shall implement the Tree Protection and Enhancement Plan,
prior to any tree removal, grading, servicing or the issuance of any
demolition and/or building permits, to the satisfaction of the City's Director,
Parks and Cemeteries and Manager, Site Plans.
c) The Owner shall maintain the Severed and Retained lands, in accordance
with the approved Tree Preservation and Enhancement Plan, for the life of
Page 265 of 297
the development.
d) The side yard currently accommodates overland stormwater flows from the
rear yard. A sidewalk is required to the rear yard in accordance with the
Zoning By-law. The final grading of this property shall not adversely affect
the drainage of adjacent properties or the overall grading control plan. The
Owner is responsible to address storm water drainage at the Building
Permit stage.
13. That the Owner provides a servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal
servicing system to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services.
14. That the Owner submit a Development Asset Drawing (digital AutoCAD) for
the site (servicing, SWM etc.) with corresponding layer names and asset
information to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering Services,
prior to deed endorsement.
15. That the Owner makes financial arrangements for the installation of any new
service connections to the severed and/or retained lands to the satisfaction of
the City's Director of Engineering Services.
16. That any new driveways are to be built to City of Kitchener standards at the
Owner's expense prior to occupancy of the building to the satisfaction of the
City's Director of Engineering Services.
17. That the Owner provides confirmation that the basement elevation can be
drained by gravity to the street sewers to the satisfaction of the City's Director
of Engineering Services. If this is not the case, then the owner will need to
pump the sewage via a pump and forcemain to the property line and have a
gravity sewer from the property line to the street to the satisfaction of the City's
Director of Engineering Services.
18. The Owner shall implement a suitable design solution for a sump pump outlet
to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering.
D. Consent Application B2025-020 (Proposed Easement)
That Consent Application B2025-020 requesting an easement having a width of
1.9 to 3 metres, a depth of 30.4 metres, and area of 65.1 square metres BE
APPROVED subject to the following conditions:
That Minor Variance Applications A2025-060 and A2025-061 receive final
approval.
2. That Consent Application B2025-019 receive final approval.
3. That the Owner's solicitor shall provide draft transfer documents and
associated fees for the Certificate of Official to the satisfaction of the Secretary -
Treasurer and City Solicitor, if required.
Page 266 of 297
4. That the Owner shall obtain a tax certificate from the City of Kitchener to
verify that there are no outstanding taxes on the subject property(ies) to the
satisfaction of the City's Revenue Division.
5. That the owner provides a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s)
prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in PDF and either .dwg (AutoCad) or
.dgn (Microstation) format, as well as two full size paper copies of the
plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the City of
Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's
Mapping Technologist.
6. That the Transfer Easement document(s) required to create the Easement(s)
being approved herein shall include the following, and shall be approved by the
City Solicitor in consultation with the City's Manager, Development
Applications:
a) a clear and specific description of the purpose of the Easement(s) and of
the rights and privileges being granted therein (including detailed terms
and/or conditions of any required maintenance, liability and/or cost sharing
provisions related thereto); and
b) a clause/statement/wording confirming that the Easement(s) being granted
shall be maintained and registered on title in perpetuity and shall not be
amended, released or otherwise dealt with without the express written
consent of the City.
7. That a satisfactory Solicitor's Undertaking to register the approved Transfer
Easement(s) and to immediately thereafter provide copies thereof to the City
Solicitor be provided to the City Solicitor.
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS:
• The purpose of this report is to review and make recommendations with respect to the
two (2) Minor Variance Applications and two (2) Consent Applications to facilitate the
demolition of the existing dwelling at 181 Borden Avenue North and the creation of a
two lots for 2 dwellings having 4 dwelling units each and access easements.
• The key finding of this report is that staff recommends that the applications be
approved.
• 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.
Page 267 of 297
BACKGROUND:
The subject property is located in the Auditorium neighbourhood area, North of Ottawa
Street North and East of Weber Street East.
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.
The subject property is zoned `Low Rise Residential Four Zone (RES -4)' in Zoning By-law
2019-051.
The purpose of the application is to create a new parcel and implement an easement on
both the retained and severed parcels for a shared access driveway. Minor variances are
required for both the retained and severed parcels, which address the shared driveway in
the rear yard and the front projecting balcony. These applications facilitate the
redevelopment of the subject property with two Single Detached Dwellings with three
Additional Dwelling Units attached in the form of a fourplex on each of the retained and
severed parcels. A consolidated access is proposed with parking spaces located in the
Cdl UI LI It: I CLdll ICU c11 IU JCVCI CU Pall CIJ
`� r � ii • r0.
Figure 1: Location Map
Page 268 of 297
Figure 2: Zoning Map
Page 269 of 297
: �.� • .yr
r
r
r'
Ay��l� SAO±YAYh•_ d PYA 5��� t OI�Ra
!y si!'
