HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSD-2025-356 - Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA25/013/S/AP - 157 Schweitzer Street - 1000947521 Ontario Inc.Staff Report
J
IKgc.;i' r� R
Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca
REPORT TO: Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee
DATE OF MEETING: September 8, 2025
SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Director of Development and Housing
Approvals, 519-783-8922
PREPARED BY: Andrew Pinnell, Senior Planner, 519-783-8915
WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 1
DATE OF REPORT:
REPORT NO.:
August 28, 2025
DSD -2025-356
SUBJECT: Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA25/013/S/AP
Address: 157 Schweitzer Street
Owner: 1000947521 Ontario Inc.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA25/013/S/AP for 157 Schweitzer
Street, requesting a change in zoning from `Residential Three Zone (R-3)' in Zoning
By-law 85-1 to `Low Rise Residential Four Zone (RES -4) with Site -Specific Provision
(438)' in Zoning By-law 2019-051, be approved in the form shown in the Proposed
By-law and Map No. 1 attached to Report DSD -2025-356 as Attachment `A'.
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS:
• The purpose of this report is to evaluate and provide a planning recommendation
regarding the Zoning By-law Amendment Application (ZBA) for the subject property,
addressed as 157 Schweitzer Street. It is Development and Housing Approvals staff's
recommendation that the ZBA be approved.
• The requested amendment supports the intensification of the lands through the future
creation of three new lots with frontage on Lark Street, each to be developed with a
single detached dwelling. The existing single detached dwelling would be retained.
• Community engagement included:
o A preliminary postcard notice and Neighbourhood Meeting invitation was mailed
to all residents and property owners within 240 metres of the subject property;
o Installation of two notice signs on the property;
o Follow-up communication with respondents;
o Virtual Neighbourhood Meeting held on June 26, 2025;
o Postcard advising of the statutory public meeting was forwarded to all residents
and property owners within 240 metres of the subject property and those who
responded to the preliminary notice;
o Notice of the public meeting was published in The Record on August 15, 2025.
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
Page 32 of 167
This report supports the delivery of core services.
The application was deemed complete on May 22, 2025. The Applicant can appeal
this application for non -decision after August 20, 2025.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The owner of the subject property, addressed as 157 Schweitzer Street, is requesting a
Zoning By-law Amendment Application (ZBA) to facilitate the intensification of the lands
through the future creation of three new lots with frontage on Lark Street, each to be
developed with a single detached dwelling. The existing single detached dwelling would be
retained. These lots are proposed to be created sometime after Council's decision of this
application, should Council decide to approve the ZBA. Future Consent Applications would
be required to create the lots.
To facilitate the proposed development concept, the applicant is requesting a ZBA to
change the zoning of the subject property from `Residential Three Zone (R-3)' (Zoning By-
law 85-1) to `Low Rise Residential Four Zone (RES -4)' (Zoning By-law 2019-051) with
Site Specific Provision (438) to legalize certain deficiencies under the `RES -4' Zone for the
existing dwelling, including the required minimum front yard setback and minimum rear
yard setback. Also, the requested site specific provision would provide relief from the
required minimum rear yard setback for the new dwellings.
Development and Housing Approvals staff is recommending that the application be
approved.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Kitchener has received an owner -initiated Zoning By-law Amendment
Application (ZBA) to facilitate the intensification of the lands through the future creation of
three new lots with frontage on Lark Street, each to be developed with a single detached
dwelling. The existing single detached dwelling would be retained. These lots are
proposed to be created sometime after Council's decision of this application, should
Council decide to approve the ZBA. Future Consent Applications would be required to
create the lots.
The ZBA would change the zoning of the subject property from `Residential Three Zone
(R-3)' (Zoning By-law 85-1) to `Low Rise Residential Four Zone (RES -4)' (Zoning By-law
2019-051) with Site Specific Provision (438) to legalize certain deficiencies under the
`RES -4' Zone for the existing dwelling, including the required minimum front yard setback
and minimum rear yard setback. Also, the requested site specific provision would provide
relief from the required minimum rear yard setback for the new dwellings. Details of the
amendments are outlined in the report, below.
Site Context:
The subject property is addressed as 157 Schweitzer Street and is owned by 1000947521
Ontario Inc. The property is located at the intersection of Lark Street and Schweitzer
Street, in the Bridgeport East Planning Community. The property has approximately 27.4
metres of frontage on Schweitzer Street and 50.9 metres of frontage on Lark Street. The
subject property is approximately 1,393 square metre (0.34 acres) in area. The property is
developed with a one -storey single detached dwelling constructed in the 1960s, as well as
a detached garage in the rear yard. The property also contains two, small accessory
Page 33 of 167
buildings in the rear yard. The property has one driveway, which leads to Schweitzer
Street.
The existing single detached dwelling on the subject property is presently occupied by
tenants (a family of three persons). The tenants were advised of the subject proposal
when they moved in. The tenants are not required to relocate because the dwelling is not
proposed to be demolished. Development and Housing Approvals staff have been advised
by the Owner that tenants will continue to live in the existing dwelling.
WM.A/K.141
'�mouiuw
nm ana^ tlti 'r'lom
of,yia
mN.o�,���n U
kM
-SUBJECT AREA�
y
ems„
� dM Pt
V
Figure 1 - Location map showing 157 Schweitzer Street as the Subject Area.
The surrounding area is comprised primarily of low rise residential land uses, mainly single
and semi- detached dwellings. Dwellings in the area range between one and two storeys
in height. The Kitchener border with Woolwich Township is located 180 metres to the east.
A vacant field owned by the Croatian Roman Catholic Church is located directly across
Schweitzer Street from the subject lands (to the south). These Church lands are zoned
`Residential Four Zone (R-4)' in Zoning By-law 85-1, for low rise residential development.
The Croatian Roman Catholic Church building is located east of the subject lands, near
the cul-de-sac bulb terminus of Schweitzer Street. Sylvia Park is located approximately
360 metres to the southwest. The subject property is located within 110 metres from local
GRT Route #5.
Page 34 of 167
REPORT:
Proposed Development Concept
The applicant is proposing to redevelop the lands through the future creation of three new
lots with frontage on Lark Street, each to be developed with a single detached dwelling.
The existing single detached dwelling would be retained. These lots are proposed to be
created sometime after Council's decision of this application, should Council decide to
approve the ZBA. Future Consent Applications would be required to create the lots.
Figure 2 — Proposed development concept plan showing the Retained Lot (i.e., Lot
1) containing the existing dwelling, and three future lots each containing a new
single detached dwelling (i.e., Lots 2, 3, and 4).
The Scoped Planning Justification Report submitted in support of the application states
that each of the proposed single detached dwellings would be two storeys in height and
would have a driveway in the front yard and an attached garage. Each new (severed) lot
(i.e., Lots 2, 3, and 4 on Figure 2) would have a width of approximately 9.0 metres
(frontage on Lark Street), a depth of 27.4 metres, and an area of 246.6 square metres.
The proposed development concept plan in the Scoped Planning Justification Report (i.e.,
Figure 2) shows that the proposed dwellings would have a front yard setback of
approximately 6 metres, a rear yard of 6.8 metres, and interior side yard setbacks of 1.3
metres. Lot coverage would be approximately 53%.
Page 35 of 167
Figure 3 — Conceptual rendering showing the one of the proposed single detached
dwellings fronting Lark Street, looking northeast.
The Retained Lot (i.e., Lot 1 on Figure 2) containing the existing one -storey dwelling would
have a width of approximately 23.9 metres (frontage on Lark Street), a depth of 27.4
metres, and an area of 654.9 metres. The proposed development concept plan shows that
the dwelling would have a front yard setback of approximately 4.2 metres a rear yard of 5
metres, an interior side yard setback of 1.6 metres, and an exterior side yard setback of 10
metres. Lot coverage would be approximately 32%. It should be noted that while the front
technical front lot line would be on Lark Street, the fagade with the front door and attached
garage door/entrance would continue to face Schweitzer Street. Also, the detached
garage in the rear yard, and the two, smaller accessory buildings would need to be
demolished to facilitate the proposed development.
To facilitate the proposed development concept, a Zoning By-law Amendment Application
(ZBA) is required to change the zoning, since the future lots and dwellings would not
comply with several existing regulations, for example minimum lot area (411 square
metres is required, whereas 246.6 square metres is proposed, in the case of the proposed
dwellings on the new lots), minimum lot width (13.7 metres is whereas 9 metres is
Page 36 of 167
proposed, in the case of the proposed dwellings on the new lots), and minimum rear yard
setback (7.5 metres is required, whereas 5 metres is proposed, in the case of the dwelling
on the Retained Lot).
In addition to a change in residential zoning category, a Site Specific Provision is also
requested. Also, the ZBA would bring the subject property out of the City's older Zoning
By-law 85-1 into the newer Zoning By-law 2019-051. The details of the ZBA are discussed
in detail in the Requested Zoning By-law Amendment section of this report.
Planning Analysis:
Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 25
Section 2 of the Planning Act establishes matters of provincial interest and states that the
Minister, the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board and the Tribunal, in
carrying out their responsibilities under this Act, shall have regard to, among other matters,
matters of provincial interest such as,
e) The supply, efficient use and conservation of energy and water;
f) The adequate provision and efficient use of communication, transportation, sewage
and water services and waste management systems;
g) The minimization of waste;
h) The orderly development of safe and healthy communities;
j) The adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing;
k) The adequate provision of employment opportunities;
p) The appropriate location of growth and development;
q) The promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable, to support public
transit and to be oriented to pedestrians;
r) The promotion of built form that,
(i) Is well-designed,
(ii) Encourages a sense of place, and
(iii) Provides for public spaces that are of high quality, safe, accessible, attractive
and vibrant;
s) The mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and adaptation to a changing climate.
These matters of provincial interest are addressed and are implemented through the
Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, as it directs how and where development is to occur.
The City's Official Plan is the most important vehicle for the implementation of the
Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 and to ensure Provincial policy is adhered to.
Provincial Policy Statement, 2024
The Provincial Planning Statement (PPS), 2024 is a streamlined province -wide land use
planning policy framework that replaces both the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 and A
Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019 while building upon
housing -supportive policies from both documents. The PPS 2024 came into force on
October 20, 2024.
According to the Province, the PPS 2024 provides municipalities with the tools and
flexibility they need to build more homes. It enables municipalities to:
Page 37 of 167
• plan for and support development, and increase the housing supply across the
province
• align development with infrastructure to build a strong and competitive economy
that is investment -ready
• foster the long-term viability of rural areas
• protect agricultural lands, the environment, public health and safety
Sections 2.1.6 and 2.3.1.3 of the PPS 2024 promote planning for people and homes and
supports planning authorities to support general intensification and redevelopment while
achieving complete communities by accommodating an appropriate range and mix of land
uses, housing options, transportation options with multimodal access, employment, public
service facilities and other institutional uses, recreation, parks and open space, and other
uses to meet long-term needs.
Section 2.2.1 requires that Planning authorities provide for a range and mix of housing
options and densities to meet projected needs of current and future residents. One way
this is accomplished is by "permitting and facilitating: 1. all housing options required to
meet the social, health, economic and wellbeing requirements of current and future
residents, including additional needs housing and needs arising from demographic
changes and employment opportunities; and 2. all types of residential intensification ... for
residential use, development and introduction of new housing options within previously
developed areas, and redevelopment, which results in a net increase in residential units...
In this regard, Development and Housing Approvals (DHA) staff is of the opinion that the
requested amendments are consistent with the PPS 2024; they will facilitate residential
intensification of the property.
Regional Official Plan (ROP)
The subject property is located in the `Urban Area' and `Delineated Built Up Area' in the
Regional Official Plan (ROP). Urban Area policies of the ROP identify that the focus of the
Region's future growth will be within the Urban Area.
Growth is directed to the Built Up Area of the Region to make better use of infrastructure
that can assist in transitioning the Region into an energy efficient, low carbon community.
