HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSD-2025-303 - A 2025-064 and A 2025-065 - 82 Brunswick AvenueStaff Report
r
JR
Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca
REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment
DATE OF MEETING: July 15, 2025
SUBMITTED BY: Tina Malone -Wright, Manager, Development Approvals
519-783-8913
PREPARED BY: Evan Wittmann, Senior Planner, 519-783-8523
WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 10
DATE OF REPORT: July 4, 2025
REPORT NO.: DSD -2025-303
SUBJECT: Minor Variance Application A2025-064 - 82 Brunswick Avenue
(Future Severed)
Minor Variance Application A2025-065 - 82 Brunswick Avenue
(Future Retained)
RECOMMENDATION:
A. Minor Variance Application A2025-064 — 82 Brunswick Avenue (Future Severed)
That Minor Variance Application A2025-064 for 82 Brunswick Avenue (Future
Severed) requesting relief from the following sections of Zoning By-law 2019-051:
i) Section 5.6 a), Table 5-5-1, to permit a parking requirement of 1 parking space
instead of the minimum required 2 parking spaces; and
ii) Section 7.3, Table 7-3, to permit a rear yard setback of 5.6 metres instead of the
minimum required 7.5 metres;
generally in accordance with drawings prepared by Southwood Homes, dated May
29, 2025, BE APPROVED subject to the following condition:
1. That the Owner shall submit a Plan, prepared by a qualified consultant, to the
satisfaction and approval of the City's Manager, Site Plans and the Director of
Parks and Cemeteries, showing the following:
a) the proposed location of all buildings (including accessory buildings and
structures), decks and driveways;
b) the location of any existing buildings or structures to be removed or
relocated;
c) the proposed grades and drainage;
d) the location of all trees to be preserved, removed or potentially impacted
on or adjacent to the subject lands, including notations of their size,
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
Page 79 of 182
species and condition. If necessary, the plan shall include required
mitigation and or compensation measures;
e) the location of all City -owned street-tree(s) demonstrating protection and
preservation of the City -owned tree(s);
f) justification for any tree(s) to be removed;
g) outline tree protection measures for trees to be preserved; and
h) building elevation drawings.
B. Minor Variance Application A2025-065 — 82 Brunswick Avenue (Future Retained)
That Minor Variance Application A2025-065 for 82 Brunswick Avenue (Future
Retained) requesting relief from the following sections of Zoning By-law 2019-051:
i) Section 5.6 a), Table 5-5-1, to permit a parking requirement of 1 parking space
instead of the minimum required 2 parking spaces; and
ii) Section 7.3, Table 7-3, to permit a rear yard setback of 7 metres instead of the
minimum required 7.5 metres;
generally in accordance with drawings prepared by Southwood homes, dated May
29, 2025, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition:
1. That the Owner shall submit a Plan, prepared by a qualified consultant, to the
satisfaction and approval of the City's Manager, Site Plans and the Director of
Parks and Cemeteries, showing the following:
a) the proposed location of all buildings (including accessory buildings and
structures), decks and driveways;
b) the location of any existing buildings or structures to be removed or
relocated;
c) the proposed grades and drainage;
d) the location of all trees to be preserved, removed or potentially impacted
on or adjacent to the subject lands, including notations of their size,
species and condition. If necessary, the plan shall include required
mitigation and or compensation measures;
e) the location of all City -owned street-tree(s) demonstrating protection and
preservation of the City -owned tree(s);
f) justification for any tree(s) to be removed;
g) outline tree protection measures for trees to be preserved; and
h) building elevation drawings.
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS:
• The purpose of this report is to review and make recommendations on Minor Variance
Applications for future Severed and Retained Parcels proposed at 82 Brunswick
Avenue to facilitate the creation of a Semi -Detached Dwelling with three dwelling units
on each side.
• The key finding of this report is that the two Minor Variance Applications meet the `four
tests' of the Planning Act and approval is recommended.
• There are no financial implications.
• Community engagement included a notice sign being placed on the property advising
that a Committee of Adjustment application has been received, notice of the
Page 80 of 182
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 applicant submitted previous Minor Variance Applications for the subject property
(Minor Variance Applications A2025-043 and A2025-044), which were ultimately refused
by the Committee at the May 20th, 2025, meeting. Since this meeting, the applicant has
revised the plan, now proposing two (2) Additional Dwelling Units on each property, rather
than three (3) ADUs, for a total of 3 dwelling units on each half, and requests a parking
reduction rather than driveway widening and front yard landscaping reduction. A rear yard
setback reduction continues to be requested, but the revised plan has a slightly larger rear
yard area.
The subject property is located on the eastern side of Brunswick Avenue between
Hartwood Avenue and Guelph Street within the "Fairfield" community. The subject
property currently features a 1.5 storey single detached dwelling and has a frontage of
approximately 15 metres and depth of approximately 30 metres. The surrounding area is
generally characterised by low-rise housing, with notable exceptions being the abutting
"Margaret Place" apartment buildings, each being 18 storeys tall. The parking areas of the
Margaret Place property abuts the eastern and southern edges of the subject property. A
short distance north of the subject property is large commercial property, currently
tenanted by Giant Tiger. The Breithaupt Centre is a short distance from the subject
property, across Margaret Avenue to the northeast.
Figure 1: Aerial View Of The Subject Property (In Red)
Page 81 of 182
Figure 2: Subject Property, View From Street (Taken June 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.
The subject property is zoned `Low Rise Residential Four Zone (RES -4)' in Zoning By-law
2019-051. This zone permits semi-detached dwellings on lots with a lot width of 7.5 metres
and lot area of 210 m2, which are met by the proposed lot configuration and would be
implemented by a future Consent Application.
The purpose of the applications is to vary the `RES -4' Zone requirements for minimum rear
yard setback and required parking to facilitate the development of a Semi -Detached
Dwelling with two (2) Additional Dwelling Units (ADU) (Attached) in each half of the Semi -
Detached Dwelling, for a total of six (6) dwelling units.
Page 82 of 182
Figure 3: Zoning By -Law
REPORT:
Planning Comments:
In considering the four tests for the minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the
Planning Act, R.S.O, 1990 Chap. P 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the following
comments:
General Intent of the Official Plan
The Official Plan provides several policies regarding the intensification of low rise
residential areas, with more specific direction to the requested variances, being to the rear
yard setback and minimum parking spaces.
Of particular relevance to this application is Policy 4.C.1.8, which provides specific policy
direction for minor variance applications proposing residential intensification:
4. C.1.8. Where a special zoning regulation(s) or minor variance(s) is/are requested,
proposed or required to facilitate residential intensification or a
redevelopment of lands, the overall impact of the special zoning regulation(s)
or minor variance(s) will be reviewed, but not limited to the following to
ensure, that.-
e)
hat:
e) The lands can function appropriately and not create unacceptable
adverse impacts for adjacent properties by providing both an
Page 83 of 182
appropriate number of parking spaces and an appropriate
landscaped/amenity area on the site.
f) The impact of each special zoning regulation or variance will be
reviewed prior to formulating a recommendation to ensure that a
deficiency in the one zoning requirement does not compromise the
site in achieving objectives of compatible and appropriate site and
neighbourhood design and does not create further zoning
deficiencies.