��.� ♦ •A•'R i
F •,tea,• a�
�sl,'-y...
♦ •s e•AR,
i
R a�
sA�iA w.
iAa 43•
Figure 2: Zoning Map
Page 269 of 297
BORDEN AVE N
or�Et,�c srn�e�
_ .•iy.r=etM ��:f `REP.
-711
I
-1' I
":ijPQE'®}$T$IpY �9 PjED &5�31MlY li
���nr,�r..�.tn [ c•r��orrAtHEa -� sac�eocrrulrn _ ��
�etj�,.u�¢ Frac€ IC �wasrl� �� �wwc II
"tt "fYT fiaf L9i Lkr.E � 1 +.u.a �-nr� � aMewm��•...' II
> m
�4 II
y
� I I
j srfla l
I4 +s n.1 a. Y a*�
M sraleCritias 41
a'Ak+l AREA I
I 14r Sas gy � I I
9�tf a• r
EF�rrv` e��
• tl
Figure 3: The proposed site plan
Planning staff have visited the site on May 30, 2025
Page 270 of 297
Figure 4: Front image of the property with the existing house
REPORT:
Planning Comments Minor Variance Applications A2025-060 and A2025-061:
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 subject property is designated `Low Rise Residential' in the Official Plan. Section
15.D.3 of the Official Plan provides policy direction on lands under residential
designations.
Policy 15.D.3.3 provides urban design principles regarding the integration of new
development in low rise residential areas:
a) compatibility of building form with respect to massing, scale, design,
b) the relationship of housing to adjacent buildings, streets and exterior areas,-
c)
reas,c) adequate and appropriate parking areas are provided on site, and,
d) adequate and appropriate amenity areas and landscaped areas are provided on
site.
Page 271 of 297
Policy 15.D.3.4 provides additional direction for new residential buildings in predominately
low density neighbourhoods, such as the one surrounding the subject property.
"All new residential buildings, additions and/or modifications to existing residential
buildings and conversions in predominantly low density neighbourhoods should be
compatible with and respect the massing, scale, design and physical character of the
established neighbourhood and have both appropriate landscaped areas and parking
areas provided on site."
The proposal is to demolish the existing single detached dwelling and construct 2 new
single detached dwellings, each with three (3) Additional Dwelling Units (ADUs)
(Attached). The proposed dwelling complies with the minimum lot size and setback of the
zoning. The surrounding area features a mix of lot sizes and dwelling types, including
single detached, semi-detached, and multiple residential dwellings. The proposed front
balcony and rear driveway/ parking lot are compatible with the neighbourhood scale and
design; therefore, the requested variances meet the intent of the Official Plan.
General Intent of the Zoning By-law
The subject property is zoned `RES -4 Zone' in Zoning By-law 2019-051.
The intent of prohibiting balconies that project into required yards from being supported by
the ground is to maintain open and unobstructed yards, ensure adequate sightlines and
separation between buildings and public spaces, and reduce the perception of bulk in the
required yard, especially at the front yard in this case.
The proposed 1.5 metre front balcony projection supported by columns maintains the
openness of the front yard while providing a functional outdoor amenity space that is
compatible with the residential character of the neighbourhood, as the abutting mid -rise
building has front balconies as per Figure 5. The structure is modest in scale and design,
with columns that do not create a negative impact and do not create a significant massing
effect as per the elevation drawing in Figure 6.
Page 272 of 297
Figure 5: Street view of the abutting multiple Dwelling building
Figure 6: The proposed elevations showing the projected balconies
Page 273 of 297
Staff is of the opinion that the variance meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law while
allowing for enhanced usability of the front fagade.
Limiting the driveway width in the rear yard to 8 metres is intended to preserve
landscaping and amenity space, while minimizing the extent of impermeable surfaces,
which helps manage stormwater, snow storage and green amenity space on-site.
In this case, the proposed driveway exceeds the 8.0 -metre limit to accommodate the
required parking spaces. However, the property continues to meet the rear yard
landscaping requirements of 30%, including a porch that leads to the rear dwelling and
rear balconies on the second and third floor. These landscaped areas provide sufficient
space for outdoor use and stormwater infiltration.
Additionally, the wider driveway is located at the rear of the property which is not visible
from the street, thereby avoiding any negative impact on the streetscape or
neighbourhood character.
Is/Are the Effects of the Variance(s) Minor?
The front balconies only project 1.5 metres in less than 50% of the front fagade width. The
balconies are supported with small columns that do not create a major massing at the front
of the building.
The driveway in the rear yard widens to 8.7 metres, which is only 0.7 metres wider than
the requirement, and it is shared with the abutting lot through the proposed easement.
Given this configuration, the impact of the increased driveway width is minimal, especially
as it is located at the rear and not visible from the street.