Furthermore, intensification within the Built Up Area assists the gradual transition of
existing neighbourhoods within the Region into 15 -minute neighbourhoods that are
compact, well connected places that allow all people of all ages and abilities to access the
needs for daily living within 15 minutes by walking, cycling or rolling. Regional policies
require Area 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.
The requested amendment conforms to the ROP and will assist in transitioning the
existing neighbourhood into a 15 -minute neighbourhood by facilitating gentle
intensification through infill development and through development of an underutilized lot
at a higher density than currently exists.
Furthermore, Regional staff advise that they have no objections to the requested ZBA.
Page 38 of 167
City of Kitchener Official Plan (OP)
The City of Kitchener OP provides the long-term land use vision for Kitchener. The vision
is further articulated and implemented through the guiding principles, goals, objectives,
and policies which are set out in the Plan. The Vision and Goals of the OP strive to build
an innovative, vibrant, attractive, safe, complete, and healthy community.
Urban Structure
The Official Plan establishes an Urban Structure for the City of Kitchener and provides
policies for directing growth and development within this structure. The subject property is
identified on Map 2 — Urban Structure of the City's Official Plan (OP) as `Community
Areas'. The OP states that "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." This urban structure component allows for limited
intensification in accordance with the applicable land use designation and the Urban
Design Policies in Section 11. In addition, "development must be sensitive to and
compatible with the character, form and planned function of the surrounding context."
The subject proposal would assist in achieving the planned function by facilitating
residential intensification that is sensitive to and compatible with the surrounding context.
The requested amendment would facilitate low rise residential development that is
compatible in lot area, lot width, lot coverage, height and setbacks with the surrounding
neighbourhood.
DHA staff is of the opinion that the requested ZBA will support redevelopment that
conforms to the City's Community Areas policies.
Housing Policies
The City's Official Plan contains numerous housing -related objectives and policies that
apply to the subject proposal, for example:
4.1.1. To provide for an appropriate range, variety and mix of housing types and
styles, densities, tenure and affordability to satisfy the varying housing needs
of our community through all stages of life.
4.1.5. To encourage and support the retention and rehabilitation of older housing or
the reconstruction of existing housing to maintain the housing stock and the
stability and community character of established residential neighbourhoods.
4.C.1.6. The City will identify and encourage residential intensification and/or
redevelopment, including adaptive re -use and infill opportunities, including
additional dwelling units, attached and detached, in order to respond to
changing housing needs and as a cost-effective means to reduce
infrastructure and servicing costs by minimizing land consumption and
making better use of existing community infrastructure.
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
Page 39 of 167
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) Where front yard setback reductions are proposed for new buildings in
established neighbourhoods, the requested front yard setback should
be similar to adjacent properties and supports and maintain the
character of the streetscape and the neighbourhood.
d) 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.
e) The lands can function appropriately and not create unacceptable
adverse impacts for adjacent properties by providing both an
appropriate number of parking spaces and an appropriate
landscaped/amenity area on the site.
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.
4.C.1.12. The City favours a land use pattern which mixes and disperses a full range
of housing types and styles both across the city as a whole and within
neighbourhoods.
In this regard, DHA staff is satisfied that the subject application would facilitate
development that will assist in creating a land use pattern that mixes and disperses a full
range of housing types and styles, especially within this neighbourhood, where one -storey
dwellings are not as prevalent and lot widths are greater.
DHA staff is of the opinion that the requested amendment would allow gentle
intensification (infill development) that respects the existing character of and is compatible
with the surrounding neighbourhood. The proposal would facilitate two single detached
dwellings within an established neighbourhood that is dominated by one -storey single
detached dwellings, albeit on lots that are lesser in area and lot width. Also, the existing
dwelling at the intersection would be retained, assisting in the City's objective of
encouraging and supporting, "the retention and rehabilitation of older housing or the
reconstruction of existing housing to maintain the housing stock and the stability and
community character of established residential neighbourhoods."
Page 40 of 167
The proposed front yard setbacks for the proposed new dwellings would provide an
appropriate transition from the existing building on subject lot to the property addressed as
7 Lark Street, to the north. The proposed rear yard setbacks for the new dwellings
represent a nominal decrease to the required minimum rear yard setback in both the
current and requested zoning categories. The proposed rear yard setback for the existing
dwellings represents a technical legalization of the side yard setback. Ample landscaped
area is provided in the exterior side yard, where a 10 -metre setback exists.
DHA staff is of the opinion that the requested ZBA supports intensification that conforms to
the City's Housing policies.
Land Use Designation
The subject property is currently designated `Low Rise Residential' on Map 3 — Land Use
of the City of Kitchener Official Plan. The `Low Rise Residential' land use designation is
intended to accommodate a full range of low density housing types, including single
detached dwellings, additional dwelling units, semi-detached dwelling, street townhouse
dwellings, cluster townhouses, low-rise multiple dwellings, special needs housing, and
other forms of low density residential use. Within this designation, the City encourages and
supports the mixing and integration of innovative and different forms of housing within a
low-rise built form. The `Low Rise Residential' designation limits building height to 3
storeys or 11 metres.
The applicant is not requesting an Official Plan Amendment to change the land use
designation, since the proposal conforms to these policies. The requested ZBA will
facilitate the applicant's proposed development concept.
Policy Conclusion
DHA staff is of the opinion that the requested ZBA is conforms to policies of the Provincial
Policy Statement, the Regional Official Plan, and the City of Kitchener Official Plan.
Requested Zoning By-law Amendment
To facilitate the proposed development concept outlined in the Proposed Development
Concept section of this report, the applicant is requesting a Zoning By-law Amendment
(ZBA). The property is currently zoned `Residential Three Zone (R-3)' in Zoning By-law 85-
1. The applicant is requesting to change the zoning to `Low Rise Residential Four Zone
(RES -4)', primarily to allow a lesser lot area and lot width. The ZBA would also add Site
Specific Provision (438).
Page 41 of 167
A zoning comparison / review table is provided below. Bolded, red text with an asterisk
under the `Proposed / Provided' column denotes a deficiency under the requested `RES -4'
Zone category and, consequently, the need for relief via a requested Site Specific
Provision (see Table 1 — Zoning Comparison / Review Table).
Table 1 — Zoning Comparison / Review Table
Page 42 of 167
Requirement
Requirement
Proposed/
Proposed/
under
under
Provided - Lot 1
Provided — Lots 2,
Current R-3
Requested RES-
(Retained Lot for
3, and 4 (Severed
Zone (By-
4 Zone Category;
existing dwelling,
Lots for new
law 85-1)
(By-law 2019-
as shown on Fig.
dwellings, as
051)
2)
shown on Fig. 2)
Minimum Lot
411 m2
235 m2
654.9 m2
246.6 m2
Area
Minimum Lot
13.7 m
9 m
N/A
9 m
Width
Minimum
15 m
12.8 m
23.9 m
N/A
Corner Lot
Width
Minimum Front
4.5m (6 m for
In accordance
Required: 8.7m
Required: 4.7m
Yard Setback
garages)
with Section 7.6
(see Proposed /
Proposed: *4.2m
Proposed: 6 m
Provided column
Maximum
N/A
In accordance
Required:
Required:
Front Yard
with Section 7.6
10.7 m
6.7 m
Setback
(see Proposed /
Provided column)
Proposed:
Proposed:
4.2m
6m
Minimum Side
4.5 m
4.5 m
10 m
N/A
Yard Abutting;
a Street /
Exterior Yard
Setback'
Minimum
1.2 m
1.2 m
1.6 m
1.3 m
Interior Side
Yard Setback
Minimum Rear
7.5 m
7.5 m
*5 rn
*.8 rn
Yard Setback
Maximum
10.5 m
11 m
<11 m
<11 m
Building Height
Maximum
N/A
3
1
2
Number of
Storeys
Maximum Lot
55%
55%
32%
53%
Coverage
Table 1 — Zoning Comparison / Review Table
Page 42 of 167
Change from R-3 to RES -4
The predominant zone category in this neighbourhood is `R-3'. The requested change in
zone category will assist in further diversifying the zone categories within this
neighbourhood and, consequently, the built form. Also, this change will allow for gentle
intensification, through infill and through permitting greater density by permitting lots that
are lesser in area and width than those permitted in the R-3 Zone. At the same time, the
change would facilitate the construction of new single detached dwellings, which remain
the predominant land use within the neighbourhood. The location of the subject property at
an intersection and the fact that it has a greater lot width than the average lot in the
neighbourhood lends itself well to the proposed limited intensification. Moreover, this
change would bring the subject property into the updated Zoning By-law 2019-051.
DHA staff supports the change from `Residential Three Zone (R-3)' in Zoning By-law 85-1
to `Low Rise Residential Four Zone (RES -4)' in Zoning By-law 2019-051.
Site Specific Provision (438)
Regarding the request for a Site Specific Provision to reduce the required Minimum Front
Yard Setback from 8.7 metres to 4.2 metres for Lot 1 (Retained Lot for existing dwelling,
as shown on Figure 2), it should be noted that this required setback is based on the
Established Front Yard. In the case of a corner lot, this term means, "the front yard of the
abutting lot with a low rise residential zone, in which the principal pedestrian entrance is
oriented towards the same street..." This relates to the front yard of the abutting dwelling
on Schweitzer Street. However, in this case, if the ZBA is approved and a Consent
Application is submitted that establishes Lot 1, the lot orientation would technically
change: the yard abutting Schweitzer Street would become the exterior side yard (despite
it abutting the front door) and the yard abutting Lark Street would become the front yard
(despite it abutting the side of the dwelling). This change means that the required setback
does not relate well to the building to which it applies. Also, the relationship of the dwelling
to the lot line in question is not proposed to change. In this regard, the requested Site
Specific Provision would resolve this technicality and would legalize the existing building.
The request for a Site Specific Provision to reduce the required Minimum Rear Yard
Setback from 7.5 metres to 5 metres for Lot 1 is appropriate, since ample landscaped area
will be provided in the exterior side yard (10 -metre -deep yard), providing an opportunity for
amenity space.
The request for a Site Specific Provision to reduce the required Minimum Rear Yard
Setback from 7.5 metres to 6.8 metres for Lots 2-4 is appropriate, since the reduction
represents only a minor decrease in rear yard landscaped area. The applicant is further
proposing rear yard decks (dotted lines on Figure 2), which will enhance the rear yard
amenity space and will comply with the minimum setback requirements for decks.
Moreover, as noted above, Sylvia Park is located nearby and represents an opportunity for
off-site amenity space and recreation for residents.
Page 43 of 167
Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment Application Conclusions:
DHA staff is of the opinion that the requested ZBA Application represents good planning,
since it would facilitate the gentle intensification of the lands with infill development, in the
form of single detached dwellings. The proposal would further diversify the zone
categories within this neighbourhood and, consequently, the built form. The subject
property is located close to a local transit route and Sylvia Park. For these reasons, DHA
staff supports the proposal and recommends that the requested ZBA be approved, as
shown in Attachment `A'.
Department and Agency Comments
Circulation of the Zoning By-law Amendment was undertaken on May 27, 2025 to all
applicable City departments and other review authorities. No significant concerns were
identified by any commenting City department or agency and any necessary revisions and
updates have been incorporated into the proposal. Copies of the comments are found in
Attachment `C' of this report.
The following Reports and Studies were considered as part of the requested Zoning By-
law Amendment Application:
Scoped Planning Justification Report
• Prepared by MHBC Planning (April 24, 2025)
Functional Servicing Brief
• Prepared by MTE Consultants Inc (February 6, 2025)
Archaeological Assessment
• Prepared by Seguin Archaeological Services (January 2, 2025)
Letter re Archaeological Report
• Prepared by Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism (January 17, 2025)
Preliminary Grading and Servicing Plan
• Prepared by MTE Consultants Inc (February 2, 2025)
Community Input and Staff Responses:
Staff received written responses from 9 community members with respect to the proposed
development. Also, a 50 -name petition was received requesting an in-person
neighbourhood meeting. The comments received are included in Attachment `D'. A virtual
neighbourhood meeting was held on June 26, 2025. A summary of what staff heard from
the community, and staff responses are noted below.