Regarding Policy 4.C.1.8.e), both requested variances would reduce the amenity area
available on the site (the reduced rear yard) and the number of required parking spaces.
Where the previous minor variance application sought to reduce both the rear yard area
and front yard landscaped area, the revised application is only a reduction to the rear yard,
maintaining the requirements for the front yard landscaped area, and the rear yard
reduction is further reduced from the previous application. By maintaining the front yard
landscaping and increasing the size of the rear yard from the previous application, the
general intent of the amenity area is maintained. Providing one parking space for each
side of the development results in two dwelling units not having a parking space. The
dwellings without parking spaces are to be advertised and leased as such, and on -street
parking is not a permitted alternative.
Where the previous Minor Variance Application had one (1) variance causing another,
conflicting with Policy 4.C.1.8.f), the revised application does not have one variance
causing another, and as such now meets this policy.
The Official Plan provides policy direction on the compatibility of residential intensification
with the existing character of the neighbourhood. Policy 4.C.1.9 states:
4. C.1.9. Residential intensification and/or redevelopment within existing
neighbourhoods will be designed to respect existing character. A high
degree of sensitivity to surrounding context is important in considering
compatibility.
Examining the existing context of Brunswick Avenue, the predominant built form is single
detached dwellings in a mix of bungalow, one and a half, and two storey forms, with
occasional low-rise apartment buildings, save and except the Giant Tiger property and two
tower Margaret Place development. Compatibility, as defined in the Official Plan, should
not be interpreted as meaning "the same as". Generally, a semi-detached dwelling with a
single loaded driveway is compatible with the surrounding area.
Additional policy direction regarding compatibility is provided in the Low Rise Residential
land use designation policies, specifically 15.D.3.3:
15.D.3.3. To support the successful integration of different housing types, specifically
multiple residential developments, through new development/redevelopment
and/or residential intensification, within lands designated Low Rise
Residential, Medium Rise Residential or High Rise Residential, the City will
Page 84 of 182
apply design principles in accordance with the Urban Design Policies in
Section 11. An emphasis will be placed on.-
c)
n:
c) adequate and appropriate parking areas are provided on site, and,
d) adequate and appropriate amenity areas and landscaped areas are
provided on site.
Policy 15.D.3.3 further emphasizes the appropriateness of parking areas, amenity areas,
and landscaped areas in Low Rise Residential areas. The combined area of the front and
rear yards is typical of contemporary housing standards and considered sufficient
landscaped and amenity area.
Planning staff are of the opinion that the variances would meet the general intent of the
Official Plan.
General Intent of the Zoning By-law
The intent of the rear yard setback is to ensure both sufficient distance from lot lines to
ensure privacy to abutting properties, and to provide private, outdoor amenity space to the
lot. The need for reductions to the rear yard setbacks are due to the angle of the rear lot
line. For the future severed lot, the setback is 5.6 metres at its shortest point, which
continues to increase until reaching 7.1 metres at its longest. The average rear yard
setback is roughly 6.35 metres, which results in a rear yard area of approximately 47.6
square metres. The minimum rear yard size as calculated by the required zone provisions
is 56.25 square metres (7.5 metres x 7.5 metres). The 47.6 square metres that would be
provided is 85% the area of the typical requirement. Based on the intent of the rear yard
setback, the reduction results in an area that generally meets the intent of the Zoning By-
law. Where this is a slight increase in rear yard area from the previous application, the now
front yard landscaped area now more than meets the minimum of the Zoning By-law,
providing additional amenity area that was not available in the prior plan.
For the future retained lot, the setback is 7.1 metres at its shortest point, which continues
to increase until reaching 8.6 metres at its longest. The average rear yard setback is
roughly 7.85 metres, which is above the minimum requirement of 7.5 metres. For this lot,
the reduction to the rear yard effectively meets the intent of the Zoning By-law.
Regarding the provision of parking spaces, the Zoning By-law establishes a parking rate
for single detached housing and additional dwelling units, ultimately with the intent to
ensure sufficient parking is provided for the proposed uses. The area has nearby transit
access along Weber Street and Margaret Avenue, and cycling infrastructure is available
on Margaret Avenue. Residents of additional dwelling units generally have a lower rate of
car ownership and as such the variance to the required parking can be justified.
Page 85 of 182
Is/Are the Effects of the Variance(s) Minor?
To assess if the effects of a variance are minor, a common approach is to consider
potential adverse impacts to the area. A reduced rear yard area generally does not
introduce adverse impacts to an area, and nearby green spaces such as Hart Green and
Breithaupt Centre are available should outdoor activities require a space greater than the
confines of the back yard. The reduced rear yard setback of the proposed dwellings will
not adversely impact properties abutting a parking area for a multiple residential use in this
location.
By reducing the number of parking spaces available, there is reasonable concern that cars
will park in areas not designated or designed for parking. It is expected and required that
the future tenants of the dwellings without a parking space are made aware and
understand that they do not have a parking space, and on -street parking is not an
acceptable solution.
Is/Are the Variance(s) Desirable For The Appropriate Development or Use of the Land,
Building and/or Structure?
Regarding the desirability of the variances, the decreased rear yard setback enables the
dwelling units to be larger than typical Additional Dwelling Units. Based on the floor plans
provided, the primary dwelling will be three bedrooms, with the two additional dwelling
units being sizeable two bedroom units (-x900-1,000 square feet). The reduced rear yard
enhances the livability of the units, contributing to the mix of rental units available in the
City.
Page 86 of 182
The reduced minimum parking space requirements contributes to a reduction in auto -
reliance, which is generally a desirable outcome. Official Plan policies 6.C.1.2.b.iv) and
7.C.7.3 both direct for a reduction in private automobile reliance to encourage active
transportation use and protect air quality, respectively, furthering the proposals conformity
to the Official Plan
Environmental Planning Comments:
No natural heritage features/functions. Tree(s) in shared ownership may be affected.
Request tree management condition with standard wording for variance.
Heritage Planning Comments:
No heritage comments or concerns.
Building Division Comments:
The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance provided a building permit
for the semi-detached dwelling is obtained prior to construction. Please contact the Building
Division at building(a)kitchener.ca with any questions.
Engineering Division Comments:
Engineering has no concerns.
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 7.58 m at a land value of $36,080 per frontage meter,
which equals $13,674. In this case, a per unit cap of $11,862 has been applied.
There is an existing City -owned street tree within the right-of-way on Brunswick Avenue. It
is expected that all City owned tree assets will be fully protected to City standards
throughout demolition and construction as per Chapter 690 of the current Property
Maintenance By-law. No revisions to the existing driveway or boulevard apron will be
permitted without Forestry approval. Tree Protection and Enhancement Plans to Forestry's
satisfaction will be required outlining complete protection of City assets prior to any
demolition or building permits being issued.
Transportation Planning Comments:
Transportation Services have no concerns with this application.
Grand River Conservation Authority
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, permission from GRCA is not required.
Region of Waterloo
No concerns.
Page 87 of 182
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 (2014)
• Zoning By-law 2019-051
• DSD -2025-211
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A — Site Plan
Page 88 of 182
Attachment A — Site Plan
southwood ornes
ARCH IT E C T U R A L 6 E$ I G
EDUST.