Based on the above, the requested variances are considered minor, with no significant
negative impacts
Is/Are the Variance(s) Desirable For The Appropriate Development or Use of the Land,
Building and/or Structure?
The proposed variances represent a form of gentle intensification that is generally
supported by planning staff. The front balcony provides additional amenity space for the
proposed dwelling units. The consolidated driveway is a desirable solution to enable
parking at the rear of the properties. This arrangement decreases the paved area in the
front yard of the retained and severed lots, while having the parking areas screened from
public view. The variances facilitate the desirable redevelopment of the subject property.
Planning Comments Consent Application B20225-019 and B2025-020:
In considering all the relevant Provincial legislation, Regional and City policies and
regulations, Planning staff offer the following comments:
Provincial Planning Statement (PPS 2024)
Staff are satisfied that the proposed severance application is consistent with the Provincial
Planning Statement in general and as it relates to housing policies in Chapter 2 regarding
intensification and facilitating housing options. The creation of a new parcel contributes to
gentle intensification, with the total of six Additional Dwelling Units adding further housing
Page 274 of 297
options to the area. Section 2.2 1 (b) of the PPS 2024 states that Planning authorities shall
provide for an appropriate range and mix of housing options and densities to meet
projected needs of current and future residents of the regional market area by permitting
and facilitating all housing options required to meet the social, health, economic and well-
being requirements of current and future residents, can remain achievable. The proposed
consent application will contribute towards housing needs and is therefore consistent with
this policy direction.
Regional Official Plan (ROP):
ROP Urban Area policies state that the focus of the Region's future growth shall be within
the Urban Area. The subject property falls within the `Urban Area' and is designated `Built -
Up Area' in the ROP. Regional policies require municipalities to plan for a range of
housing in terms of form, tenure, density, and affordability to satisfy the various physical,
social, economic, and personal support needs of current and future residents within these
designations. The neighbourhood provides for the physical and community infrastructure
required for residential development, including transportation networks, municipal water
and wastewater systems, and a broad range of social and public health services,
conforming with Policy 2.D.1 of the ROP. Staff are satisfied that the proposed severance
applications adhere to these policies and conform to the ROP.
City's Official Plan (2014)
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.
Section 17.E.20.5 of the Official Plan implements Section 51 of the Planning Act and
contains policies regarding infill development and lot creation (Consent Policies). These
policies state the following:
"17.E.20.5 Applications for consent to create new lots will only be granted where:
a) the lots comply with the policies of this Plan, any Community Plan
and/or Secondary Plan, and that the lots are in conformity with the
Zoning By-law, or a minor variance has been granted to correct any
deficiencies;
b) the lots reflect the general scale and character of the established
development pattern of surrounding lands by taking into consideration
lot frontages, areas, and configurations;
c) all of the criteria for plan of subdivision are given due consideration;
d) the lot will have frontage on a public street;
e) municipal water services are available;
f) municipal sanitary services are available except in accordance with
Policy 14.C.1.19;
Page 275 of 297
g) a Plan of Subdivision or Condominium has been deemed not to be
necessary for proper and orderly development; and,
h) the lot(s) will not restrict the ultimate development of adjacent
properties."
The proposed consent conforms with the above -noted policy. The retained and severed lots
meet the requirements of the Zoning By-law.
In satisfying 17.E.20.5.b), a mix of lot fabrics are found in the area. The existing lot is
generally larger than those observed in the area, and the proposed lots are generally
reflective of the lotting pattern of the area, particularly the narrower properties along East
Avenue.
[s1i1:i919MWA' :8Z
I IJ ArA.FCS
� Fh$Fr�FN'
� � I
6 � LM7AE f1F:'N7�FQ
' 1i: tO EE +iE61ShEP
` 9
LOT 'A' r °—� 7 LOT.. .'_—\,'
RETAINED,LOT i �� SEVERED LO
311.2 m? f { 310.7 mz 1
\
f yy
1
I 1 I I
I1
Figure 7: Proposed lot Fabrics
Page 276 of 297
Zoning By-law 2019-051
The subject property is zoned as `RES -4' in Zoning By-law 2019-051.
This review of the Zoning By-law confirms that the requested variances are required to
facilitate the proposed development. The variance to permit balconies projecting into the
front yard to be supported by the ground is necessary to accommodate a front balcony
feature that adds additional amenity to the proposed units, while maintaining the intent of
the Zoning By-law to preserve an open front yard.
In addition, the variance to permit a maximum driveway width of 8.7 metres in the rear
yard is required to accommodate a shared driveway between the two properties, and the
driveway accommodates rear yard parking spaces. The increased width is considered
appropriate and meets the intent of the Zoning By-law in providing functional access while
avoiding over -paving of the site.