Page 44 of 167
�.It
118 households (occupants and property owners) were circulated
Concern with the virtual
and notified
meeting format, in person
logged onto the City -led Virtual Neighbourhood Meeting
preference
9 people/households provided comments by email or telephone.
meeting was made possible by both internet and
A City -led Virtual Neighbourhood Meeting was held on June 26,
2025 and approximately 17 different users logged on.
What We HeardStaff
Comment
Concern with the virtual
DHA staff advises that approximately 17 different users
meeting format, in person
logged onto the City -led Virtual Neighbourhood Meeting
preference
that was held on June 26, 2025. Attendance at the
meeting was made possible by both internet and
phone. The virtual meeting format allows staff to be
able to post the presentation slides and recording to the
City's website so that anyone with internet access can
review these materials, providing accessibility to many
community members. Despite receiving a 50 -name
petition for an in-person meeting, DHA staff is satisfied
that the virtual meeting, which is not a required meeting
under the Planning Act, was successful and reached
many community members.
It should also be noted that DHA staff also had one-on-
one conversations with community members on the
telephone and responded to emails.
Concern with storm
Each proposed dwelling would be on municipal water
drainage
and sewage services. The City's Engineering Services
Division has confirmed that the stormwater scheme will
be confirmed through the future Consent Applications
to create the proposed lots. At that time, if it is
determined that it is not feasible to connect sump pump
discharge to the existing storm sewer on Lark Street
(e.g., due to the sewer being too shallow), the new lots
may either discharge to an infiltration gallery (soil
conditions to be reviewed) or discharge to grade with
the drainage design to ensure that stormwater will not
flow onto adjacent properties.
Page 45 of 167
Concern with environmental
The applicant has advised that the property was never
impact of removing
used for industrial purposes or for commercial
accessory structures where
purposes, such as automotive repair. DHA staff
cars were stored, and an
understands that the subject property was used for
automotive pit below the
residential purposes only. Soil remediation is not
garage used for automotive
typically a concern where automotive repair is
repair
undertaken by a resident, as part of the residential use
of the property.
Concern that the proposed
The proposal would facilitate the development of single
development does not
detached dwellings, which are the predominant land
maintain the existing
use in the surrounding neighbourhood.
character of the
neighbourhood
While the proposal would permit two-storey buildings
and Lark Street includes mainly one -storey dwellings,
there are many examples of two-storey dwellings in the
nearby area (e.g., Schweitzer Street contains many).
The built -form and date of construction of buildings
within this neighbourhood is highly varied and there
does not appear to be a consistent neighbourhood
character. The proposed development will be
consistent with the varied built -form and architecture of
the neighbourhood.
While the lot area and width of the lots are lesser than
many in the area, there are entire streets in the
Bridgeport East that include lots that are of a similar
size (e.g., Schueller St, Daniel Ave., and Stanley Ave
south of Tagge St).
Concern that the owner
If the ZBA is approved, and the owner severs and sells
intends to sever and sell the
the proposed lots, the new owner would be subject to
proposed lots and that very
the approved zoning, as outlined in the "Proposed /
different developments may
Provided" columns in Table 1 of this report. Otherwise,
occur on each lot
additional approvals from the City would be required.
Concern with notice (sign
A preliminary postcard notice and Neighbourhood
and postcard not seen)
Meeting invitation was mailed to all residents and
property owners within 240 metres of the subject
property. Two notice signs were installed on the
property and a postcard advising of the statutory public
meeting was forwarded to all residents and property
owners within 240 metres of the subject property and
those who responded to the preliminary notice. Notice
of the public meeting was published in The Record on
August 15, 2025.
Page 46 of 167
Concern that there is a
As part of the Building Permit process, redevelopment
septic tank on the property
will require decommissioning of any existing or
that was not identified
abandoned septic systems related to the existing
dwelling.
Concern that future
If the ZBA is approved, the owner would also need
development cause damage
approval of a Consent Application (for each property
to neighbouring properties
severance) and Building Permits to construct the future
dwellings. Any damage to neighbouring properties
would be a matter between private property owners. It
is the prerogative of an adjacent property owner
whether to retain a professional engineer to conduct a
pre -construction survey, at their cost, to document the
pre -construction condition of their property.
Concern that additional
Enova Power Corp advises that it has reviewed the
development will strain the
ZBA application. Enova has no issue to supply the
power grid in an area
additional residential units. In general, this area is at the
already prone to outages
fringe of Enova's 13.8kV distribution system. Enova
has two long feeders supplying this area. Since this
area is at the end of these two feeders, by nature any
upstream feeder fault may cause the power outages
affecting this area. If the fault is caused by fallen
trees/branches, it takes long time to clear the upstream
and restore the power. To improve the power
restoration, Enova has installed 3 automated reclosers
on these two feeders in 2014. Following Enova's
merger in 2022, Enova advises that it is considering
extending a third feeder from Waterloo (near
Conestoga Mall) to back up this area, subject to a
further study.
Concern with snow removal
The proposed 9 metre lot widths for Lots 2-4 are
and storage
common throughout the City, especially in newer
subdivisions. Also, zoning contains requirements for
driveway setbacks, which are intended to provide snow
storage areas. DHA staff is satisfied that there will be
sufficient space for on-site snow storage at the sides of
each driveway.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
This report supports the delivery of core services.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget.
Page 47 of 167
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 Council / Committee meeting. A notice sign was posted on the property and
information regarding the application was posted to the City's website on May 27, 2025.
Following the initial circulation referenced below, an additional postcard advising of the
statutory public meeting was circulated to all residents and property owners within 240
metres of the subject lands, those responding to the preliminary circulation and who
attended the Neighbourhood Meeting. Notice of the Statutory Public Meeting was also
posted in The Record on August 15, 2025 (a copy of the Notice may be found in
Attachment `B').
CONSULT — The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment Application was circulated to
residents and property owners within 240 metres of the subject lands on May 27, 2025. In
response to this circulation, staff received 9 written responses, which are summarized as
part of this staff report and is appended in Attachment `D'. DHA staff also had one-on-one
conversations with residents on the telephone and responded to emails.
PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES:
• Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13
• Provincial Planning Statement, 2024
• Region of Waterloo Official Plan
• City of Kitchener Official Plan, 2014
• City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 2019-051
• City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 85-1
REVIEWED BY: Tina Malone -Wright, Manager of Development Approvals
APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager of Development Services
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A — Proposed By-law and Map. No. 1
Attachment B — Newspaper Notice
Attachment C — Department and Agency Comments
Attachment D — Community Comments
Page 48 of 167
PROPOSED BY — LAW
2025
BY-LAW NUMBER
OF THE
CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER
(Being a by-law to amend By-law 85-1, as amended,
and 2019-051, as amended, collectively known as the
Zoning By-law for the City of Kitchener
— 1000947521 Ontario Inc. —157 Schweitzer Street)
WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to amend By-law 85-1 and 2019-051 for the
lands specified above;
NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the City of Kitchener
enacts as follows:
1. Zoning Grid Schedule Number 182 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 85-1 is
hereby amended by removing the zoning applicable to the parcel of land specified
and illustrated as Area 1 on Map No. 1, in the City of Kitchener, attached hereto.
2. Zoning Grid Schedule Number 182 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 85-1 is
hereby further amended by removing the zone boundaries as shown on Map No. 1
attached hereto.
3. Zoning Grid Schedule Number 182 of Appendix "A" to By-law 2019-051 is hereby
amended by adding hereto the lands specified and illustrated as Area 1 on Map No.
1, in the City of Kitchener, attached hereto, and by zoning the lands specified as
Area 1, Map No. 1 thereafter as Low Rise Residential Four Zone (RES -4) with Site
Specific Provision (438).
4. Zoning Grid Schedule Number 182 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 2019-051 is
hereby further amended by incorporating additional zone boundaries as shown on
Map No. 1 attached hereto.
5. Section 19 of By-law 2019-051 is hereby amended by adding Section 19 (438)
thereto as follows:
"438. Notwithstanding Sections 5.4 and Table 5-2, 7.3 and Table 7-2 of this By-
law, within the lands zoned Low Rise Residential Four Zone (RES -4) and
shown as being affected by this subsection on Zoning Grid Schedule
Number 182 of Appendix "A", the following special regulations shall apply:
a) For the building existing on the date of passing of this by-law, the
following shall apply:
Page 49 of 167
The Minimum Front Yard Setback shall be 4.2 metres;
The Minimum Rear Yard Setback shall be 5.0 metres;
b) For buildings constructed after the date of passing of this By-law, the
Minimum Rear Yard Setback shall be 6.8 metres."
6. This By-law shall become effective on the date that it is passed.
PASSED at the Council Chambers in the City of Kitchener this day of
, 2025.
Mayor
Clerk
Page 50 of 167
2
U
0
0
W L
Z
LU
Z O Z
O Q ON C
Y Z U C
_O
Q } L
W
Q
Z LU
~ OZ W Z E
Z W
LLLJUnw ONO wC
Z Z W 0Y N (IfC
2 w C7
U) OfCoOHLLLL UC
Lu Q Q Q Lo d
9 co
U O Z Z Z Z C
w w w
Un C� Un cn co 0 _
Q W W W W WQ N
J Z Off [If O J( G
N_ M
m m s C� 0� 0� m O C
Ml.
1
1
1
1
Coco
1�- 1
� 1
1
' umuuuuuuuu
umuuum'uuuuuuu
uu ,
1
1
1
1 �
1 �
ccoo' 000
p1�
LU Liu
W'W
III
(41 Q) '
1
0
o
O
N
C)
Z
Q
0
W
3
/1
Q
\
U)
z
W
M
LO
4
s
Z m
LU
Z
rn
w
Z
Z
N
M Z
0�
Q
N
7
Z
a
W Of
C)WC]of N
W
N
0 00
W
LO
N LL
z
W
w J>
Z
W
z
^^ I -
i
LL
Q
2 ZLU ao
CO)
>t
0C)
CW
G
z
m
QLO ULL o
W
O
HWLIJUN
Q
Z
oQUw0Q
V
LU
w
g M co
U) of
m
W 0 w O=
w
♦- f n
CO)
z
QQLLD� W
2
U
0
0
W L
Z
LU
Z O Z
O Q ON C
Y Z U C
_O
Q } L
W
Q
Z LU
~ OZ W Z E
Z W
LLLJUnw ONO wC
Z Z W 0Y N (IfC
2 w C7
U) OfCoOHLLLL UC
Lu Q Q Q Lo d
9 co
U O Z Z Z Z C
w w w
Un C� Un cn co 0 _
Q W W W W WQ N
J Z Off [If O J( G
N_ M
m m s C� 0� 0� m O C
Ml.
1
1
1
1
Coco
1�- 1
� 1
1
' umuuuuuuuu
umuuum'uuuuuuu
uu ,
1
1
1
1 �
1 �
ccoo' 000
p1�
LU Liu
W'W
III
(41 Q) '
1
0
o
O
N
C)
Z
Q
0
W
3
/1
Q
\
a
uiIL
2a
C0 x
LL �
o
m
N
Q
w }
U U
M
Z m
LU
Z
O
Z
Z
G
LLU L < w
LO
CV
Q
C)WC]of N
W
N
--
W
j Z
z
Wc, d 2
Z 2 Q C)
ONCOn0Y
Z
W
z
^^ I -
i
LL
w
CW
G
z
LI
�_ LO
�
oU)
Q
Z
z
LU
�d
�a�=a
U
J
c
rrGon
V
Z
Q
W
M
N
Z
(cl
LL
m
0
LL
LO
o N
o C)
N
M
Un
W
Lo� O
w o
D
Q
C:) U biQ
U
Z
O U)
W
d
^Z zo w
0+ N =
Q Lo C)
C ti
G o
0
ti
cO
0
O
W
0)
(a
a_
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
for a development in your neighbourhood
157 Schweitzer Street
Concept Drawing
III, el"' a(,.111ell
���
II \\,\ ll II ii 1i 11 a II o i
Have Your Voice Heard!
Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee
�.1 11 eg a liJ z e
IC) iu v ��!vvvta y Wi(
Date: September 8, 2025
Location: Council Chambers,
Kitchener City Hall
200 King Street West
orV'irtual Meeting,
Go to kitchener.ca/meetings
and select:
• Current agendas and reports
(posted 10 days before meeting)
• Appear as a delegation
• Watch a meeting
To learn more about this project, including
information on your appeal rights, visit:
www.kitchenenca/
PlanningApplications
or contact:
Andrew Pinnell, Senior Planner
andrew.pinnell@ kitchener.ca
519.783.8915
The City of Kitchener will consider a Zoning By-law Amendment Application (ZBA) for
157 Schweitzer Street to facilitate the intensification of the lands through the future
creation of three new lots with frontage on Lark Street, each to be developed with a
single detached dwelling. The existing single detached dwelling would be retained.
These lots are proposed to be created sometime after ouncil' cisi e ZBA,
should Council decide to approve the ZBA. The ZBA cgogl r�ae -s ecific
PP p
provisions for certain setbacks and driveway width.
Project Address: 157 Schweitzer Street
Application Type: Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA25/013/S/AP
Comments of: Environmental Planning — City of Kitchener
Commenter's Name: Carrie Musselman
Email: carrie.musselman@kitchener.ca
Phone: 519-783-8940
Date of Comments: June 17, 2025
1. Plans, Studies and Reports submitted as part of a complete Planning Act Application:
• Scoped Planning Justification Report, prepared by MHBC, dated April 24, 2025.
2. Site Specific Comments & Issues:
I have reviewed the report/plan noted above to support a zoning bylaw amendment that would permit
a consent for three new lots fronting on Lark Street with one retained, and note:
• There are no natural heritage features or functions of local, Regional, Provincial, or national
significance on, or adjacent to the subject property.
0 A few trees are on the property and one tree is located on 7 Lark St, a property adjacent to
proposed Lot 4. The tree is near the rear north east corner of Lot 4 and may be impacted by future
development.
Environmental Planning staff can support the Zoning By Law Amendment.
A Tree Preservation/Enhancement Plan (TP/EP) prepared by an Arborist, in accordance with the City's
Tree Management Policy should be submitted in support of / at the time of the consent application.
The TP / EP should be to protect and conserve the existing healthy trees on the property and
incorporate them into the new development, ensure no tree Species At Risk (e.g. Butternut,
Black Ash, myotis bats, etc.) will be impacted, properly characterize existing conditions; and
assist in evaluating the potential impact on trees subject to the policy.
The TP/EP should also address trees both wholly on the property and trees on adjacent lands
whose root zones might be impacted by development on the property. It will also need to
incorporate grading and servicing details.
The Tree Management Policy can be found online at:
https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/INS OPS Treemanagementpolicy. Of
A City for Everyone
Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community
Page 53 of 167
Andrew Pinnell
From:
Mike Seiling
Sent:
Friday, June 27, 2025 11:45 AM
To:
Andrew Pinnell
Subject:
RE: Circulation for Comment - 157 Schweitzer Street (ZBA)
Building; no comments
Page 54 of 167
Andrew Pinnell
From:
Niall Melanson
Sent:
Monday, June 23, 2025 9:29 AM
To:
Andrew Pinnell
Cc:
Angela Mick
Subject:
157 Schweitzer St, ZBA25/013/S/AP - Engineering and KU clearance
Good morning Andrew.
Development Engineering and Kitchener Utilities can provide our clearances for the ZBA application.
Thank you.
Niall Melanson, C.E.T.
Project Manager, Engineering Division, City of Kitchener
p.�Vl.li7rnl �lr ;sanl[ Ccs llcll4u;ll'IIrm lr.s;a, 519-783-8444
200 King St. W., Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7
Page 55 of 167
Andrew Pinnell
From: Niall Melanson
Sent: Monday, July 7, 2025 7:55 AM
To: Chris Spere; Andrew Pinnell; Steve Allen
Cc: Angela Mick
Subject: RE: 157 Schweitzer St, ZBA25/013/S/AP - Engineering and KU clearance
Morning all.
Just catching up on this email chain and thank you Steve for looking into this and providing comments. Typically
during the ZBA process Development Engineering only reviews to confirm sanitary capacity and water demands
are available. This is to confirm that the upsized population may be supported. Storm is sorted out during the site
plan process however it appears as though this development will likely go through CofA, which is okay.
My thoughts are if it is not feasible to connect sump pump discharge to the storm sewer then they may either
discharge to an infiltration gallery (soil conditions should be reviewed) or they may discharge to grade.
Happy to discuss further but please let me know your thoughts.
Thanks
Niall Melanson, C.E.T.
Project Manager, Engineering Division, City of Kitchener
aaVVdri�a Vainwz�irnCaarlklaa;lrl ur,ir.a<u, 519-783-8444
200 King St. W., Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7
Page 56 of 167
Andrew Pinnell
From: Jennifer Arends
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2025 3:45 PM
To: Andrew Pinnell
Subject: FW: Circulation for Comment - 157 Schweitzer Street (ZBA)
Attachments: Dept and Agency Circ Letter_157 Schweitzer St.pdf
Hi Andrew,
No issues with zoning from fire, but may want to give them a heads up that Direct to Fire Monitoring of fire alarm
system will be required at building permit stage due to the location.
Thanks,
Fire Prevention Officer I City of Kitchener
519-783-7983 1 iienniiteir„aireinds@lk tclheirneir„ca
Page 57 of 167
Andrew Pinnell
From: Deeksha Choudhry
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2025 1:43 PM
To: Andrew Pinnell
Subject: Fw: Circulation for Comment - 157 Schweitzer Street (ZBA)
Attachments: Dept and Agency Circ Letter_157 Schweitzer St.pdf
Hi Andrew,
No heritage comments or concerns for this application.
Thanks!
Kind Regards,
Deeksha Choudhry, MSc., BES
Heritage Planners Development and Housing Approvals Division I City of Kitchener
200 King Street West, 6th Floor I P.O. Box 1118 1 Kitchener ON N2G 4G7
Phone: 519-783-8906
E-mail: deeksha.choudhry(&kitchener.ca
IM IM r rI,,
df�01 � x r i uVi
Keit: 1hei:cir.ca/Gir d" [ages - Open until April 30th
Page 58 of 167
City of Kitchener
Zone Change / Official Plan Amendment Comment Form
Address: 157 Schweitzer Street
Owner: 1000947521 ONTARIO INC
Application: ZBA25/013/S/AP
Comments Of:
Commenter's Name:
Email:
Phone
Date of Comments:
Park Planning
Simon Latam
simon.latam@kitchener.ca
519-783-8030
July 2, 2025
1. Documents Reviewed:
I have reviewed the documentation noted below submitted in support of an ZBA to facilitate the
future creation of three new lots with frontage on Lark Street, each to be developed with a single
detached dwelling. The existing dwelling near the intersection would be retained. The ZBA would
change the zoning from R-3 (By-law 85-1) to RES -4 (By-law 2019-051) with site specific provisions for
relief from requirements related to setbacks, and driveway width, and building height.
• Completed and signed Zoning By-law Amendment application forms
• Functional Servicing Brief dated February 6, 2025
• Archeological Assessment dated January 2, 2025
• Scoped Planning Justification Report dated April 24, 2025
• Preliminary Grading and Servicing Plan dated January 2, 2025
2. Site Specific Comments & Issues:
Parkland Dedication
• The site is within the Bridgeport East Planning Community and through Places and Spaces — An Open
Space Strategy for Kitchener, this community has been identified as well served for park and
recreation service delivery.
• In accordance with the Planning Act, City of Kitchener Bylaw 2022-101 and the Park Dedication
Policy MUN-PLA-1074, Parkland Dedication will be required for the application taken as cash -in -lieu
of land.
• Parkland dedication requirements will be deferred at the Zoning By-law Amendment application and
assessed at future Consent for severance application(s). Parkland dedication will be assessed based
on the number and size of lots approved through the Severance application and required as a
condition of Consent. Parkland dedication will be taken as cash -in -lieu of land according to the
Planning Act, Parkland Dedication Bylaw 2022-101 and Parkland Dedication Policy in effect.
• An estimate is provided using the approved land valuation of $36,080/linear meter and a capped
rate of $11,862/unit. The estimated cash -in -lieu park dedication for each of the 3 proposed lots each
having —9.Om of frontage is $11,862 for a total of $35,586.
A City for Everyone
Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community
PP15glecN of 167
City of Kitchener
Zone Change / Official Plan Amendment Comment Form
See section 5. Anticipated Fees
• Dedication requirements are subject to the Park Dedication Bylaw, Policy and rates in effect. Please
see below.
• Should any further revisions be made, a revised parkland dedication estimate may be required.
• If any questions regarding parkland dedication, please contact the above -noted Parks staff for
clarification.
Street Trees
• There are no existing City owned trees along the frontage of either Schweitzer Street or Lark Street
that will be impacted by the proposed development.
• No new street trees are required.
Trails
• No comment
Impacts to Public Lands
• No comment
Plans, Studies and Reports to submit as part of a complete Planning Act Application:
Zoning Bylaw Amendment application:
• No requirements
• A site plan showing severed lots and property dimensions will be required at time of Consent for
Severance application.
3. Comments on Submitted Documents
• No requirements or comments
4. Policies, Standards and Resources:
• Kitchener Official Plan
• City of Kitchener Park Dedication Bylaw 2022-101 and Park Dedication Policy
• City of Kitchener Development Manual
• Cycling and Trails Master Plan (2020)
• Chapter 690 of the current Property Maintenance By-law
• Places & Spaces: An Open Space Strategy for Kitchener
• Multi -Use Pathways & Trails Masterplan
• Urban Design Manual
A City for Everyone
Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community
P ecM of 167
City of Kitchener
Zone Change / Official Plan Amendment Comment Form
5. Anticipated Fees:
• Based on the current legislative and policy framework, the current rates, land classes and the
proposed preliminary site plan, Parkland Dedication of $35,586 (3 lots x $11,862) would be required
as a condition of final Consent approval.
A City for Everyone
Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community
P°` M of 167
Andrew Pinnell
From: Mike Balch
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2025 3:48 PM
To: Andrew Pinnell
Subject: RE: Circulation for Comment - 157 Schweitzer Street (ZBA)
No Comments
Have a good long weekend!
Mike Balch (he/him), MSc.
Planner (Policy) I Planning and Housing Policy Division I City of Kitchener
519-783-8928 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 iilke„113 1al I I�iitcheneir..ca
..........................................._F.........................................................
Page 62 of 167
City of Kitchener
Zoning By-law Amendment comments
Application type:
Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA25/013/5/AP
Comments of:
Transportation
Commenter's name:
Dave Seller
Email:
Dave.Seller@kitchener.ca
Phone:
(519) 783-8152
Date of comments:
June 5, 2025
Project address:
157 Schweitzer St
Preamble
A Zoning By-law Amendment Application (ZBA) has been submitted to facilitate the future creation of
three new lots with frontage on Lark Street, each to be developed with a single detached dwelling. The
existing dwelling near the intersection would be retained. The ZBA would change the zoning from R-3
(Zoning By-law 85-1) to RES -4 (Zoning By-law 2019-051) with site specific provisions for relief from
requirements related to setbacks and driveway width.
Transportation Services Conclusion
Transportation Services have no concerns with the proposed ZBA.
Transportation Services would like to flag the applicant's proposal to widen the existing driveway on the
retained lands to a maximum width exceeding 8.0 metres. Based on preliminary review, the proposed
driveway width may conflict with the location of an existing hydro pole (refer to redline markup below).
Should the applicant wish to proceed with the driveway widening as proposed, they will be responsible
for all costs associated with relocating the hydro pole.