2 -STOREY
D"ELUNG
NOL 86
I
Site Plan
82 Brunswick Ayerue. K11chener ON
29, 2024
Page 89 of 182
-'Td.
1
o
LWI
.4CCES.
pRopar.=D
2—'T011EY -jEl,:.
2—TO ;EMI
'3 UNM,-j
PUNF33)
MT1
LMT
5
Y R 63T M
QbTIi/CTWLLIP�YIYj
All,Acm.:
JL
Site Plan
82 Brunswick Ayerue. K11chener ON
29, 2024
Page 89 of 182
June 24, 2025
Connie Owen
City of Kitchener
200 King Street West
P.O. Box 1118
Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7
File No.: D20-20/
VAR KIT GEN
PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT
AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES
150 Frederick Street, 8th Floor
Kitchener ON N2G U Canada
Telephone: 519-575-4400
TTY: 519-575-4608
Fax: 519-575-4449
www. reg i o n ofwate r l o o. ca
Subject: Committee of Adjustment Meeting June 15, City of Kitchener
Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and
have
the following comments:
1)
A 2025 —
062
— 124 Tupper Cresent — No Concerns
2)
A 2025 —
063
— 55 Shoemaker Street — No Concerns
3)
A 2025 —
064
— 82 Brunswick Avenue (Future Severed) — No Concerns
4)
A 2025 —
065
— 82 Brunswick Aveune (Future Retained) — No Concerns
5)
A 2025 —
066
— 508 New Dundee Road — No Concerns
6)
A 2025 —
067
— 38 Fifth Aveune (Side A) — No Concerns
7)
A 2025 —
068
— 38 Fifth Aveune (Side B) — No Concerns
8)
A 2025 —
069
— 439 Alice Aveune (Side A) — No Concerns
9)
A 2025 —
070
— 439 Alice Aveune (Side B) — 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.
Please forward any decisions on the above-mentioned Application numbers to the
undersigned.
Document Number: 5014252
5014252
Page 90 of 182
Yours Truly,
Joshua Beech Falshaw
Transportation Planner
jbeechfalshaw@regionofwaterloo.ca
Document Number: 5014252
Page 91 of 182
June 30, 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 — July 15, 2025
Applications for Minor Variance
A 2025-062 124 Tupper Crescent
A 2025-063 55 Shoemaker Street
A 2025-064 & A 2025-065 82 Brunswick Avenue
A 2025-066 508 New Dundee Road
A 2025-067 & A 2025-068 38 Fifth Avenue
A 2025-069 & A 2025-070 439 Alice Avenue
Applications for Consent
B 2024-031 829 Stirling Avenue South
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-g- 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 92 of 182
From: Jenna Auger
To: Committee of Adjustment (SM); Committee of Adjustment (SM)
Subject: RE: ACTION REQUIRED - Committee of Adjustment Application Review - July 15, 2025 Meeting
Date: Monday, June 23, 2025 10:07:35 AM
Attachments: image001.ong
Good morning,
Metrolinx is in receipt of the following Committee of Adjustment agenda for Kitchener.
Upon review, we note that no applications fall within the Metrolinx review zone. As such,
Metrolinx issues no comments for this agenda.
Best Regards,
Jenna Auger (She/Her)
Project Analyst, Adjacent Construction Review (ACR)
Development & Real Estate Management
T: (416)-881-0579
20 Bay Street I Toronto I Ontario I M5J 2W3
=0C= MET OLI X
**Adjacent Construction Review (ACR) was formerly Third -Party Projects Review (IPPR)**
From: Committee of Adjustment (SM) <CommitteeofAdjustment@kitchen er.ca>
Sent: June 19, 2025 12:20 PM
To: Committee of Adjustment (SM) <CommitteeofAdjustment@kitchener.ca>
Subject: ACTION REQUIRED - Committee of Adjustment Application Review - July 15, 2025 Meeting
EXTERNAL SENDER: Do not click any links or open any attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.
EXPEDITEUR EXTERNE: Ne cliquez sur aucun lien et n'ouvrez aucune piece jointe a moins qu'ils ne proviennent d'un expediteur
liable, ou que vous ayez I'assurance que le contenu provient d'une source sure.
Hello,
Please be advised the applications for the City of Kitchener Committee of Adjustment
meeting scheduled for Tuesday, July 15, 2025, have been loaded and circulated through
ShareFile. You should have already received the necessary link.
If you wish to make comments, provide advice, or request the imposition of any conditions
on any of these applications, please provide the Committee with a written report.
Please note: If you have comments, your written report must be sent to
C:ofA►&kitchener.ca no later than 12 noon on Monday, June 30, 2025.
Page 93 of 182
If you have no comments for the Committee's consideration, you do not need to respond.
Connie Owen.
Administrative Clerk I Legislated Services I City of Kitchener
519-741-2203 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 cofana kitchener.ca
This e-mail is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed. If you received
this in error, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the e-mail together with any
attachments.
Page 94 of 182
From: Nembhard, O"Neil (MTO)
To: Committee of Adiustment (SM)
Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application Review - July 15, 2025 Meeting
Date: Wednesday, June 25, 2025 2:15:43 PM
Attachments: imaoe001.pno
Good day,
Please see MTO comments related to the Committee of Adjustment Application
Review - July 15, 2025, Meeting:
MTO has no objection to these applications. The subject properties are located
beyond MTO Permit Control Area (PCA) and therefore MTO review, approval and
permits will not be required.
1. A 2025-062 Variance Application — 124 Tupper Crescent
2. A 2025-063 Minor Variance (Zoning) -
55 Shoemaker Street
3. A 2025-064 Minor Variance (Zoning) -
82 Brunswick Avenue
4. A 2025-065 Minor Variance (Zoning) -
82 Brunswick Avenue
5. A 2025-066 Minor Variance (Zoning)
— 508 New Dundee Rd
6. A 2025-0669 Minor Variance (zoning)
— 439- A Alice Ave
7. A 2025-0670 Minor Variance (zoning)
— 439- B Alice Ave
8. B 2025-021 — Consent — 546 Courtland
Ave E
9. A 2025-067 and A 2025-068 - 38 Fifth Ave. Side A and Side B. The subject
property does fall within MTO permit control area, however based on the
modifications to site proposed, MTO permits, approval, review 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 Qontario.ca
Ontario
Taking pride in strengthening Ontario, its places and its people
Please note the Ministry no longer accepts Land Development review requests though 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:
htt�sWwww.hcros.mto.gov.on.ca/landdev/en/land-development
The Land Development Review module is designed to better serve stakeholders through streamlining all land
development planning approvals by the Ministry.
Page 95 of 182
July 8, 2025
Re: A2025-064-82 Brunswick Avenue
A2025-065 — 82 Brunswick Avenue
Dear Committee of Adjustment members,
I have been a resident of for the past 15 years, living directly across the street
from the proposed development at 82 Brunswicl<, and I'm writing to express my concerns regarding
the proposed plans for that site.
