HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSD-2025-375 - A 2025-089 - 239 Woodbine AvenueStaff Report
r
JR
Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca
REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment
DATE OF MEETING: September 16, 2025
SUBMITTED BY: Tina Malone -Wright, Manager, Development Approvals
519-783-8913
PREPARED BY: Evan Wittmann, Senior Planner, 519-783-8523
WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 5
DATE OF REPORT: September 3, 2025
REPORT NO.: DSD -2025-377
SUBJECT: Minor Variance Application A2025-089 — 239 Woodbine Ave.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Minor Variance Application A2025-089 for 239 Woodbine Avenue requesting
relief from the following sections of Zoning By-law 2019-051:
i) Section 4.12.2.e) to permit an unobstructed walkway to have a width of 1 metre
at a pinch point where there are hydro meters instead of minimum required 1.1
metres;
ii) Section 4.12.3.g) to permit a lot width of 9 metres instead of minimum required
10.5 metres;
iii) Section 5.3 a), Table 5-5-1, to permit a parking requirement of 2 parking spaces
(one in the garage and one in the driveway) instead of the minimum required 3
parking spaces; and
iv) Section 7.3, Table 7-2 (4), to permit an Additional Dwelling Unit (ADU)(Detached)
to have a coverage of 20% instead of maximum permitted 15%;
to facilitate the development of two Additional Dwelling Units (ADUs) (both in a
Detached Building), generally in accordance with drawings prepared by BOBICON,
dated August 5, 2025, BE APPROVED.
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS:
• The purpose of this report is to review and make recommendations with respect to the
Minor Variance Application received for 239 Woodbine Avenue.
• The key finding of this report is that the requested variances meet the four tests of the
Planning Act and approval is recommended.
• There are no financial implications.
• Community engagement included a notice sign being placed on the property advising
that a Committee of Adjustment application has been received, notice of the
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
Page 38 of 274
application was mailed to all property owners within 30 metres of the subject property
and this report was posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the
Committee of Adjustment meeting.
This report supports the delivery of core services.
BACKGROUND:
The subject property is located on the western side of Woodbine Avenue, north of the
intersection with Parkvale Drive. The subject property is in the "Huron South"
neighbourhood, in the southwestern area of the City. This area is generally characterized
by new low rise subdivision development. The subject property features a single detached
dwelling and is a slight pie -shape, meaning the rear lot width is wider than the front.
Figure 1: View Of Subject Property From Woodbine Avenue
The subject property is identified as `Community Areas' on Map 2 — Urban Structure and is
designated `Low Rise Residential' on Map 3 — Land Use in the City's 2014 Official Plan.
Page 39 of 274
Figure 2: Land Use Designation (Subject Property Is Red Dot)
The property is zoned `Low Rise Residential Zone Four (RES -4)' in Zoning By-law 2019-
051.
Page 40 of 274
Figure 3: Zoning By -Law 2019-051 (Subject Property Outlined In Red)
The purpose of the application is to vary the required lot coverage for a detached
Additional Dwelling Unit, the minimum lot width for a property with a detached ADU, to
permit two parking spaces rather than three, and to permit a pinch point on the access
walkway to the ADUs. The variances are required to facilitate the construction of two
detached ADU's, within one building in the backyard of 239 Woodbine Avenue. The
applicant has submitted for their Zoning Compliance Review, which confirmed the four
requested variances.
REPORT:
Planning Comments:
In considering the four tests for the minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the
Planning Act, R.S.O, 1990 Chap. P 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the following
comments:
Page 41 of 274
General Intent of the Official Plan
The subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the City of Kitchener Official
Plan. Section 15.D.3 of the Official Plan provides policy direction to lands under this
designation.
Policy 15.D.3.3 provides urban design principles regarding the integration of new
development in low rise residential areas:
a) compatibility of building form with respect to massing, scale, design,-
b)
esign,b) the relationship of housing to adjacent buildings, streets and exterior areas,
c) adequate and appropriate parking areas are provided on site, and,
d) adequate and appropriate amenity areas and landscaped areas are provided
on site.