A City for Everyone
Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community
Page 63 of 167
Andrew Pinnell
Senior Planner
City of Kitchener
200 King Street West, 6th Floor
P.O. Box 1118, Kitchener, ON
N2G 4G7
Dear Mr. Schneider,
PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT &
LEGISLATIVE SERVICES
150 Frederick Street, 8th floor
Kitchener Ontario N2G 4J3 Canada
Telephone: 519-575-4400
Fax: 519-575-4449
www. reg io nofwaterloo.ca
Will Towns: 519-616-1868
File: D17/2/25005
Re: Zoning By-law Amendment
ZBA25/013/S/AP
157 Schweitzer Street
Avinash Mishra c/o MHBC Planning
City of Kitchener
C14/2/25011
June 24, 2025
Regional staff have received a zoning by-law amendment (ZBA) application pertaining
to 157 Schweitzer Street. The applicant proposes to facilitate the creation of three new
lots (via a future consent application), with each lot to be developed with a single -
detached dwelling. The existing dwelling closest to the intersection of Schweitzer Street
and Lark Street would retained. The three proposed severed lots would each feature
246.6 square metres in lot area and 9 metres of frontage on Lark Street, while the
retained lands would be 653.7 square metres in size with 27.4 metres of existing
frontage on Schweitzer Street.
The lands are designated Urban Area and Delineated Built Up Area in the Regional
Official Plan (ROP); designated Low Rise Residential in the City of Kitchener Official
Plan; and zoned Residential Three (R-3) in Zoning By-law 85-1. The ZBA proposes to
change the zone category to Low Rise Residential Four (RES -4) in Zoning By-law 2019-
051 to permit the proposed lot sizes and seek additional relief from provisions related to
front- and rear -yard setbacks and driveway width.
Regional staff provided comments on the related pre -submission application in
November 2024 and have now had the opportunity to review the formal application in
line with the Region's revised responsibilities following the proclamation of Bill 23 (the
Document Number: 5014356 Version: 1 Page 1 of 3
Page 64 of 167
More Homes Built Faster Act) and provide the following technical comments for
consideration by the City and applicant.
Waste Management (Collections) — Advisory
Regional staff have reviewed the proposal in relation to waste collection services
delivered by the Region. The existing lot and dwelling and the three new proposed
properties fronting on Lark Street would all be eligible to receive curbside waste
collection provided by the Region. Each property will be able to participate
independently so long as each property has a driveway onto a municipally maintained
roadway.
Should If the applicant have further questions related to the eligibility of these proposed
properties for waste collection services, please contact
EESColIectionContractCoordinators(a)-region ofwaterloo.ca.
Environmental Threats — Advisory
For the City's awareness, the Region's Threats Inventory Database identifies "low"
environmental threats on the subject lands associated with documented past
commercial land uses. This is identified by the yellow dot in the graphic below.
Fees
In accordance with Regional Fees By-law 24-052, Regional staff acknowledge receipt of
the required $3,000 ZBA review fee from the applicant (received April 22, 2025). An
additional fee ($350) will be required in association with the forthcoming consent
application.
Document Number: 5014356 Version: 1 Page 2 of 3
Page 65 of 167
Conclusions & Next Steps
As per the foregoing, the Region has no objection to the City of Kitchener's approval of
this ZBA application.
Please be advised that any future development on the lands subject to the above -noted
application will be subject to the provisions of Regional Development Charge By-law 19-
037 or any successor thereof.
Please accept this letter as our request for a copy of the decision pertaining to this
application. Should you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Yours truly,
Will Towns, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
CC. Juliane van Westerholt, MHBC Planning (Agent)
Document Number: 5014356 Version: 1 Page 3 of 3
Page 66 of 167
Andrew Pinnell
From: Shaun Wang <shaun.wang@enovapower.com>
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2025 9:35 AM
To: Andrew Pinnell
Cc: Greig Cameron
Subject: RE: Circulation for Comment - 157 Schweitzer Street (ZBA)
Andrew,
have reviewed the rezoning application.
understand that the customer is seeking approval to sever the lot.
Enova has no issue to supply the additional residential units.
am still vague on why/how power reliability impacts the decision, or how to reply.
Please give me a call and discuss your request.
In general, this area is at the fringe of Enova's 13.8kV distribution system.
We have two long feeders supplying this area, one from Kitchener MTS#4 (our Victoria St Office), the other from
Kitchener MTS #5 (near HWY 86/Ottawa St).
Since this area is at the end of these two feeders, by nature any upstream feeder fault may cause the power
outages affecting this area.
If the fault is caused by fallen trees/branches, it takes long time to clear the upstream and restore the power.
In order to improve the power restoration, Enova has installed 3 automated reclosers on these two feeders in
2014.
Following Enova's merger in 2022, we consider extending a third feeder from Waterloo Scheifele TS (near
Conestoga Mall) to back up this area, subject to a further study.
regards,
l:..:.. -'nova Power Corp
301 Victoria St. South, Kitchener, ON N2G 4L2
Office Number: 226-896-2200 x6312
shaun.wang@enovapower.com.q1gg! gg� yeir„com
Page 67 of 167
Andrew Pinnell
From: Angela Wang <awang@grandriver.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2025 8:38 AM
To: Andrew Pinnell
Subject: RE: Circulation for Comment - 157 Schweitzer Street (ZBA)
Hi Andrew,
Please be advised that the subject property is not regulated by the GRCA under Ontario Regulation
41/24. As such, we will not be providing comments on this application.
Kind regards,
Airr"nellla Waing
i a:sou.uirce IRIa:-airninei
uirairud liiiva; it Coiruseiraaiuoura Authioirity
400 Clyde Rd
Cambridge, ON N1R5W6
Office: 519-621-2763 ext. 2270
Email , nr ,irk..9.. >..9.!r ,irn,aj,irii,veir.c
.www::.9.!r lrn�llriiy lr,.ca 1I ��..............................::...........:...................at.��.....�:!i."�.....p!!�.....so iiall irnediia
g2.! with �u✓i.............................................................
Page 68 of 167
Andrew Pinnell
From:
Planning <planning@wcdsb.ca>
Sent:
Monday, June 9, 2025 2:22 PM
To:
Andrew Pinnell
Subject:
Re: Circulation for Comment - 157 Schweitzer Street (ZBA)
Good afternoon,
The Waterloo Catholic District School Board has reviewed the subject application and based on our
development circulation criteria have the following comments/conditions:
1. That any Education Development Charges shall be collected prior to the issuance of a
building permit(s).
Thankyou.
Kind regards,
Isabelle Lung Ler I Planning Technician
P 519-578-3677 x 2355 1 wcdsb.ca
Watertoo Catholic
t , �
District Irl Board
Quaky, Inclusive, Faith Bawd Cr maation
Page 69 of 167
From:
Steve Gyorffy < >
Sent:
Wednesday, July 2, 2025 2:19 PM
To:
Andrew Pinnell
Cc:
Scott Davey
Subject:
Zone Change for 157 Schweitzer St
Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important
Attn: Andrew Pinnell, Senior Planner
Dear Mr Pinnell,
Re: Neighbourhood Meeting Follow-up
The members of our neighbourhood appreciated the further information and insights provided
during the zoom meeting of June 26th, 2025. However, this meeting further reinforced my
concerns about the myriad of justifications put forth in support of this project. Many of these
justifications don't hold up under closer examination.
In the following I will summarize the many reasons for my concerns.
Concerns:
Storm Drainage
Misleading Photographs
Official Plan Adherence
Proposed Variances from New Bylaw
Consents
Notifications
Regional Municipality of Waterloo - Site Servicing Questionnaire
i
Page 70 of 167
Good evening Mr. Pinnell,
There were many concerns that could not be addressed during the course of the June 26
public meeting due to time constraints.
We can appreciate your's and Mr. Davey's position that the Zoom format is how these
meetings are currently done and have been for some time. With all due respect, you work in
a modern environment that has utilized technology for efficiency. However, the Zoom
format does create accessibility issues for many residents, as was witnessed by the
number of senior neighbours that came together at the Bridgeport Community Centre in
order to access the meeting to express their valid concerns. Many residents, namely the
two most affected by the application and adjacent to the subject property, are seniors who
do not have access to email or other electronic communications. This process needs to
consider the accessibility issues to remain equitable and inclusive of everyone impacted.
There will be some residents who are unaware of the application. Postcards were sent to
some neighbouring homes, but some did not receive one. Additionally, it was mentioned
that there should be signage on the subject property for the proposed development. There
is none, nor has there ever been. We address this specifically, with photographs below.
It is clear that the new owner of 157 Schweitzer Street has not spent much time in this
community. It is also clear he does not understand the impact his proposal will have on the
current residents and homes in the neighbourhood.
Many residents in the City of Kitchener likely do not understand that Bridgeport East, while
a part of Kitchener, has its own unique identity. Many of the residents that live in this
specific part of the neighbourhood have lived here for 40, 50 or even 60 years, since
Bridgeport was first developed and not part of Kitchener. Lark Street, Schweitzer Street and
Schofield Drive are streets that end in farmer's fields at the absolute edge of the city
boundary.
The attraction to this neighbourhood is the lot sizes, the low-density housing and being at
the edge of the citywhere traffic issues do not impact our immediate neighbourhood. This
is why we chose to move here almost a decade ago. This proposed development, requiring
a zoning amendment, and exceptions to that amendment, will impact the immediate
neighbourhood considerably.
Page 71 of 167
Scoped Planning Justification Report
We have reviewed the Scoped Planning Justification Report filed by MHBC Planning. There
is a lack of veracity in some of the areas covered in the report that the Planning Committee
should be aware of. There are also issues with the other documentation that came with the
application to the city.
The photographs included in the report are of homes on other streets, but not the affected
Lark Street.
There are no two-storey homes on Lark Street. There are 2 two-storey homes on Schofield
Avenue. Many of the lot sizes or frontages on Lark Street have more than 60 to 70 feet to
accommodate side split homes. It is troubling and has us questioning intentions and the
veracity of other areas of the report, that not one single home from Lark Street was
included in the photographs to represent the character of the neighbourhood for the
Planning Committee. At the recent public meeting, when this issue was touched upon,
MHBC responded with the mischaracterization of 14 Lark Street as being a two-storey
home. This is not the case, nor was a photo of this home submitted in the report. All of the
houses on Lark Street are, in fact, either side splits or bungalows only. Below are four
homes on Lark Street near the subject property and are more representative of the lot size
and homes in the immediate area.
Page 72 of 167
Page 73 of 167
Please note, these homes are side splits with the lower level partially below grade and
therefore cannot be considered two storeys.
Additionally, the inclusion of photographs in the report of two homes on Daniel Avenue, as
representative of the neighbourhood, is also troubling. The 2 one -storey homes
photographed were part of a Habitat for Humanity build that happened manyyears ago.
Those homes are not representative of the other homes and lots in the neighbourhood but
are certainly representative of an already established increase to the density of the larger
neighbourhood in Bridgeport East.
The inclusion of a home on Schofield Drive characterized as a three-storey home is
inaccurate as well. That home was a raised bungalow on a sizeable lot that was renovated
to two storeys to accommodate the family that owned it. The bottom level of the home is
mostly below grade and cannot be considered a three-storey home. Again, this
misrepresentation casts doubt on the veracity of the report submitted.
The inclusion of photographs of two semi-detached homes in the small sample size of
photographs offered by MHBC is also a misleading representation of the surrounding lots
and house sizes in the greater neighbourhood. These homes are an exception to the norm
and already represent an increase in the density of the larger neighbourhood in Bridgeport
Page 74 of 167
East. This misrepresentation of our neighbourhood has been done in an attempt to make
this application pass without actual knowledge this neighbourhood.
The report's conclusion characterizes this severance of 3 lots, with 30 -foot frontages, from
a current backyard as "modest intensification:' During the meeting and in other parts of the
report, it was characterized as gentle intensification. Despite the wordsmithing, it is
considerable intensification on Lark Street.
While all of the other lots on the street are much wider to accommodate side splits and
bungalows, the proposed lots will only have 30 -foot sized lots. This is not in keeping with
the character of the neighbourhood and specifically with the affected Lark Street and is
contrary to Policy 17.E.20.5 of the City Official Plan specifically section b) that reads
"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." The surrounding lands are Lark Street, Schofield Avenue and Schweitzer
Street and should not include Daniel Avenue.