I offer the following points for your consideration:
1. Insufficient parl<ing
a. The proposed reduction in parl<ing would result in only two (2) parl<ing spaces for
the six (6) proposed multibedroom units, leaving four (4) of those units without any
parl<ing options other than street parl<ing, which is prohibited under bylaw, as the
East side of Brunswick Avenue does not have a boulevard.
b. Developers may argue that measures have been tal<en by the Region to improve
alternative transit, removing the need for vehicle ownership. However, a 2022
article from The Record states that 88-91% of residents still use cars as a main
method of transportation, a statistic that has not changed "despite the launch of
express buses, the launch of GO commuter trains and Ion rail transit, the addition
of trails and cycling lanes and sidewall<s, the intensification of new housing in built-
up areas, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic." (Outhit, 2022).
With this in mind, the lil<elihood that the proposed parking situation for
these units will be functional for future residents and current neighbours
is highly questionable.
2. Safety and accessibility concerns
a. This leaves residents and visitors to the site with no choice but to parl< on the street,
leading to congestion and issues with access for snow removal and waste removal,
which can be blocl<ed by street parl<ing.
b. Crowding on our 7 meter wide street poses safety concerns for our residents, many
of whom are young children lil<e my own, and several of whom, lil<e myself, are
disabled and will face access barriers if the street becomes congested with parl<ed
vehicles.
Page 96 of 182
The sidewalk on the opposite side of Brunswick Avenue does not reach the
end of the street at Hartwood, meaning that these vulnerable residents
need to walk in a potentially crowded street, necessitating the need for
adequate parking on the 82 Brunswick site.
I personally will face serious access barriers if street parking directly in
front of, or across from my home impedes my ability to move freely and
safely around my neighbourhood. In the past, street parking has prevented
adequate snow removal in winter, leaving me housebound for much of the
winter season. Further crowding will worsen the situation, causing year-
round barriers to access and making it potentially unsafe for me to
navigate the community as a full-time wheelchair and mobility scooter
user.
iii. Developers may tout the convenience of a lack of parking spaces for those
who do not require them, but given that up to 91 % of Waterloo Region
residents do use personal vehicles for transportation (Outhit, 2022), this is
unlikely to be felt as a convenience either to the vast majority of potential
tenants, or residents like myself whose ability to safely navigate their own
neighbourhoods will be severely impacted.
iv. While I very much appreciate the desire to reduce reliance on vehicles, it
is not functional to design in a way that does not reflect the current reality.
This design maximizes unit number and size while sacrificing functionality
for both future tenants and current neighbourhood members.
3. Pre-existing example of lack of parking impact
a. 271-273 Hartwood Avenue is a four (4) unit building with four parking spaces, two in
a driveway, and two in garages. However, many local residents including myself,
have frequently observed as many as six (6) vehicles parked in violation of bylaw on
the street, or on a concrete path not designated for parking, causing congestion,
obstructed vision to drivers attemptingto turn from Brunswick onto Hartwood, and
difficulties with waste collection or snow removal. Neighbours are left with no
recourse but to call bylaw on tenants who were given no better options for parking
due to developer's choices and must live with those consequences.
b. The proposed two spaces per six units proposed at 82 Brunswick is even more likely
to cause recurrent issues, with even less available parking per unit than the above
example.
4. Lack of storage and green space access for future tenants
Page 97 of 182
a. The proposed design for 82 Brunswick does not include bike sheds to
accommodate its supposedly carless tenants
b. It also lacks storage for waste bins, which will be increasing in size in 2026 and will
require more space than existing bins. Without adequate storage, I fear these will
pose further access barriers to myself and others in the community.
c. The proposed rear yard setback also limits what little green space will be left for
tenants to enjoy and children to play on. With 6 units crowded into a 50 ft wide lot,
every bit of green space is important for the wellbeing of residents and the
absorption of rainwater.
Request:
• To deny applications A2025-064 and A2025-065 as these parking reductions
are not good planning and will have detrimental impacts to the
neighbourhood.
The current 6 -unit design is simply too many units to be functional in the current
space. Allowing this proposed design to go forward will result in a build that is not
functional for prospective tenants, and which poses significant access and safety
concerns for current residents. The developer should be encouraged to consider a
tri- or fourplex that allows space for more adequate parking, storage and
greenspace, while increasing density in a manner that is sustainable to the
community.
Respectfully,
Leanne Charette
Page 98 of 182
Works Cited
Outhit, J. (2022, December 28). Waterloo Region Record. Retrieved July 7, 2025, from
TheRecord.com: https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-region/automobile-still-
reigns-in-waterloo-region/article_19717c95-4873-5a68-a5c7-271 be0cf1056.html
Page 99 of 182
Application for the Adjustments A2025-064 and A2025-065
I am writing once again as the family living directly beside the proposed site of 82 and 84 Brunswicl<
Avenue. We feel that once again, the developer has proposed a design that is lool<ing to only
maximize their profit, rather than contribute to the harmony of our community. Again, we believe
that this property, to safely be added to our neighbourhood could only have a maximum of 4
separate units. I offer the following submissions for your consideration
Parl<ing
a) Once again by even further reducing the number of parl<ing spaces to only providing 2 for
the entire proposed 6 units, will in no way provide enough spaces for the future residents.
• 1 completely understand the City's desire to reduce the reliance on cars but
according to Statistics Canada 90% of households have at least one car. Not
providing parl<ing will only mean tenants, their friends, delivery trucl<s etc. will
all parl< on our street.
• 271 and 273 Hartwood Rd., right around the corner from us only has 4 units and
they provide 4 parl<ing spaces. There are always cars parl<ed illegally, blocl<ing
sidewall<s, boulevards and causing safety issues for children and the elderly
that frequent the sidewalks.
• Excessive parking on the street creates a serious safety issues for
pedestrians and cyclists. We only have parking on one side of Brunswick
and the sidewalk does not extend to the end of the street. Our community
has to walk on the road to reach Giant Tiger, school cross walks and the
nearby Community Centre. We have a concentration of small children in
the section of road as well as elderly and disabled neighbours that we as
the residents take extreme care to watch out for when parking and moving
our vehicles. A busy building with extremely limited parking would be a
hazard to our safety.
• The developer will say they are providing the minimum of what they are required
to but the "policing" of the potential problems will fall to the neighbours to call
Bi -law.
• If the developer were to consider setting the house further towards the street,
there would be room in the bacl<for a parl<ing lot similar to other multi family
dwellings in our diverse neighbourhood.
Negative impact of reducing the yard to 5.6 meters rather than the required 7.5
b) The proposed reduction of the rear yard setbacl< of 5.6 meters instead of the minimum
required 7.5 meters is another indicator of excessive greed.
• Rather than allow their tenants a decent size bacl<yard to enjoy, the developer
is attempting to squeeze the largest building they can into the space to
maximize their rents. They building already is at the maximum width it can
reach on the property, with no space left on their property to replace the natural
fencing they will be cutting down that we shared with our former neighbours.
Page 100 of 182
• At the last committee meeting we were told that there is plenty of space
between our properties in outside yard and driveway. I would like to argue that
we do have space between the buildings, but they plan on building their
sidewalk directly along the property line after removing the bushes and fence
we set up with our neighbour to ensure our dog stays in our yard.