The table below outlines the `RES -4' zone requirements and conformity of the retained
and severed parcels:
Zone
Retained Lot
Severed
Lot
Provision
Requirement
Provided
Conformity
Requirement
Provided
Conformity
Minimum
235 m2
311.2 m2
Y
235 m2
310.7 m2
Y
Lot Area
Minimum
9.0 m
10.2 m
Y
9.0 m
10.2 m
Y
Lot Width
Minimum
4.5 m
4.5 m
N
4.5 m
4.5 m
Y
Front
Yard
Minimum
7.5 m
11.7 m
Y
7.5 m
11.7 m
Y
Rear Yard
Minimum
1.2 m
2.0 & 1.9
Y
1.2 m
2.0 & 1.9
Y
Interior
m
m
Side Yard
Minimum
4.5 m
N/A
N/A
4.5 m
N/A
N/A
Exterior
Side Yard
Maximum
55%
< 55%
Y
55%
< 55%
Y
Lot
Coverage
Minimum
2.6 m
3.8 m
N
2.6 m
3.8 m
Y
Driveway
Width
Maximum
8 m
8.7 m
N
8 m
8.7 m
N
Driveway
Width
Easement
Applications B2025-019 and B2025-020 also include the creation of an easement. This is
a reciprocal easement providing each lot with access rights over the area of the shared
Page 277 of 297
driveway. This is necessary as half the width of the driveway is on each property, and a
car cannot traverse the driveway without being on the other lot.
Planning Conclusions/Comments:
With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51(24) of the
Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, staff is satisfied that the creation of the severed lots
and the creation of the easement to facilitate the shared driveway are desirable and
appropriate.
Environmental Planning Comments:
Staff have reviewed the Tree Preservation / Enhancement Plan (TPEP) by Aaron Hill
submitted in support of the above -noted applications. Please note that no permission
letters from contiguous landowners whose trees will be potentially impacted were included
with the submission.
A review of the submission has found the following:
• No tree species at risk are identified on/adjacent to the property.
• Trees, both native and non-native, of various condition, will be removed from the
property.
• 4 trees on adjacent properties will be potentially impacted.
• Permissions from adjacent landowners must be submitted as part of the TP/EP
ultimately approved for the 4 trees to be impacted. This will be required prior to deed
endorsement.
• Standard condition to enter into an agreement registered on title for mitigation
measures (protective fencing, other as appropriate), or other e.g. compensation
planting, as appropriate.
Heritage Planning Comments:
No concerns.
Building Division Comments:
A 2025-060 and A 2025-061:
The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance provided a building permits
for the residential building is obtained prior to construction. Please contact the Building
Division at buildinq(a-)kitchener.ca with any questions.
B 2025-019:
The Building Division has no objections to the proposed consent. Region of Waterloo and
Area Municipalities' Design Guidelines and Supplemental Specifications for Municipal
Services (DGSSMS) allows only one service per lot. Separate building permit(s) will be
required for the demolition of the existing building, as well as the construction of the new
residential buildings.
B 2025-020:
The Building Division has no objections to the proposed consent.
Page 278 of 297
Engineering Division Comments:
A 2025-060, A 2025-061 and B2025-020:
No concerns
B2025-019:
• Severance of any blocks within the subject lands will require separate, individual
service connections for sanitary, storm, and water, in accordance with City policies.
• The owner is required to make satisfactory financial arrangements with the
Engineering Division for the installation of new service connections that may be
required to service this property, all prior to severance approval. Our records indicate
sanitary and water municipal services are currently available to service this property.
• Any new driveways are to be built to City of Kitchener standards. All works are at the
owner's expense and all work needs to be completed prior to occupancy of the
building.
• A servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing system will be required to
the satisfaction of the Engineering Division prior to severance approval.
• A Development Asset Drawing (digital AutoCAD) is required for the new site
infrastructure with corresponding layer names and asset information to the
satisfaction of the Engineering Division prior to severance approval.
• The owner must ensure that the basement elevation of the building can be drained by
gravity to the municipal sanitary sewer. If basement finished floor elevations do not
allow for gravity drainage to the existing municipal sanitary system, the owner will
have to pump the sewage to achieve gravity drainage from the property line to the
municipal sanitary sewer in the right of way.
• The Owner shall implement a suitable design solution for a sump pump outlet to the
satisfaction of the Director of Engineering.
• The side yard currently accommodates overland stormwater flows from the rear yard.
A sidewalk is required to the rear yard in accordance with the Zoning By-law. The final
grading of this property shall not adversely affect the drainage of adjacent properties
or the overall grading control plan. The Owner is responsible to address storm water
drainage at the Building Permit stage.
Parks/Operations Division Comments:
2025-061 — 181 Borden Avenue North (Retained), B2025-019 — 181 Borden Avenue North
and B2025-020 — 181 Borden Avenue North
No concerns
A2025-060 — 181 Borden Avenue North (Severed):
Cash -in -lieu of park land dedication will be required on the severed parcel as 1 new
development lot will be created. The cash -in -lieu dedication required is $11,862.00. Park
Dedication is calculated at 5% of the new development lot only, with a land valuation
calculated by the lineal frontage of 10.2 metres at a land value of $36,080.00 per frontage
metre, which equals $18,400.80. In this case, a per unit cap of $11,862.00 has been applied.