The lot sizes are NOT similar in size to surrounding lots, they are considerably smaller.
Noted on page 11 of the MHBC's report, they suggest similar lot sizes on Schofield Drive,
Schweitzer Street and Daniel Avenue. This is not accurate. Additionally, the report neglects
to mention Lark Street, where the houses will be built. That omission is glaring, and it would
take 5 minutes to wall<the neighbourhood to see this inconsistency in the report.
The proposed front yard setbacks have the houses sitting closer to the road than any other
homes on the street and will cause them to stand out. This would not be necessary if the
owner chose to sever one lot from the existing property. This would allow sufficient space
to put a home with similar offsets to the existing homes on the street, with similar lot sizing.
When considering the policies of section 4.C.1.8 of the City Official Plan - a) the
proposed single detached dwellings will NOT be similar to other dwellings in the
immediate area, contrary to MHBC's report. While MHBC states the front yard setbacks
will not require a reduction under RES4 zoning, it will not be in Keeping with the rest of the
homes on the street.
While recognizing the importance of the Provincial Planning Statement and reaching
residential targets, this development is not in keeping with current zoning or even the
proposed rezoning application from RES3 to RES4, as the owner will ask for additional
exceptions to zoning requirements if he is successful in having the property rezoned.
Additionally, this application really is not about meeting provincial residential targets. It is
about the owner, Mr. Mishra, increasing his wealth by severing the lots for resale.
Page 75 of 167
As it was pointed out in the meeting, the intention of the owner is to sever the lots and
resell them, not develop them. What is to stop the new owners of the lots from building
multi -unit dwellings on those lots? What will those new lots be zoned as, RES4? This could
create even greater intensification in this purposely built low density neighbourhood
bordering on agricultural land.
With the selling of the proposed 3 lots to individual builders/buyers, there could be very
different homes built on those lots. As well, the construction process could be a long,
drawn-out affair causing disruption to the entrance of this small neighbourhood for an
extended period of time. There is no other access or egress point to Lark Street or Schofield
Drive. All residents must pass by this location in order to reach their homes or leave the
neighbourhood. Multiple builds over a drawn-out period of time will cause considerable
and unreasonable disruption to residents.
All of the residential homes on Lark Street are zoned for RES3. All of the residential homes
on Schofield Drive are zoned for RES3. The majority of the homes in the surrounding
neighbourhood are zoned for RES3. The exceptions are a small number of lots that were
rezoned to RES4 to allow for a few semi-detached homes, the Habitat for Humanity build
on Daniel Avenue and the large agricultural lots across from the subject property belonging
to the church at the end of Schweitzer Street.
The applicant is trying to get the property rezoned to allow for more lot severances because
the proposed development does not comply with the current fabric of the neighbourhood
nor current zoning. Additionally, he will be seeking amendments to the RES4 zoning, if
permitted, to make up for insufficiencies in the current plans as they relate to yard
setbacks and driveway widths.
On page 7 of the report is Table 2 that speaks to the application being consistent with the
PPS Policy of 2024. In the first paragraph, MHBC speaks to the zoning by-law amendment
permitting "the development of single detached dwellings with smaller lots, broadening the
mix of housing styles and lot sizes in the area, increasing housing choice. " This is an
example of where assertions in the report can be incongruent with other areas in the
report. MHBC speaks to the proposed development retaining the character of the
neighbourhood but here it reports it will broaden housing styles and lots sizes. If
compared with the immediate and surrounding neighbouring houses, the new lots and
houses will be very different from the current lot sizes and style of homes. This is contrary
to the policies of the City Official Plan.
There will potentially need to be remediation of the property related to the septic tank
system and a potential automotive repair site. Most homes in this neighbourhood were,
Page 76 of 167
at some point, on septic systems and many homes still have them buried in their yards
despite current connections to the city sewer/sanitation systems. The subject property is
no exception and that has been addressed later in this document as being misrepresented
in the Region's Environmental Site Screening Questionnaire.
In reference to the Region's desire to transition existing neighbourhoods to 15 -minute
neighbourhoods, it cannot go without mention that Bridgeport East is somewhat isolated
from the rest of Kitchener, which is separated by an already congested single bridge. While
there is an industrial park nearby offering some employment opportunities and some
smaller limited park areas (Sylvia Park only in this immediate neighbourhood), there are no
grocery stores and very limited other commercial properties servicing the community.
There are also no schools leaving a requirement to bus children to the nearest schools. As
there is a single GRT transit route for the entire Bridgeport East community, to reach the
nearest grocery store requires a bus change or a long walk up the hill on Bridge Street, after
getting off on Lancaster Street, to reach the local Freshco. Otherwise, without a car, folks
needing groceries would have to ride the one bus route that services the area a
considerable distance. It is difficult to manage without a car here. The Region's goal of 15 -
minute neighbourhoods might not be possible on this side of the bridge.
There is a single two-lane bridge that offers access from Bridgeport (and many
commuters to the East, such as Breslau, Guelph), to the rest of Kitchener. Intensification at
any level in this community creates strain on the traffic flow from Bridgeport East into
Kitchener. During commuting times, traffic is backed up considerably to wait to cross the
bridge. Until there is another bridge or a widening of the existing bridge, traffic congestion
will continue to worsen at this bottleneck. Additionally, a very large new industrial site is
under construction and that will also add to the bottleneck of workers and residents alike
trying to access other parts of the Region.
While the neighbourhood falls within the "built up" area referred to on page 9 of the report
under heading 3.3 City of Kitchener Official Plan, it is just inside the built up area. Lark
Street, Schofield Drive and Schweitzer Street areas where the subject property is situated
are very close to agricultural land and the city boundary. All of these roadways end at a
dead end a short distance away in farmer's fields.
Outside of the MHBC report there are other considerations for this application. Currently,
we experience frequent power outages during all seasons of the year, and these are not
specific to weather events. Theyjust happen. However, just a few nights ago as we were
trying to finish this document, there was an outage with a storm. Adding three more houses
to the grid will offer further strain on an already overburdened power grid. This has been the
Page 77 of 167
case for the duration of our time in this neighbourhood and we seethe potential for it
becoming worse without sufficient updating to the current infrastructure.
As mentioned, many times during the meeting, there is concern about the water table in
the neighbourhood and storm runoff. With the considerable reduction of the green space
on the property of 157 Schweitzer Street in the proposal, we are left wondering how that
will impact the ability forwater absorption during inclement weather and the spring melt
in our immediate neighbourhood. With the current soil make-up, with clay being
predominant, the water table levels are a concern. Our home experiences sump pump
drainage requirements in the spring melt, as do many homes in the neighbourhood. How
will the loss of green space and the construction impact the balance and flow of water
in and on the ground? A proper study should be completed and made public.
The answers offered that the "engineers" said it would not be a problem is insufficient to
calm this concern. I speak further to this below in the report and include photos of the
stormwater system we currently have on this side of Lark Street. As mentioned by another
resident during the meeting, the nearest connection to the city storm system is at Daniel
Avenue and Schweitzer Street. The water draining from the proposed new lots will have
nowhere to go and will have to run over the land, as the current culvert is buried at this
point.
Snow removal is another concern in this neighbourhood. We experience a lot of snow in
this neighbourhood, with snowbanks reaching large volumes due to the close proximity of
open agricultural land and drifting. We are able to disperse this snow from our driveways
along our lot lengths and driveway lengths. The proposed development does not
sufficiently take into account where snowwill be placed with smaller lot sizes. If the
proposed lot sizes are 9 metres and a typical width of a single driveway under the
current governing zoning by-law for this neighbourhood (85-1) is 2.6 metres to a
maximum of 8 metres or 50% of the lot width, where will the snow from these
driveways be placed? These same driveway dimensions exist in the new zoning by-law
2019-051 that is being phased in.
There are no sidewalks in this neighbourhood. As it is, residents and children must walk
and play on the side of the road. Increased traffic on Lark Street will pose a safety risk to
current residents. There is already poor overhead city lighting, creating darkened areas
and poor visibility at that intersection of Lark Street. This lack of lighting, the narrow
street, lack of sidewalks and an increase in traffic exacerbates this safety concern.
Page 78 of 167
Application for Zoning 6y -Law Amendment
Notice Signs
Please note all properties subject to an application for a Zoning By-LawAmendment are
required to post notice signs. As per Council Policy 1-705, should the subject property be
situation at an intersection or have frontage on more than one public road, notification
signs will be required for each street frontage. [...I Property specific notice signs are
provided by the City, at the cost noted in the fees section of this form, and shall be installed
by the applicant.
A photo of the installed property specific notice sign must be sent to the File Planner prior
to the application being deemed complete. The sign(s) shall remain in place until a
decision has been made by Council and the applicable appeal period has expired. At that
time, it is the responsibility of the applicant to remove the sign(s).
There have never been any signs posted on the property on either of the frontages on
Schweitzer Street or Lark Street. It would appear this application is not complete at
this time and should not have proceeded to the next steps of "Notice of Application:'
Some residents may not be aware of this application.
The following photographs were taken of the subject property at 157 Schweitzer Street
immediately following the public meeting held on June 26, 2025.
Page 79 of 167
8. Proposed Zoning By -Law Amendment
There are acknowledged deficiencies, by the applicant, in meeting Low Rise
Residential Four (RES4) regulations. As such there is a request for amendments to site
specific regulations to comply with zoning by-laws due to their proposed severance of
the land from one lot to four lots.
With these acknowledged deficiencies, the applicant still proposes they be granted
exceptions to the RES4 zoning by-law to enable them to sever the lot into four lots,
instead of exploring ways to sever the lot without requiring exceptions to the zoning
by-law.
Under closer inspection of a portion of the proposed changes to the existing lot, you can
see the rear yard of this long-established home becomes 1.6 metres. There is a deck that is
currently larger than the proposed setback for this yard attached to the home (as seen in
the photo below). Additionally, it is absurd for MHBC to suggest that this backyard now
becomes a side yard to meet zoning requirements for yard offsets. Simply calling it the
side yard does not make it so. The house situated here is oriented to have a rear sliding
door that exits onto a deck. This home is 157 Schweitzer Street and the front yard and front
of the house and front door face Schweitzer Street. Again, to suggest that the current side
Page 80 of 167
yard of this property now becomes the front yard in order to meet the requirements of the
zoning law is ridiculous. The home is oriented to have the front yard on Schweitzer Street.
Rezoning this property to RES4 to accommodate the deficiencies of this proposal
seems to be an abuse and manipulation of the current zoning regulations in the name
of maximizing profits.
The existing driveway will now require an exception to be within the requirements of
the law. Additionally, the rezoning will still require exceptions for the yards of the
original property and all of the rear yards for the retained and new proposed severed
lots.
Under the current governing law Zoning By-law 85-1, the minimum lot area for a residential
home should be 411 square metres with minimum widths of 13.7 metres. None of the
current proposed lots whether the original or new severed lots meet all of the requirements
of RES3 and thus the request to move to RES4. However, if the proposal to sever the
property was done in a more reasonable manner to more closely resemble the surrounding
lands, as required, there would be no need to have the property rezoned to RES4.
Page 81 of 167
For example, in keeping with RES3 zoning, the property can be properly severed into two
lots with the original retained lot measuring 29.8 metres by 27.4 metres and the new
severed lot 21.1 metres by 27.4 metres. There would be no requirement for rezoning.
An example of reasonable intensification occurred with this infill home built on Schofield
Drive. It was built on a lot severed from 9 Lark Street. The lot and home is in keeping with
the surrounding lands and homes.
If the subject property is rezoned to RES4, this unreasonable proposal can then proceed
but in addition to this, the original retained lot/home can then be further altered. The
current home is more than 50 years old and has not been well maintained in recent years. It
stands to reason that once rezoning is permitted, the original retained home/lot can be
further severed or a multi -unit dwelling could be added without restriction, furthering the
intensification of this tiny corner of the city.