• With the yard becoming so small, where does the builder propose the new cart -
based collection (2026) bins to be stored? On the sidewalk beside our garden?
• A four -unit building could be designed to be narrower and allow yard space,
parking and not overwhelm the space and we wouldn't have to rebuild fencing
for privacy along our property line.
Believe it or not the housing crisis is being addressed. Properties for rent are popping up all over
Kitchener Waterloo faster than any other type of building. It is my belief that pushing for oversized
buildings with no outdoor amenities and no parking when there are so many other options on the
market, it will be very difficult for people to rent for any significant amount to time. It just is not a
sustainable family option.
I would like to formally request this committee to deny applications A2025-064 and A2025-065 as
the variances do no provide enough parking and outdoor living space for the needs of their
residents, offers them no privacy or storage for their waste collection bins. This model is not
attractive to neighbourhoods or families looking to rent.
Sincerely,
Maggie Wright
Page 101 of 182
From -
To: Committee of Adiust hent (5M)
Subject: Application A20254064 and A20254165
Date: Friday, My 4, 2025 8:24.24 AM
You don't often tet email from Learn why this isim op rtant
Dear Committee
My Submission letter against the Application for the Adjustments (A2025-064) and (A2025-065) in
regards to 82 Brunswick being torn down and replaced by a semi-detached building comprised of
three units each. That would be a total of six units (6000sq foot building on a small property) and a
paved yard for parking (2 parking spots total), where once stood a single-family dwelling.
Though we welcome a multi- family build at that site to help address the growing population of
Kitchener, we, as the direct neighbours, are very concerned about the size and scale of the proposed
build for the following reasons:
1.Traffic and Safety risks on a narrow street — the lack of parking that will be available on the
property will therefore increase on street parking in an area where the sidewalk ends and many
pedestrians and children on bicycles must switch to using the road. Yes there is parking on one side
of the street, but not during winter months for the road is even narrower due to snow banks. Giant
Tiger is private parking for shoppers and the closest public parking is at Breithaupt Centre. Does The
City of Kitchener want people parking at the Breithaupt Centre all year long when they're not using
the centre?
2. Over -development and lack of green space by putting this many units and parking on one lot of
land. Small units attract transient tenants, who rely on maintenance to remove snow, clean up
garbage and provide any upkeep, as observed from the recent build at 273 and 271 Hartwood Ave.
3. The loss of green space with the reduction of 15-17% of the front yard and widening the driveway,
concrete sidewalks beside building for rear access, removing the mature trees in the backyard which
greatly reduces the noise pollution from the neighbouring apartment buildings.
4. We need to keep with the style of our current neighbourhood that is filled with century brick
homes and triplexes well back from the road to allow for single families to live and grow.
5. Six units in one small location with only two parking spots will be an issue of who parks there and
where the others park their vehicles. Parking double deep to over hang onto the road way, which
again, is already a narrow roadway.
6. To me, this is still the same size build that they tried to apply for. 6000 square foot building on a
small lot. Build a duplex, max 2000 square foot build. One unit 1500 and a 500 unit and still have
green space in the front yard and back yard which I believe will be more welcomed. A family would
enjoy, and be able to call home.
7. Some may call it an answering to the Housing crisis, maybe - yes and no. It's more on the point of
affordability to own a place to call home. To build maximum size in a limited space is to make
maximum dollars for the investor, thereby allowing the investor to buy another down the road to
build another unit(s) for maximum income, while leaving behind the crisis of lack of
parking/greenspace/cleanup and maintenance that the old units will require from transient tenants.
All I can say is look what has happened in Waterloo by the Universities.
If you have any questions or concerns, you're welcome to contact me.
Page 102 of 182
Sincerely.
Peter Eckstein
Page 103 of 182
From -
To: committee of Adjustment (SMD
Subject: Opposition to Application Variance A20254M 82 Brunswick Ave
Date: Saturday, July 5, 2025 9.02.29 PM
INo suele recibir correo electr6nico de E Por que es esto imnortante
Dear Members of the Committee of Adjustment,
am writing to formally express my opposition to the variance applications A 2025-064 and A
2025-065 for the property located at 82 Brunswick Ave. The applicants are seeking approval
for a parking space reduction that would provide only 2 parking spaces for a proposed 6 -unit
development, instead of the required 4 parking spaces. I urge the Committee to carefully
consider the following concerns before making a decision.
1. Parking and Safety Concerns
The proposed reduction in parking spaces raises significant concerns about the safety and
functionality of our neighborhood. Adequate parking is essential for the smooth flow of traffic
and the safety of residents, particularly in a high-density area. With only 2 parking spaces
allocated for 6 units, there is a very real risk of overflow parking on the street, potentially
blocking driveways and creating hazards for pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicles.
Additionally, Kitchener -Waterloo is a region where car ownership is still prevalent, and the
demand for parking spaces is high. According to local data, approximately 34% of households
in KW have at least one vehicle, further highlighting the necessity of sufficient parking in
residential developments. Reducing the number of parking spaces would exacerbate an
already strained situation.
2. Impact on Road Safety
The proposed parking reduction could have significant consequences for road safety in the
area. overflowing parking onto narrow residential streets could create unsafe conditions,
particularly for children and other pedestrians. With limited parking available for residents and
visitors, the risks of congestion and accidents increase, making the area less safe for everyone,
including drivers and pedestrians.
3. Transit Infrastructure Limitations
While the city has been making decisions to reduce parking requirements, it is important to
recognize that these decisions often fail to consider the broader context of our city's
infrastructure. Kitchener -Waterloo is not a transit -friendly city, especially for families and
especially during the winter months when conditions make biking impractical, and the bus
system remains underdeveloped and unreliable outside of the city centers. The lack of
sufficient parking would disproportionately impact those who do not have access to reliable
Page 104 of 182
public transportation options, especially families who need at least one vehicle for their daily
needs.
It is crucial to acknowledge that simply reducing parking spaces in the name of addressing the
housing crisis is not a long-term solution. The city's efforts to reduce parking are not balanced
by an adequate public transit infrastructure. This decision could ultimately place further strain
on neighborhoods and force the city to address transit issues, which may take years to
resolve, if at all.
4. Long -Term Impact on Families
The proposed development would ultimately impact families who need parking space to
function in their daily lives. By allowing the reduction of parking spaces, we are encouraging
the demolition of a single -detached family home in favor of a multi -unit development that
does not meet the practical needs of future residents. The lack of adequate parking will likely
lead to higher turnover of tenants, as families will be unable to stay in the area long-term due
to the parking scarcity. This undermines the objective of providing stable, family-oriented
housing in our community and does little to solve the housing crisis. Instead, it caters more to
developers than to the real needs of local families.