There is an existing City -owned street tree located on Second Avenue that should be
protected in place throughout all construction. 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. Protection and Enhancement
Page 279 of 297
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 concerns
Region of Waterloo Comments:
No comments provided.
Grand River Conservation Authority 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.
PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES:
• Planning Act
• Provincial Planning Statement (PPS 2024)
• Regional Official Plan (ROP)
• Official Plan (2014)
• Zoning By-law 2019-051
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A — Consent Drawing
Attachment B — Concept plan
Page 280 of 297
z O
.Z.
Z 0 > w 0
rd Q
z MCKENZIE AVE w O
d o N
o rn
¢0 ON
Z IL
ZOO UswJz g ' yzd
O F —
� < 0 06
.,z
EAST AVE EAST AVE EO O
LO 0 w w
of z a- Z�� O Zs� m
0 O o
0
�Z zp� 40-
z 5 U c < 0L�
w w a Z g l.LJ DO o w r
0 'n�F' Y J sm o m z N o
m
o 'no m � 9 W U 0< O o } z z w
LLJ O0 O i w
d6�Zv) WGz Z �A mU oNz¢no
NY 0
[if LL p 0 }
o 0 ILL.OZ5> QYn
ahH
U
so
..
UAV) Z �V NLLJm LD 10
J�
W <� �OLL,� �� H?
Qt O'
? odOm (/) USN n -im Zw U-¢ o
EAST AVENUE
(REGISTERED PLANN 299)
� T T
E PIN 22507- 011 1(LT)
OQ
J ^
Z U W
COrnO
bj
oLCONCRETE,-AA
Z
w O<QU
1-24
'
o} ¢NZ
o3 SHED 26'06'10'W30.50 W
1
NCY, v
w 0 ..� BOARD FENCE -7- m
U d o 1 AR Al 04O
0
ONLb ?� jo �CA. O �3
\ _
m OG OG NDN rnmrn�z°
i I w o
HYDRO PHONE
o W o __ CA- __ _----- -- o D,
N ti a m 30.47 ROPOSED SHARED DRIVEWAY) EASEMENT a 0 N26'05'
o LZJ
z a 6 /N 22507- o `° 0110
W
o > 00 0 ¢ 0 ___ �- DECK ___ 0
Q [L I I \ y O'
0 U 0 < PAVIN STONES wo
m J�
W N w a 3 O ASPHALT
D :2:x� w DRIVEWAY
m
'r W coi DRAM OARD FENCE
m 30.47N BO D 04 'W CONC. WALLBOARD FENCE
BACK OF 2 W
0 ASPHALT EDGE BOARD FENCE
Im
m
Iv
OD
L0co
N
I`
o n z J
CO 00 a
Z I m Ld
O Q h ZM
J
,J
O/ �Q
/ n
Q
U'
ZWZ
QZW�
WU❑y
U'
❑❑ZOW❑
OF2�
ttl U U
rXF
`WO
Y � E
F mOQK
w O x
U
j 30.50 N26°06'10""
CONC. SIDEWALK
p 45 143 m'117 m m
31
LL
mF�rc
NI QN_- �❑�� — 11—
p Z❑
Oa a
Z a
LU 17
Q J
PROPOSEDSEVERANCE LINE ao a� uze as',sw aU
LU --_ pZ
Q ASPHALT DRIVEWAY y y
O J_
m 30
� p °mc�m � Q
>7-- ❑oma _ —
`� 'oe
00.
0 8.
30 m8a z a H
I'm d
W--- 143 ---Z 117
CONC. SIDEWALK
30.47 '270420'W
Y C vEi
0WF
O Wwo
zZ UU
m W 0
O
X U
WOE
Z
O
N a O
E
w`
wv
2
o
OQ
ry E E N E E E E E E a
-
-E ry E E E N E E E E E E a
E o
o d
a20,
E E E E o E E E E = E E
w E
o E E E E o E E E E2 = E E a_
�
3
O
Y
0,2
N
UJ
z
mai_
-
mai -
EE
0
z a
m
Y
\
US
—
E E
N
m
E
E 6
d O
O
Q O
m o m
m
o m
O
d E
Y /
oJ N t4
. . . . . . m . . . p O
,J N t4
. . . . .
U'
ZWZ
QZW�
WU❑y
U'
❑❑ZOW❑
OF2�
ttl U U
rXF
`WO
Y � E
F mOQK
w O x
U
j 30.50 N26°06'10""
CONC. SIDEWALK
p 45 143 m'117 m m
31
LL
mF�rc
NI QN_- �❑�� — 11—
p Z❑
Oa a
Z a
LU 17
Q J
PROPOSEDSEVERANCE LINE ao a� uze as',sw aU
LU --_ pZ
Q ASPHALT DRIVEWAY y y
O J_
m 30
� p °mc�m � Q
>7-- ❑oma _ —
`� 'oe
00.