9. Proposed Zoning By-law designation Chart
The site specific regulation request includes an exception to the Zoning By-law to
allow:
• reduced minimum front yard setbacks for all of the proposed lots
• permit the maximum width of the driveway for the retained lot to exceed
maximum widths
Page 82 of 167
0 reduced minimum rear yard setbacks for all of the proposed lots
Again, these exceptions or amendments to the by-law would not be required if there
was alternate consideration of how the lot was severed. If the lot was severed in a
more responsible waywith slightly less intensification, exceptions to existing laws
would not be required.
10. Site Conditions
It is noted there are veracity issues with how this section has been completed,
whether intentional or oversight. It serves to mislead the Planning Committee, not
giving them all of the available information to make an informed decision on this
application.
b) What is the length of time that the existing use(s) of the subject land have continued?
No answer
c) Are there existing buildings on the subject property? Yes
• If yes, are any of the existing building or structures 50 years of age or older?
No answer
This property was constructed prior to 1970 which would make the original home older
than 50 years.
g) Are there any buildings or structures proposed to be built on the subject lands? No
The intent of the owner/applicant is to sever the one existing lot to make 4 lots. The
additional 3 lots are proposed to be sold for building additional homes on them.
11. Proposed Servicing
c) Stormwater Drainage -A preliminary stormwater drainage report is required for all types
of storm drainage. Select the proposed stormwater drainage servicing below. Sewers
While this is proposed stormwater drainage for the site, there does not exist current
stormwater sewers at this location. Currently, Schofield Drive has a series of ditches
and culverts to manage stormwater drainage. These ditches are also utilized for the
homes to pump excess ground water that enters their sump pump wells in the spring
melt or when the water table is high. These ditches lead to and join a culvert at the
Page 83 of 167
corner of Schofield Drive and Lark Street. The culvert, which is buried approximately 2
feet below the surface, runs under the front of the properties situated at 9 and 7 Lark
Street and continue along the side of the property situated at 157 Schweitzer Street to
the corner. It is then diverted to the storm drain at the corner of Daniel and Schweitzer
Streets.
The current state of this stormwater culvert is not sufficient. It is prone to freezing due
to its shallow depth and does get blocked by snow in the winter.
Please see the photos below.
Page 84 of 167
Regional Municipality of Waterloo - Environmental Site
Screening Questionnaire
3. Was the subject property ever used for commercial purposes where there is potential for
site construction Answer: No
Neighbouring witnesses, who have lived here in excess of 40 years, report that
automotive repair was regularly conducted at 157 Schweitzer Street. Witnesses report
there is an automotive pit below the garage of the residence that was commonly used
for automotive repair work and oil changes.
6. Is there reason to believe that this property may be potentially contaminated based on
historical use of this or an abutting property? Answer: No
Page 85 of 167
Again, neighbours report that automotive work was done at this residence and there is
an automotive pit below the garage of the residence. If this pit was in fact used for oil
changes and other automotive work, there needs to be a proper inspection done by
the Region to ensure there is no contamination of the surrounding property.
10. Does the property use or has it ever used a septic system? Answer: No
It is stated with certainty that there was a septic system in use at this property prior to
it being connected to the city's sanitary sewage system. Most homes in the area have
septic tanks on the property despite now being connected to the city's sanitary
system.
Having regard to the above stated concerns regarding the Application for Zoning By-
law Amendment, as well as the somewhat uninformed Regional Environmental Site
Screening Questionnaire, there are sufficient concerns and issues with the
application that warrant further investigation prior to the Planning Committee meeting
so they may make an informed decision regarding this application.
In closing, we can confidently say this proposed application causes considerable concern.
Increased strain on infrastructure that has not been updated to meet current standards,
such as stormwater movement, water table and ground saturation and hydro power,
congestion on the bridge, as well as increased safety concerns over street lighting, lack of
sidewalks and more traffic on a narrow street.
The addition of three 30 foot lots with two storey houses onto a street that has
predominantly 60 to 70 foot lots with side splits and bungalows does change the character
of the immediate neighbourhood. The zoning changes will permit reduction in green space
requirements on each lot.
If the applicant reduced the proposal to only sever the lot once to allow one additional
home, it would allow for the lot size, yard setbacks and home style to more closely
resemble the character of the neighbourhood and current zoning. If this proposal is
allowed to proceed, it will change the character of the street and impact the existing
properties and residents in a number of ways, as outlined above. Additionally, we do worry
about what these changes will do to impact propertyvalues on our street and set
precedents for further intensification to the subject property and surrounding properties
once the lots are sold.
Thank you foryour consideration of our concerns and comments,
Julie Sudds and Rebecca Shay
Page 86 of 167
From:
Steve Gyorffy < >
Sent:
Monday, June 16, 2025 8:59 AM
To:
Andrew Pinnell
Cc:
Scott Davey
Subject:
157 Schweitzer St
Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important
Re: Planning Application - 157 Schweitzer St
My name is Steve Gyorffy and I have lived at for 57 years. I am also a
former City Engineer having worked for the City of Kitchener for 34 years. Therefore, I
am familiar with development applications in the past and how they were handled. I am
concerned about this current proposal which will have a substantial impact on our
established 60 year old neighborhood.
could understand the need for a zoom process during pandemic times. However, the
city now seems to have adopted this same process even though the pandemic is long
over. As a former city employee, I have attended many public meetings. On my
retirement, I have attended both public and zoom meetings. I have found that an in-
person open house is much more informative and productive. I am disappointed that
the city would not provide one at an excellent city resource like the Bridgeport
Community Centre. The Ward Councillor should also attend such a meeting. This is
important since there are a substantial number of retired seniors on our street who may
not be capable of or interested in participating electronically.
It almost seems that the city is trying to ram this project through by providing minimal
information to neighboring residents. This is borne out by the proposal for a zoom
meeting and the fact that I placed a call to the File Manager requesting further
information on receiving the mail -out and to date my call has not been returned.
acknowledge and recognize the city's initiatives to increase housing density, but any
such endeavours need to recognize site conditions and any associated constraints that
they impose.
There is a major change requested in zoning from R-3 to RES -4. That is a significant
change for our neighborhood by itself. However, it is also requested that we support
relief from requirements related to setbacks, driveway width, and building height. In
particular, the current proposal to move the building setbacks closer to the street by 1.6
Page 87 of 167
meters will stick out like a sore thumb on the entrance to the street. The other
proposals leave no backyard for the existing house and little greenspace on any of the
proposed lots. The major reduction in greenspace will exacerbate the chances for
flooding in this area and negate the city's efforts for more stormwater management.
Being in an area on the fringe of the city, access to public transit is not as readily
available as in core areas. As a result, area residents tend to have multiple cars
increasing the need for readily available parking. The proximity of the 3 lots will negate
the space for street parking in front of these lots. That will require visitors to park
elsewhere on the street. Many area residents have more than one car. On a walk
around the corner this morning, I noted a property with 5 cars in the driveway. These
were all accommodated on the property's driveway. There will certainly be a problem
accommodating anything more than a single car in this proposal. The Habitat homes
on neighboring Daniel Ave are a fine example of lower cost housing. With slightly wider
lots, they can accommodate ample parking at the side of each house.They were
constructed in 1993 with even President Jimmy Carter coming to help build them!
There are also some infrastructure considerations. This area has a high water table.
Special precautions were taken over 40 years ago during the installation of the sanitary
sewers to not lower the high groundwater table for fear of damage to existing
structures. Many homes have major problems with sump pumps running frequently in
the early spring. Despite the comments by the applicant's Engineer, there is not
adequate storm drainage on the street. A shallow culvert pipe was installed years ago
to conduct sump and ditch drainage from the corner of Schofield Drive to Schweitzer
Street. This pipe is shallow and prone to freezing thus blockage. It cannot be
considered a proper storm drain by engineering standards. It has previously collapsed
requiring repairs by the city. The closest proper drainage outlet which is below frost
depth is located one block away at the intersection of Schweitzer St and Daniel Ave.
Drainage problems will be exacerbated by the substantial reduction in green space
substituted by non porous surfaces on further development.
Although the proponent supplied an engineering report on the suitability of this project,
there is no information provided with respect to construction constraints and the
impacts of the water table in this area. The construction of a new foundation in close
proximity to the existing dwelling at #7 Lark St (Harbach) presents an unreasonable
impact to the existing house both from the standpoint of accommodation of her house
and the potential for structural impacts. The suitability of soil and groundwater
conditions for further development is not addressed in this proposal.
In addition to the concerns noted above, further development on this site is premature
until a proper storm drainage system is installed from the intersection of Lark St and
z
Page 88 of 167
Schofield Ave to the intersection of Schweitzer St and Daniel Ave to preclude the
aggravation of existing drainage issues.
In summary, this proposal is clearly overkill - like trying to put ten pounds of sugar in a
five pound bag. It doesn't fit!
Respectfully submitted
Steve Gyorffy
Page 89 of 167
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
You don't often get email from
Good day Andrew,
Zekiel Foncardas <
Thursday, June 19, 2025 9:11 PM
Andrew Pinnell
157 Schweitzer St. Neighbourhood Meeting
Learn why this is important
My name is Zekiel, and I am a UW planning student.
I'm just curious as to what Kitchener's open houses/public meetings look like. May I attend the
neighbourhood meeting for 157 Schweitzer (I see that it is online) to observe?
Thanks,
Zekiel
Page 90 of 167
From: Paul Kordish < >
Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2025 7:56 PM
To: Andrew Pinnell
Subject: Re: 157 Schweitzer St. Proposed Development Zoom Meeting
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important
Hi Andrew,
Sorry to bother you, but further to our recent discussion, my MIL requested that I bring something to your
attention.
At the virtual meeting, Julie spoke about the Septic Tank situation on the subject property.
Perhaps I misunderstood her, but I got the impression that she was not aware of a Septic system ever
existing and that City service was in place.
Although that is the case currently, when 157 Scweitzer was originally built in the 60's, it utilized a Septic
Tank.
Mrs. Boes is not sure if the tank was ever decommissioned, but she is certain that it was never removed
in the 50+ years that she has lived next door.
We thought that we should bring this matter to your attention, as it obviously has important implications
for your investigation and planning process in respect of the rezoning application.
Thank you and please don't hesitate to contact me if you require any further information.
Regards.
Paul
On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 10:28 AM Andrew Pinnell <Andrew.Pin nell@kitchener.ca> wrote:
Hi Paul,
Thank you for your comments.
am sorry that you had trouble with the audio at last night's Zoom meeting. Note that the recording of the Virtual
Neighbourhood Meeting that was held on June 26th and the presentation slides will be posted on following
website in the coming days: www.l<itchener.ca/planningaaalications
As I mentioned, the upcoming Planning Committee meeting will be a hybrid format (you may attend in-person or
virtually). I can confirm that I have added you to the notification list and you will receive further updates on this
application.
Page 91 of 167
There is no maximum timeframe for the owner to commence construction of the new houses. At this point, the
application is simply to see approval to change the zoning to allow the future severance and construction of the
houses.
Your comments will be considered and summarized in the following ways:
• During my Planning analysis; and
• Ina recommendation report to Council.
Here are the next steps:
Noitioceofd.enllo meini w Reil Ilh'bourhsood Stafnarns�afiidatltugallfe@dlbackinciderto Councildecmnron
sent andkeba� � info�rmnation 3)fnaliizear arnneWitio�ntobeconsidered � ��,coimmun�icatedbarcklo
Al req�atested Session by,Pla�animgCurnmfitteeamudlCityCouncil � � resid,eMswho partmciiipat
i n mn hormmatia rr sen,smorms
Learn more about the project, share your thoughts and understand your appeal rights, visit
www.kitchener.ca/planningaaalications.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinnell, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner I Development & Housing Approvals Division I City of Kitchener
519-783-8915 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 andrew.pinnellPkitchener.ca
From: Paul Kordish <
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2025 8:52 PM
To: Andrew Pinnell <Andrew.Pinnell@kitchener.ca>
Subject: 157 Schweitzer St. Proposed Development Zoom Meeting
You don't often get email from
Good Evening Andrew.