5. Questioning the General Trend of Reduced Parking
It is important to note that while the city has been making a trend of reducing parking spaces
in new developments, this does not mean these decisions are always in the best interest of
residents. The reduction of parking spaces does not account for the realities of living in a city
with limited transit options. Therefore, it is essential that the Committee carefully weigh the
broader consequences of approving this variance, as it may set an unsustainable precedent for
future developments.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I strongly oppose the variance applications A 2025-064 and A 2025-065 for 82
Brunswick Ave. The proposed reduction in parking spaces would create significant challenges
for both residents and the broader community, particularly in terms of safety, parking
availability, and the long-term stability of the neighborhood. While the city's push to reduce
parking requirements may be part of a broader planning strategy, it is not a one -size -fits -all
solution, especially in a region with limited public transportation options. I respectfully request
that the Committee reject this variance to ensure the long-term livability and safety of our
community.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter. I trust the Committee will carefully
consider these concerns when making its decision. I am ok with sharing my name and email
address as public record to ensure my letter is read by the committee and I also wish to be
Page 105 of 182
kept informed of all decisions regarding this application.
Sincerely,
Abismel Valdez
Page 106 of 182
July 7, 2025
Re: A2025-064 - 82 Brunswick Avenue
A2025-065 - 82 Brunswick Avenue
Dear Committee of Adjustment members,
As a long-time resident of Brunswick Avenue, living at for 16 years,
and only moving due to two untimely deaths resulting in a move to the family farm in 2024,
1 continue to be part of Brunswick Avenue community.
I offer the following submissions for your consideration:
1. Inadequate parking
While living on Brunswick Avenue, the property directly behind me was a
triplex located at 296 Ahrens Street West. The parking is at the rear of the
triplex and each unit has one parking spot. I conversed with many of the
tenants over the years. For the 16 years I lived there, with the exception of
maybe a year, there were three vehicles using each of the three parking
spots.
b. Although the above units likely had one parking spot listed in their lease, I
find it hard to believe that six units, each unit having two bedrooms, will only
rely on two parking spots. Without the requested parking reduction, a six
unit building with four parking spots seems more realistic.
c. In 2014 the City of Kitchener piloted a project in Ward 5 due to inadequate
parking throughout entire subdivisions. The pilot program permitted vehicles
to park on city owned boulevards, i.e. at the end of a driveway. In 2019, City
Council approved a further pilot project for boulevard parking throughout the
entire City. Attached is a summary of the changes that occurred at City
Council on January 8, 2019. As long as certain requirements are met,
boulevard parking is currently permitted in Kitchener.
d. To me, the above is a strong indicator that many developments in the City of
Kitchener are being built without adequate parking.
e. The entire east side of Brunswick Avenue does not have a boulevard. The
east side is where 82 Brunswick is situated. There is no option to park on a
city owned boulevard. This means that there are only the two parking spots
for six units, and short of future paving over the front lawn, the site will be
limited to two parking.
Page 107 of 182
2. Street Parking Impact
Street parking is currently permitted on one side of the street. Brunswick
Avenue is narrow and according to the Geographic Information system (GIS)
used by the City, the pavement width is 7 meters (22.97 feet).
b. Without adequate parking on site, the street becomes more congested with
cars being parked on the street and then by-law has to be called (as a last
resort) to issue tickets when the street is used as a driveway. This is not a
developer issue because they are likely out of the picture, this is left to the
neighbourhood to manage.
c. More importantly, vehicles parked on the street become safety issues and
site line issues for crossing the street. With Giant Tiger nearby, Brunswick
Avenue's one sidewalk on the west side of the street is well used.
3. 271-273 Hartwood Avenue — four units with insufficient parking
a. This is a recent development around the corner from Brunswick Avenue, this
development has four units. The proposed development is six. I have
observed on countless occasions six (6) vehicles on the driveway and front
walk; the front walk is used as a driveway. If vehicles aren't in the driveway
the vehicles are parked on the street using the street as a driveway.
Attached is a picture of the property from Google Maps.
4. Lack of Amenities
a. The design does not incorporate garages or storage areas at the rear or the
side of the property for bikes, waste, snow shovels, toys, blue box recycling,
etc.
b. In March 2026 the Region is moving to a cart -based collection system. The
default (large) garbage cart is 68cm wide and 69cm in depth. The small black
garbage cart and green cart for organics are 48 cm wide and 62cm in depth.
Where will these carts go? Attached are the sizes of the carts from the
Region's website.
c. The rear yard setback requests should also be denied because every bit of
green space counts for two semi-detached buildings with six units on a space
50 feet wide.
5. Trying to put ten pounds of sugar into a five -pound bag
a. The developer is simply putting too many units on too little space.
Page 108 of 182
b. The developer's response to this Committee will be that "we are in a housing
crisis" and use the phrase "missing middle". My understanding of the term
"missing middle" relates directly to home ownership, being single detached
or semi-detached homes with a little bit of green space. The proposed
development are rental units and are not solving the missing middle.
c. The developer could explore a four -unit building, being two semi-detached
homes each with a rental unit that could help with mortgage payments. Or
two semi-detached units with four rentals in total.
d. The developer could also explore a triplex or fourplex on a single lot, there
are lots of good options that the neighbourhood can support.
e. Drive around or take a walk around the neighbourhood and you will see
there are many well done multiplex buildings in the area and we welcome a
thoughtful design for our future neighbours.
Request:
• To deny applications A2025-064 and A2025-065 as the parking reductions do not fall
within the existing zoning by-law and do not represent good planning.
There are meaningful ways the City can increase density, but these two applications only
serve the developer in maximizing profits at the expense of the community.
Respectfully,
Cory Shantz
Attachments:
Press release from City of Kitchener's website —January 9, 2019
Google Map Street View — 2023 of 271 Hartwood and 273 Hartwood Avenue
2026 Curbside Collection Changes — Region of Waterloo website
Page 109 of 182
Posted on Tuesday, January 08, 2019
Back to Search
KITCHENER — City council passed a resolution for a one-year pilot project that
permits parking on the paved portion of a boulevard (driveway between the sidewalk
and the road) in Wards 1-4 and Wards 6-10 from now until March 31, 2019.
"In 2014 council approved parking on the boulevard in Ward 5 which has helped
address concerns with limited parking in neighbourhoods," says Gloria MacNeil,
director of bylaw enforcement. "Allowing parking on boulevards during the winter
months reduces the number of vehicles parked on roadways which helps our
operations crews clear the roads, and keeps pedestrians and cars safe."
There are some areas where boulevard parking is not applicable as there is not
enough space for vehicles to park. The following standards outline where parking on
the boulevard can occur:
• Vehicles, if parked parallel to the road, must be facing the direction of travel.
• Vehicles must not park on the landscaped or hardscaped portion of the boulevard
or access the paved portion of the boulevard by driving over landscaped, or
hardscaped portions of the boulevard.
• The vehicle must be fully encompassed on the paved portion of the boulevard.
• All tires must be fully on the hard surface.
• No part of the vehicle can overhang the sidewalk or the curb/road edge.
• Residents with abutting driveways must not overhang the projection of the property
line.
• No boulevard parking will be permitted within 15 metres of an intersection.
• Only driveways providing access to single family, semi- detached and street
fronting townhouses are applicable.
Learn more about Kitchener's aarkina reaulations
-30-
Erin Power
Page 110 of 182
Communications and Marketing Associate I Corporate Communications and
Marketing I City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 ext.75471 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 Erin.Powerakitchener.ca
https-//www.kitchener.ca/en/news/council-approves-oneyear-pilot-project-that-allows-
residents-to-park-on-boulevards-citywide.aspx
Page 111 of 182
Page 112 of 182
517125, 10:56 AM
Region of Waterloo
2026 Curbside Collection Changes - Region of Waterloo
2026 Curbside Collection Changes
Overview
In March 2026, the Region of Waterloo will be changing to cart -based collection for
garbage and organics.