0 8.
30 m8a z a H
I'm d
W--- 143 ---Z 117
CONC. SIDEWALK
30.47 '270420'W
Y C vEi
0WF
O Wwo
zZ UU
m W 0
O
X U
WOE
Z
O
N a O
E
w`
wv
2
Region of Waterloo
Connie Owen
Administrative Clerk, Legislative Services
City of Kitchener
200 King Street West
Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7
CofA(a)kitchener.ca
PLANNING, DEVELOPMENTAND
LEGISLATIVE SERVICES
150 Frederick Street, 81" floor
Kitchener Ontario N2G 4J3 Canada
Telephone: 519-575-4400
Fax: 519-575-4449
www. regionofwaterloo.ca
Susanna Reid, MCIP, RPP
519-502-8298
File: D20-20/25 KIT
June 11, 2025
Re: Comments on Consent Application: B2025-018; B2025-019; B2025-020
Committee of Adjustment Hearing, June 17, 2025
City of Kitchener
Please accept the following comments for the above -noted consent applications to be
considered at the upcoming Committee of Adjustment Hearing.
Document Number: 5004291
Page 283 of 297
File No:
B2025-018
Address:
73 Second Ave.
Description: Plan 254 Lot 33
Owner:
Weijie Zhang
Applicant:
Boban Jokanovic, Bobicon Ltd.
The purpose of the application is to demolish the existing dwelling on the property and
to create two lots for a duplex on each of the severed and retained lands.
Source Water Protection: The subject property is within a Part IV area, as defined by
the Clean Water Act. The owner/applicant has provided a Section 59 notice.
Environmental Threats: There are no high or medium threats in the Threat Inventory
Database (TID) on or adjacent to 73 Second Ave.
Regional Fees: Regional staff have not received the required $350 fee for review of a
consent application.
Regional staff have no objection to this application subject to the following condition:
1. That the Owner/Developer submit the consent review fee of $350 to the Regional
Municipality of Waterloo.
Document Number: 5004291
Page 284 of 297
File No: B2025-019
Address: 181 Borden Ave North
Description: Part Lot 7, Part Lot 8, Plan 655
Owner: Craig McRae Robson Professional Corporation
Applicant: Matthew Warzecha, Polocorp Inc
This is a residential lot with a single detached dwelling, with a total lot area of 621.9 m2.
The owner/applicant has applied to sever a 310.7 m2 parcel. The area of the retained
parcel will be 311.2 m2.
The severed parcel is proposed to be developed with one primary dwelling and three
attached ADUs.
The retained parcel is proposed to be developed with one primary dwelling and three
attached ADUs.
Source Water Protection: The subject property, 181 Borden Ave North, is outside a
Part IV area as defined by the Clean Water Act.
Environmental Threats: There are no high or medium threats in the Threats Inventory
Database identified on 181 Borden Ave North, or on properties adjacent to 181 Borden
Ave North.
Regional Fees: Regional staff have not received the required $350 fee for review of a
consent application.
Regional staff have no objection to this application subject to the following condition:
1. That the Owner/Developer submit the consent review fee of $350 to the Regional
Municipality of Waterloo.
Document Number: 5004291
Page 285 of 297
File No: B2025-020
Address: 181 Borden Ave North
Description: Part Lot 7, Part Lot 8, Plan 655
Owner: Craig McRae Robson Professional Corporation
Applicant: Matthew Warzecha, Polocorp Inc
The existing residential lot is proposed to be severed into two parcels by Consent File
B2025-019. The lots are proposed to share a single driveway access area onto Borden
Avenue, approximately 3.6 m wide
Consent file B2025-020 requests a shared access easement to straddle the lot line
between the two properties, extending the full depth of the lot (approximately 30.5
metres). The total area of the proposed easement is 120.7 m2.
Source Water Protection: The subject property, 181 Borden Ave North, is outside the
Part IV area.
Environmental Threats: There are no high or medium threats in the Threats Inventory
Database identified on 181 Borden Ave North, or on properties adjacent to 181 Borden
Ave North.
Regional Fees: Regional staff have not received the required $350 fee for review of a
consent application.
Regional staff have no objection to this application subject to the following condition:
1. That the Owner/Developer submit the consent review fee of $350 to the Regional
Municipality of Waterloo.
Document Number: 5004291
Page 286 of 297
General Comments:
If any other applications are required to facilitate the application additional fees and/or
requirements may apply. Any submission requirements may be subject to peer review,
at the owner/applicant's expense as per By-law 24-052.