Learn why this is important
My name is Paul Kordish and I was the person who attended the Zoom meeting this evening and who
was unable to audio connect despite everything on my system apparently functioning correctly.
My mother-in-law, Edith Boes, is the owner and resides immediately next door to the subject property at
Given that she is in her 91 st year, she did request that I attend the virtual meeting in an effort to help her
better understand the scope of the proposed development.
I have 2 requests on behalf of Mrs. Boes.
Page 92 of 167
Firstly, would you kindly add me to your email list for further notifications and developments in respect
of this matter.
Secondly, is a question that I was unfortunately unable to submit earlier tonight due to audio technical
difficulties.
My question is, once any of the 3 properties are sold, what is the maximum time frame that the
purchaser must commence construction of the home on the lot?
Thank you foryour assistance in both of these requests.
Best regards.
Paul Kordish
Page 93 of 167
From: Mary Hoch < >
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2025 9:23 AM
To: Andrew Pinnell
Cc: Scott Davey
Subject: Re: planning application 157 Schweitzer St
Attachments: 2025-06-16 08-49.pdf
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is
important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderidentification ]
There is a proposal for a Zoom meeting regarding the planning application for 157 Schweitzer St. on June 26, 2025.
This neighbourhood has a large number of retired seniors, and others are not comfortable with the latest computer
technologies and would not be participating in a zoom meeting. We are there for submitting the attached petition
for a personal open house style meeting in a convenient nearby centre such as the Bridgeport community centre
instead of a zoom meeting to allow input from everyone concerned.
In the event time constraints do not allow for making this change. We have no objection to having this meeting
postponed to a later date to accommodate this request.
Your consideration of this request will be appreciated by all the residence listed on this attached petition.
Please confirm these arrangements can be made.
Kind regards
Mary Hoch
Page 94 of 167
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
You don't often get email from
Dear Andrew,
Mai Ahmed <
Thursday, June 26, 2025 8:54 PM
Andrew Pinnell
Walid Mohiyeldin
157 schweitzer st mailing list
Learn why this is important
This is Mai Ahmed & WaLid Ibrahim the owners of
Kindly include our emails in the mailing list for any updates and further meetings concerning 157
Schweitzer st. development.
Thanks in advance
Kali IKhalled Ahmed
Page 95 of 167
From:
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2025 12:57 PM
To: Andrew Pinnell
Cc: Ross Huehn;
Subject: Fw: Proposed Development of 157 Schweitzer St in Kitchener
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
Andrew Pinnell, Senior Planner
City of Kitchener, On
Re: Proposed Development of 157 Schweitzer St
Dear Sir,
I am not in agreement to the current proposed development in my neighbourhood.
1. The retained parcel currently has the front yard and driveway facing
Schweitzer St. The existing single detached dwelling is proposed to
be retained. The proposal highlights Lark St being the front yard which
does not meet the zoning restrictions for both front and rear yard
requirements of the retained parcel.
2. 1 have concerns with the (2) accessory buildings in the rear yard of 157
Schweitzer being demolished and excavations taking place without a
review of the environmental impact. It is my belief many old cars where
stored for many years in the larger building.
3. My house is located on the west side and is a single detached home as
per the homes on Lark St currently R-3 zoning. I want to maintain the
main character of my established neighbourhood . I am not in
agreements to amendments to the rezoning with the front yard
and rear yards especially. The proposed lots are not similar to the
surrounding area on the west side consisting of all of Lark St.
4. Lark St does not have Storms Drains plus we have high ground
water levels. The addition of 3 lots is a serious concern H
This has always been a very serious matter as any modification to our
ground water levels could lead to our foundations being impacted.
When both the sewers were installed and the proposed gravel pit
was under consideration city and township planners were well aware
of our concerns and planned appropriate actions. It is my understanding
that new house construction requires proper storm drains which may not
be possible on Lark St.
i
Page 96 of 167
These are my current concerns and I look forward to the zoom meeting and wil
advise any further concerns.
Best regards,
Karen Huehn
Owner
Kitchener
Page 97 of 167
Pla nnilng Apptlication - 157'Schweiltzer Str�eet
Petition to request in person meeting,
. ................
Name Address, Signature
(P�teasie print) (Pleasie print),
IIIIIII III viii
...... . . . ... . . . . ..............
LLyurj cHocv-6cwi
LLQ
'k
I 4acb-bcx-�'--�( I
Page 98 of 167
a
Planning Application - 157 Sch�weitzer Street
Petition to reiqu,est in pers,on meeting
Name Address Signature
lease pi ri n't) (Please pri�nt)------
owl
M
a
a
M
I
10go, 0 WIA
Page 99 of 167
fanning Application -157 Schweitzer, Street
Petition:, to request in person meeting
Name Adidress Signature
( Please pry nt) (Please print)
Page 100 of 167
&U 1,1111 TV 1 r V 2 1 W � 1, 11 Y d IP,1
From: Rebecca < >
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2025 11:24 PM
To: Andrew Pinnell
Subject: 157 Schweitzer new build
Attachments: Concerns & Comments from 7 Lark Street.pdf
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at
https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderidentification ]
Please read and take into consideration the attached letter from Pat, my elderly neighbour, residing at
and next to the proposed new build at 157 Schweitzer. She does not have access to electronic
communication.
Pat is one of the longest residing residents on Lark Street and is directly affected by the proposed new build. She is
one of many of the neighbourhood residents with valid concerns regarding the proposed construction.
Thankyou.
Page 101 of 167
C
a
Ml
Page 103 of 167
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
You don't often get email from
Tracey Taylor <
Thursday, June 26, 2025 8:42 PM
Andrew Pinnell
Proposed Lark Street development
Learn why this is important
Please include me in any communication regarding this proposed neighborhood development.
Regaird s,
I..racey TayU..:xr
Page 104 of 167
Storm Drainage
The applicant's Engineering Consultant indicates, in its report, that there is a storm sewer on
Lark St fronting the subject property. In my 35 years as a municipal engineer, I do not
consider the extension of driveway culverts to meet the definition of a proper storm sewer.
Drainage (since we moved into this area in 1968) is accomplished, as in rural settings, by
shallow ditches and culverts. Over the years, while being responsible for Public Works
Operations, I was involved in rectifying problems with respect to substandard drainage on
these streets.
There are an abundance of sump pumps that discharge as a result of the high water table in
the area. Water would often lay in the ditches and stagnate due to the fact that we are at the
top of the hill, and there is minimal grade to maintain a steady flow in the ditches. As a result,
sections of the open ditch were filled in over the years with culvert pipe to remove the
unsightly puddling in the ditch.
That is what happened in the case of the culvert pipe that was installed in front of the subject
properties abutting 157 Schweitzer Street. This pipe does NOT constitute a proper storm
drainage system. This pipe is very shallow and gets filled in by snow and freezes at the
Schofield Drive inlet during the winter months.
The loss of green space with this proposal; the additional hard surfaces; and the lack of
stormwater management facilities in this area will only aggravate future flooding problems on
the street. Not to mention the suggested connection of three new sump pumps to a
substandard pipe.
Misleading Photographs
To illustrate our neighbourhood, the Planning Consultant Included pictures of houses on
neighbouring streets, even a block away, and did NOT include any photos of the homes
adjacent to the subject property on Lark St. Therefore, this is not an accurate example of our
"neighbourhood" which we all consider to include the full length of Lark Street and its
attachment to Schofield Drive.
Official Plan Adherence
The current proposal does not recognize the conditions on our street as suggested in the
Official Plan below. The Planning Consultant tries to justify this by likening the proposal to
z
Page 105 of 167
other streets in the neighbourhood such as Daniel Ave and Schweitzer St. We have no
relationship with these streets. Nor did any of us purchase homes here so that we could
resemble Daniel Avenue. Again, we consider our homogeneous neighbourhood to be Lark
Street and Schofield Drive. Introduction of the proposed dwellings facing Lark Street will
therefore interfere with the homogenous nature of our enclave.
Section 4.C.1.8 a) of the City of Kitchener Official Plan states:
"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"
Furthermore:
Section 4.C.1.8 b) states:
"For new buildings in established s, the requested front yard setback should be similar to
adjacent properties and support and maintain the character of the existing streetscape and
the neighbourhood."
Furthermore:
Section 4.C.1.8 c) also states
"Scale, massing, design and character of adjacent properties in keeping with the character of
the streetscape"
Therefore, the proposal does NOT respect these suggestions.
Proposed Zoning Variances from New Bylaw
The MHBC report talks about variances for this project from the new RES -4 bylaw. However,
what the residents are concerned about are the major variances from our existing R-3 bylaw.
For example, the new bylaw would allow houses to be 1.6 meters closer to the road which is
contrary to the foregoing official plan policies.
As if the changes by imposition of the new bylaw on our street wasn't bad enough, variances
are requested from the proposed bylaw for this project. It is proposed that the minimum Rear
Yard Setback which is required at 7.5 m be reduced to 5.0 m for the retained lands and 5.4 m
for the proposed lots. For those of us enjoying ample yards on the street, it is difficult to
comprehend the major reduction of any usable yard space remaining, particularly for the
existing house.
Consents
Policy 17.E.20.5 requires that Applications for consent to create new lots will only be granted
where:
"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"
Page 106 of 167
The MHBC submission states: "The proposed lots are similar in size to many of the lots in the
surrounding area including lots along Schofield Drive, along Schweitzer Street to the west and
along Daniel Avenue to the south". It is interesting to note that the comparison of Lark Street
is omitted from this comparison. I surmise it is because there are no such similar lots on Lark
St. Yet the new dwellings will front on Lark Street. Perhaps that is why photographs of the
existing houses on Lark St were omitted from the consultant's presentation. The lots on Lark
Street are at least twice as wide as the ones in this proposal. Photographs of the Lark St
homes (a more accurate depiction of our neighbourhood) can be found in the recent
submission by Julie Sudds and Rebecca Shay of 9 Lark St. Once again, let me reiterate that
our neighbourhood comprises Lark St and Schofield Drive and our streetscape is radically
different from Schweitzer St or Daniel Ave.
Notifications
It is our understanding that the city requires a sign to be posted on a property advising of
pending zone changes. To the knowledge of myself and my neighbours, no such sign was
ever posted. I also heard that some residents did not receive the postcard notification that
was sent out by the city. Poorly communicated notice undermines respect for the long-time
residents of the area.
Regional Municipality of Waterloo - Environmental Site Servicing Questionnaire
Incorrect answers were given to this questionnaire. For example answering "no" instead of
"unknown" to the question of the presence of a septic tank on the property while the
neighbours know that the house was built years before the installation of sewers in the area.
There are also concerns about other environmental considerations due to the presence of a
vehicle servicing pit in the attached garage. It seems that the applicant was not exactly
conscientiously answering the Region's concerns.
Conclusions
There are numerous other concerns that my neighbours and I have. I have not enumerated
these to avoid duplication but I absolutely agree with their concerns with respect to parking,
snow removal etc.
The homes on Lark Street and Schofield Drive are owner occupied. It was discouraging to
learn during the zoom call that the applicant is not even from this community and proposes to
use the existing home as a rental property. The value of the existing home will be degraded
with this proposal and the substantial loss of green space surrounding it. We are concerned
that the three new properties could also be built as income properties, substantially degrading
the nature of our neighbourhood. It seems that the applicant is not interested in living in our
neighbourhood and maintaining it, but only in the opportunity to gain a profit by obtaining this
4
Page 107 of 167
zone change. Surely the voices of long-standing residents - some of whom have lived here for
over 50 years - should take precedence over those of the applicant.
It is a fact that our area has developed since incorporation into the City of Kitchener with such
amenities as the installation of sanitary sewers in the late 70's. However, we are still lacking
amenities such as storm sewers; curb and gutters; and sidewalks. As a result, I do not believe
intensification of the nature proposed in this application is as appropriate as it could be in
older and other fully serviced areas of Kitchener.
For the reasons noted above, as well as my previous comments, I cannot support this
proposal.
Respectfully submitted,
Steve Gyorffy
5
Page 108 of 167