The Region provides curbside collection service to approximately 161,000 single-
family homes, duplexes, and 3 -to -6 -unit buildings, as well as 8,500 multi -family
units and townhouse complexes that meet truck -access criteria.
Currently, most of the collection is done manually, by lifting waste materials and
placing them into the collection trucks. By switching to cart -based collection, the
Region will improve worker safety, operational efficiency, and cut down on waste
collection day litter.
Download the Waste Whiz app to receive notifications on the cart rollout.
Come see the carts!
Waste Management staff will be out in the community at various events throughout
the transition process.
Upcoming events are listed below:
• Waste Discovery Day; Saturday, 9 a.m. - 1 p.m., 925 Erb St. W. Waterloo, Gate
#1
Cart selection
When will residents be able to select their carts?
For garbage collection, the large black cart is the default size, Residents will have
the option to choose the smaller size in June and July. There is no selection for the
green cart, which only comes in one size.
When and how will the carts be delivered to residents?
Chat
https:llwww. reg ion ofwaterloo.ca'en1living-here12026-curbside-col lection-changes. aspx
Page 113 of 182
517!25, 10:56 AM 2026 Curbside Collection Changes - Region of Waterloo
Black and green carts will be delivered free of ch Chat ptuNclties before
March of 2026.
Information kits will be provided with the carts and include instructions and tips on
cart usage.
Cart sizes
Below are the sizes and dimensions for the various carts available. The large black
cart is the default size, and residents will have the option to choose the smaller size
if they wish. There is only one size for the green cart and food scraps container.
® Optional size
120L Black cart Black cart Green cart
garbage garbage garbage organics
can (large) (small)
Garbage can is not provided. Nath Moth 4MCI
l rn+
Fm We reference only. so cm 48 orn
Height
neem
Is' g'1
Height " Height Helght Height
04— 111 em g8 em go em
a Depth 8Depth 62 Depth g2 om
The large black cart fits the equivalent of three full bags of garbage.
Measurements: 69 cm (D) x 68 cm (W) x 111 cm (H)
The small black cart is optional, and can be chosen by residents if they prefer a
smaller size. It fits the equivalent of one full bag of garbage.
Measurements: 62 cm (D) x 48 cm (W) x 96 cm (H)
The green cart comes in one size.
Measurements: 62 cm (D) x 48 cm (W) x 98 cm (H)
The food scraps container comes in one size.
Measurements: 30 cm (D) x 22 cm (W) x 24 cm (H)
Food Scraps Container
(Default)
Chat
h €tps:llwrnu.reg ionofwaterl oo.ea'e nll i vino -h e rei2026-curbside-coil ection-ch anges.as px
Page 114 of 182
P
Chat
h €tps:llwrnu.reg ionofwaterl oo.ea'e nll i vino -h e rei2026-curbside-coil ection-ch anges.as px
Page 114 of 182
From:
To:
Committee of Achustment (5M)
Subject.
objection to Variance Applications A 2x]25-064 and A 2025-065 for 82 Brunswick Ave
Date:
M€ May, July 7, 2025 7:32:58 AM
IYou don't often get email from Learn why this is im on rtant
Dear Members of the Committee of Adjustment,
I am writing to strongly oppose the variance applications A 2025-064 and A 2025-465 for the
property located at 82 Brunswick Avenue. These applications request approval for a reduction
in parking from the required 4 spaces down to just 2, in connection with a proposed 6 -unit
residential development.
I urge the Committee to deeply consider the long-term impacts this decision will haver --not on
paper, but on the people who live here now and will live here in the future.
1. Parking and Safety Concerns
A reduction to only two parking spaces for six tutits is not just inadequate—it's unrealistic.
Overflow parking will spill onto our already congested streets, blocking driveways and
endangering pedestrians, especially children. When neighborhoods become harder to navigate
and more dangerous, it's residents—not developers—who pay the price.
The reality is that 94% of households in Kitchener -Waterloo own at least one vehicle. This
isn't a city where people can easily go car -free. Reducing parking in the absence of reliable
alternatives doesn't promote sustainabilityit promotes dysfunction.
2. Road Safety Is Already At Risk
Our streets are narrow. Winter turns them into single lanes. No one who walks here regularly
—or tries to back out of a driveway with cars parked tightly along one sideman ignore the
hazards. Overflow parking from this development will only make that worse.
This is not a theoretical risk. This is about real people, real streets, and real consequences.
3. Transit Infrastructure Doesn't Support This Decision
Let's be honest: Kitchener -Waterloo is not a transit -first city. Families, especially those living
outside of the urban core, depend on vehicles. The buses don't run frequently or reliably
enough. The bike lanes don't connect. And winter eliminates many so-called alternatives.
The city's strategy to reduce parking makes sense only when paired with ftutctional public
transit—and that is years, if not decades, away. This isn't bold planning. It's premature and
punitive.
Page 115 of 182
4. We're Not Solving the Housing Crisis—We're Creating a New One
What's being lost in all this talk of "housing crisis" is a basic truth: not all housing is good
housing. Replacing a single -detached family home with 6 small units and barely any parking
doesn't help families. It drives them away.
Families need space. They need stability. And yes, they need somewhere to park. These kinds
of developments bring tenant turnover, frustrated residents, and a community that slowly
erodes, one poor decision at a time.
Let's stop pretending these proposals are helping. They're helping developers. Not people.
5. The Residents Are Saying No—That Should Matter
This trend toward reducing parking seems to be gaining political momentum, but that doesn't
mean it's right for every neighborhood. In this case, residents are clearly saying "no." We live
here. We shovel the sidewalks. We walk our kids to school. We already deal with the
limitations—and we know this decision will make things worse.
Why are we prioritizing developer convenience over the people who will actually live with the
consequences?
Conclusion
I urge you to reject applications A 2025-064 and A 2025-065. If this development is to move
forward, it must at least provide the basic infrastructure needed to support livability—starting
with adequate parking.
Good planning isn't about reacting to a crisis. It's about protecting the people who live here
today while building a thoughtful city for tomorrow.
Please consider this letter part of the public record, I consent to including my name, phone
number and email. I also request to be kept informed of all decisions regarding this
application.
Thank you for your time, and for your responsibility to the community.
Sincerely,
Julie Ditzend
Page 116 of 182
Opposition to Variance Applications A2025-064 and A2025-065 (82 Brunswick Ave)
Dear Committee of Adjustment,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the minor variance applications A2025-064 and A2025-065 for 82
Brunswick Avenue.
As a nearby resident at 28 Brunswick Ave, I have serious concerns about the impact of these proposed variances on our
neighbourhood.
Reducing the parking requirement from 2 spaces to just 1 per lot will only worsen the already limited street parking on
Brunswick Avenue. This area has no capacity to absorb additional on -street vehicles, and overflow parking will directly
affect the safety and accessibility of this family-oriented street -particularly for children, seniors, and emergency services.