Any future development on the lands subject to the above -noted consent applications
will be subject to the provisions of Regional Development Charge By-law 19-037 or any
successor thereof.
Prior to final approval, City staff must be in receipt of the above -noted Regional
condition clearance.
Please accept this letter as our request for a copy of the staff reports, decisions and
minutes pertaining to each of the consent applications noted above.
Thank you,
Susanna Reid, MCIP RPP
Senior Planner
Regional Growth, Development and Sustainability Services
Regional Municipality of Waterloo
Document Number: 5004291
Page 287 of 297
Region of Waterloo
June 11, 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 4A 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 June 17, City of Kitchener
Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and
have the following comments:
1)
A 2024 —
075 —
96 Wood Street — No Concerns
2)
A 2025 —
055 —
89 Matthew Street — No Concerns
3)
A 2025 —
056 —
9 Blucher Street — Region Staff have significant concerns
regarding the implementation of adequate crash protection measures along the
Waterloo Spur.
Region Staff require additional time to consider the application,
and request the application be deferred.
4)
A 2025 —
057 —
386 Wake Robin Cresent — No Concerns
5)
A 2025 —
058 —
175 Hoffman Street — No Concerns
6)
A 2025 —
059 —
22 Parkglen Street — No Concerns
7)
A 2025 —
060 —
181 Borden Aveune North — No Concerns
8)
A 2025 —
061 —
181 Borden Aveune North — 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 288 of 297
Please forward any decisions on the above-mentioned Application numbers to the
undersigned.
Yours Truly,
c71�",_ilUaw
Joshua Beech Falshaw
Transportation Planner
jbeechfalshaw@regionofwaterloo.ca
Document Number: 4976854
Page 289 of 297
June 2, 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 — June 17, 2025
Applications for Minor Variance
A 2024-075
96 Wood Street
A 2025-055
89 Matthew Street
A 2025-057
386 Wake Robin Crescent
A 2025-058
175 Hoffman Street
A 2025-059
22 Parkglen Street
A 2025-060
181 Borden Avenue North
A 2025-061
181 Borden Avenue North
Applications for Consent
B 2025-018 73 Second Avenue
B 2025-019 181 Borden Avenue North
B 2025-020 181 Borden Avenue North
via email
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-q rand 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 290 of 297
From:
Farah Farogue
To:
Committee of Adiustment (SM)
Cc:
Jenna Auger
Subject:
Kitchener Jun 17, 2025 Hearing
Date:
Thursday, May 29, 2025 2:43:38 PM
Attachments:
imaae001.ona
Afternoon Kitchener CofA,
Thank you for circulating the June17, 2025, Committee of Adjustments agenda for Kitchener. Please
be advised that all properties were found to be outside Metrolinx's designated review zones. As such,
we have no comments/concerns with the applications in this agenda.
Thankyou,
Farah Faroque (she/her)
Project Analyst, Adjacent Construction Review
Real Estate & Development
Metrolinx
20 Bay Street — Suite 600 1 Toronto I Ontario I M5J 2W3
T: 437.900.2291
=X: METROLINX
From: mail@sf-notifications.com <mail@sf-notifications.com>
Sent: May 23, 2025 10:45 AM
To: development.coordinator <development.coordinator@metrolinx.com>
Subject: Clerks CoK has shared the folder 'Committee of Adjustment - Applications' with you.
XTERNAL SENDER: Do not click any links or open any attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.
XPEDITEUR EXTERNE: Ne cliquez sur aucun lien et n'ouvrez aucune piece jointe a moins qu'ils ne proviennent d'un expediteur fiable,
)u que vous ayez I'assurance que Ie contenu provient d'une source sure.
Development,
Clerks CoK has shared the folder Committee of
Adjustment - Applications with you.
Page 291 of 297
Message from Clerks
Attached are the applications for the City of Kitchener
Committee of Adjustment meeting being held on June 17,
2025.
Please remember, your email address is your username to log
in. If you are unable to log in, select "Forgot my Password". For
those who comment regularly, your written report must be sent
to CofA@kitchener.ca no later than 12 noon on Monday, June
2, 2025.
You will need to download any files in this folder that you would
like to retain, as they will be deleted from this program when
the applications for the next month are circulated.
If you require any further assistance, please email
CofA@kitchener.ca.
Thank you.
Marilyn Mills, Legislated Services
Kitchener City Hall
Need help? We're here for you.
Visit sharefile.com/support and look for "Start chat."
I
This e-mail is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed. If you received
Page 292 of 297
this in error, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the e-mail together with any
attachments.
Page 293 of 297
From: Nembhard, O"Neil (MTO)
To: Committee of Adiustment (SM)
Subject: RE: Agenda - Committee of Adjustment - Tuesday, June 17, 2025
Date: Friday, June 6, 2025 3:11:13 PM
Attachments: imaoe001.ona
You don't often get email from o'neil.nembhard@ontario.ca. Learn why this is important
Good day,
Please see below MTO comments related to the June 17, 2025 Committee of
Adjustment Meeting.