Allowing rear yard setbacks to shrink to 5.6 and 7 metres from the required 7.5 metres also raises concerns about
overcrowding and the loss of private green space. The proposed increase to 3 dwelling units per semi-detached lot
represents significant intensification that is not compatible with the character or infrastructure of our existing residential
area.
Approving these variances would set a dangerous precedent, encouraging overdevelopment at the expense of quality of
life, privacy, and neighbourhood cohesion.
I urge the Committee to deny these applications in order to protect the integrity and livability of our community.
Sincerely,
Kendra Bester
Page 117 of 182
From:
To:
Committee of Adiusiment (5M)
Subject:
objection to Variance Applications A 2x]25-064 and A 2025-065 for 82 Brunswick Ave
Date:
Saturday, July 5, 2025 9:10:00 PM
IYou don't often get email from . Learn why this is im op rtant
Dear Members of the Committee of Adjustment,
I am writing to strongly oppose the variance applications A 2025-064 and A 2025-465 for the
property located at 82 Brunswick Avenue. These applications request approval for a reduction
in parking from the required 4 spaces down to just 2, in connection with a proposed 6 -unit
residential development.
I urge the Committee to deeply consider the long-term impacts this decision will haver --not on
paper, but on the people who live here now and will live here in the future.
1. Parking and Safety Concerns
A reduction to only two parking spaces for six tutits is not just inadequate—it's unrealistic.
Overflow parking will spill onto our already congested streets, blocking driveways and
endangering pedestrians, especially children. When neighborhoods become harder to navigate
and more dangerous, it's residents—not developers—who pay the price.
The reality is that 94% of households in Kitchener -Waterloo own at least one vehicle. This
isn't a city where people can easily go car -free. Reducing parking in the absence of reliable
alternatives doesn't promote sustainabilityit promotes dysfunction.
2. Road Safety Is Already At Risk
Our streets are narrow. Winter ttnris them into single lanes. No one who walks here regularly
—or tries to back out of a driveway with cars parked tightly along one sideman ignore the
hazards. Overflow parking from this development will only make that worse.
This is not a theoretical risk. This is about real people, real streets, and real consequences.
3. Transit Infrastructure Doesn't Support This Decision
Let's be honest: Kitchener -Waterloo is not a transit -first city. Families, especially those living
outside of the urban core, depend on vehicles. The buses don't run frequently or reliably
enough. The bike lanes don't connect. And winter eliminates many so-called alternatives.
The city's strategy to reduce parking makes sense only when paired with ftutctional public
transit—and that is years, if not decades, away. This isn't bold planning. It's premature and
punitive.
Page 118 of 182
4. We're Not Solving the Housing Crisis—We're Creating a New One
What's being lost in all this talk of "housing crisis" is a basic truth: not all housing is good
housing. Replacing a single -detached family home with 6 small units and barely any parking
doesn't help families. It drives them away.
Families need space. They need stability. And yes, they need somewhere to park. These kinds
of developments bring tenant turnover, frustrated residents, and a community that slowly
erodes, one poor decision at a time.
Let's stop pretending these proposals are helping. They're helping developers. Not people.
5. The Residents Are Saying No—That Should Matter
This trend toward reducing parking seems to be gaining political momentum, but that doesn't
mean it's right for every neighborhood. In this case, residents are clearly saying "no." We live
here. We shovel the sidewalks. We walk our kids to school. We already deal with the
limitations—and we know this decision will make things worse.
Why are we prioritizing developer convenience over the people who will actually live with the
consequences?
Conclusion
I urge you to reject applications A 2025-064 and A 2025-065. If this development is to move
forward, it must at least provide the basic infrastructure needed to support livability—starting
with adequate parking.
Good planning isn't about reacting to a crisis. It's about protecting the people who live here
today while building a thoughtful city for tomorrow.
Please consider this letter part of the public record, I consent to including my name, phone
number and email. I also request to be kept informed of all decisions regarding this
application.
Thank you for your time, and for your responsibility to the community.
Sincerely,
Kelly Targosz
Page 119 of 182
Subject: Objection to Requested Variances at 82 Brunswick Ave
Dear Committee of Adjustment,
I am writing to formally express my opposition to the proposed minor variance for parking and
rear yard setback at the proposed development at 82 Brunswick Ave. As a resident of the
neighbourhood, I have serious concerns about the negative impact these variances would have on
our community.
The current parking requirements are in place to ensure that developments are designed
responsibly and with adequate infrastructure to support local needs. Granting this variance would
set a precedent that undermines those standards. It will lead to increased congestion, reduced
safety, and limited access for residents, service vehicles, and emergency responders. In the
absence of adequate parking, residents will park on the street. This is a safety hazard for the
children and pedestrian traffic as this section of Brunswick Ave does not have a sidewalk. We
already have issues with current Brunswick residents parking on the road, and the safety hazard
this poses when you cannot see beyond the parked vehicle. I have observed many close calls as
drivers go too fast, and cannot see around vehicles parked on the road.
At the May meeting, the developers stated that there is a desire for housing that does not include
parking. However a 2021 survey demonstrates that in the tri -city area 94% of households have at
least one vehicle. One parking spot per 3 units does not make sense. The required 2 spots per 3
units, per bylaw, would provide the option of a `no -parking included' unit while providing a
visitor spot, or parking for the other units.
In an area where street parking is already limited and the street is narrow, allowing a reduction in
required parking spots will only add to the strain on surrounding streets. This change could
significantly impact the quality of life for nearby residents, creating tension between neighbors
over limited parking resources. Additionally, Kitchener has strict rules prohibiting street parking
in the winter. Inadequate parking will lead to conflict between the city and residents and be an
unsafe situation for children, cyclists and pedestrians.
The requested reduction in the rear yard setback of nearly 2 m on the future 84 Brunswick lot
compromises essential open space between properties. Rear setbacks are in place not only to
maintain privacy and natural light for adjacent homes, but also to allow for green space,
drainage, and future maintenance access. Permitting this variance would erode those protections
and negatively affect neighboring properties. It will directly affect the family at 86 Brunswick,
as residents will likely use the side of the building for storage of outdoor equipment and garbage
bins.
These requested changes are not minor in their impact. They would set a concerning precedent
for future development and intensification in our neighborhood without proper regard for
existing zoning standards or the well-being of residents.
This neighbourhood has many examples where adequate parking and adequate set back and
greenspace facilitate the intensification of housing in a desirable, safe manner. There are several
Page 120 of 182
multiplex units on Brunswick Ave and Ahrens St that provide adequate parking and a density of
units that attracts long-term renters. I want to emphasize that my view is not against
intensification. I understand that it is essential for the growth of our communities and housing
needs. However, intensification that is merely intended to maximize developer profit, that does
not provide sufficient parking or greenspace, is not in line with the province or municipality's
long term community development plans. The developer still has an opportunity to work within
Kitchener's bylaws and standards and develop a multiplex with adequate parking and green
space if these variances are denied.
I respectfully request that City Council deny the requested variances and uphold the integrity of
our zoning bylaws. Please consider the broader implications this could have on the long-term
character and livability of our community.
Thank you for your attention, and I ask to be notified of any future hearings or decisions
regarding this application.
Sincerely,
Racheal Miller
Page 121 of 182