1. The Ministry of Transportation (MTO) has no objection to this application. The
subject property is located beyond our limits of permit control and therefore
MTO review, approval and permits will not be required.
o A 2024-075 - 96 Wood Street
o A 2025-055 - 89 Matthew Street
o A 2025-057 - 386 Wake Robin Crescent
o A 2025-059 - 22 Parkglen Street
o B 2025-019, B 2025-020, A 2025-060 & A 2025-061 - 181 Borden Avenue
North
2. A 2025-058 - SP24/009/H/ES. 175 Hoffman Street - The subject property does
fall within MTO permit control area, however based on the modifications to site
proposed, MTO permits will not be required.
3. B 2025-018 - 73 Second Avenue- The subject property does fall within MTO
permit control area, however, based on the location in a buildup area, MTO
review, approval and permits will not be required.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments.
Regards,
O'Neil Nembhard
Corridor Management Planner I Operation West I Operations Division
Ministry of Transportation Ontario I Ontario Public Service
548-388-2571 1 o'neil.nembhard C_ontario.ca
Ontario 0
Taking pride in strengthening Ontario, its places and its people
Please note the Ministry no Ionizer accents Land Develooment review reauests thoueh its email
system. All Land Development Review requests to the Ministry must be submitted to the Ministry of
Transportation through the Highway Corridor Management Online portal at:
https://www.hcros.mto.gov.on.ca/
The Land Development Review module is designed to better serve stakeholders through
Page 294 of 297
streamlining all land development planning approvals by the Ministry.
From: Committee of Adjustment (SM) <CommitteeofAdjustment@kitchen er.ca>
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2025 11:55 AM
To: Committee of Adjustment (SM) <CommitteeofAdjustment@kitchen er.ca>
Subject: Agenda - Committee of Adjustment - Tuesday, June 17, 2025
CAUTION -- EXTERNAL E-MAIL - Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender.
Good morning,
The agenda for the June 17, 2025 Committee of Adjustment meeting is now available on our
Council/Committee calendar.
The combined agenda with reports will be posted to the meeting calendar by noon on Friday, June
13, 2025.
Connie Owen
Administrative Clerk I Legislated Services I City of Kitchener
519-904-1409 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 connie.owen(cbkitchener.ca
Page 295 of 297
From: Pui Ming Leung
To: Committee of Adiustment (SM)
Subject: COA, Kitchener
Date: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 11:37:04 AM
Attachments: 11111j)d
in
Sorry for my late response. I apologize for any inconvenience caused.
90 Wood ST- make sure to have clearance to primary cable on York St according to our
standard D11111 (attached here)
For all new service or upgrade, please send a request to Enova for hydro connection.
Thanks,
Pui Ming Leung (she/her) I Design Technologist
Direct Number: 226-896-2200 (EXT 6205)
Mobile Number: 519-589-2659
puiming. leunaQenovapower.com
301 Victoria Street South, Kitchener, Ontario, N2G 4L2
enovapower.com
121
This correspondence is directed in confidence solely to the addressees listed above. It may
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 notes the sender immediately. Click on the link to read the
additional disclaimer: https://enovapower.com/disclaimer
Page 296 of 297
N
O
n �r U)A
r�
N
ifri �fri LU � N
f>)
a p m
F2mo wW U 0° zwp� ~ w d
W a O w U 2 f Z 2 W O`J z
25, o=p =w w3a 3wzr o
a 0 2 Z Q Z F> x>w OH 2 K U z
O H m
Q W H ❑ Z❑ w J y O
_ ~ ~ ~l 3 O
Z W J
O
1.21.
a O p N w m m
�
p1y W 'Yzv^
p2U U Q O N2> U
oy¢ovz w H �w¢� w=p WOZ J
Q
(� N
J Om mfn W J W yaz W mp ❑LU
JFQa m N N
w W W O V W> J OJ z OF x O W W W m W O Q N N w w
ma �� W, m0 F =O° Uxz FD Z p & O ``'
Q° O w v Q Q LL ? z m W z z to 07C m O Z /
zu yrs w ' wo z Y
y> j mow fxgZ Ola-~ U U r �m C7 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 (°_�o .0 Z, 3<w z yz 0i0os o°p o Z m 3
zo 0, Y H f70> r W wo w w fgNUf/)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 a' K O U ❑ w F0 0 fn w W
LU
- OUz OU w OJQ(N
Z
❑ O O y o >� O Zmm NOQ(9> U) W a
xwW= O 6ZW GzV
ZUOmUQ J
U) ¢ W O ] ❑ L) l_L¢ W W F jH aa v,
mLLO O W W UW
wm 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 — Aw a Z a
m
U w r N N
7 U 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