Policy 15.D.3.4 provides additional direction for new residential buildings in predominately
low density neighbourhoods, such as the one surrounding the subject property.
All new residential buildings, additions and/or modifications to existing residential
buildings and conversions in predominantly low density neighbourhoods should be
compatible with and respect the massing, scale, design and physical character of
the established neighbourhood and have both appropriate landscaped areas and
parking areas provided on site.
Regarding the compatibility of built form, the proposed detached ADU occupies 20% of the
lot, where 15% is the maximum. Applying the 15% lot coverage maximum to the subject
property results in a maximum detached ADU size of roughly 60 square metres. In
addition to lot coverage, ADU size is also controlled by building floor area; 80 square
metres is the maximum detached ADU size. The two regulations co -exist to ensure that
detached ADU buildings are compatible with both the primary building on the lot as well as
the adjacent lots. Further, no setback variances for the ADU are required, nor any
variances to the landscaped area. The intent to keep building forms compatible with their
surroundings is maintained by permitting the detached ADU to be 20 square metres larger
than otherwise permitted.
As no variances to setbacks or landscaped areas, the regulations that control amenity
area, are requested, it can reasonably be concluded that the proposal meets the intent of
the Official Plan in providing sufficient landscaped and amenity areas. A parking variance
is requested, with the two required spaces being provided in a tandem arrangement. While
not the most efficient parking scheme, it is an as -of -right permission. A bus route services
the subdivision, and active transportation facilities are in close proximity to the subject
property. Transportation staff also generally do not have concerns with the one space
reduction.
Further policy direction is provided in Section 4 of the Official Plan, Housing. Minor
variance applications are given specific direction through 4.C.1.8, the sections of which
with relevance to the application state (with staff commentary interspersed):
Where a special zoning regulation(s) or minor variance(s) is/are requested, proposed
or required to facilitate residential intensification or a redevelopment of lands, the
Page 42 of 274
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)
hat:
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.
Of the requested variances, the variance to lot coverage for a detached ADU impacts the
massing compatibility with the surrounding area. As indicated above, the maximum
detached ADU size of 80 square metres is maintained, as are all required setbacks.
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.
The proposed detached ADU features a main level unit and lower level unit. The main
floor unit does not have windows on the northern or southern walls, which are the walls
that face the abutting lots. By not having windows on these walls, there is no overlook
concerns on neighbouring properties. Additionally, the proposed detached ADU meets the
required setbacks.
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.
As indicated above, the proposal meets the setback and landscaped area requirements,
which are used to ensure that sufficient amenity and landscaped areas are provided. A
parking reduction of one space is proposed, which Transportation staff are amenable to.
f) The impact of each special zoning regulation or variance will be reviewed prior to
formulating a recommendation to ensure that a deficiency in the one zoning
requirement does not compromise the site in achieving objectives of compatible
and appropriate site and neighbourhood design and does not create further zoning
deficiencies.
Policy 4.C.1.8.f) directs that one variance should not cause another. The variance that
requires assessment for meeting the intent of this policy is the reduction to lot width, to
understand if it is causing the need for both the pinch point and parking space reduction.
In meeting the intent of the policy, staff note that the current lot width is an existing
condition. The variance requested to lot width is to legalize that existing condition, which in
itself does not result in the other two variances. The lot is built at a size that does not
accommodate side-by-side parking, meaning that lot width variance or not, three parking
spaces could not be accommodated on the subject property. The reduction of one parking
space will be assessed on its own merit, not due to lot not being able to accommodate the
third spot. The pinch point is due to the location of the hydro metre, which is generally
considered technical in nature rather than an undue effect of another variance.
Page 43 of 274
It is staff's opinion that the requested variances meet the general intent of the Official Plan.
General Intent of the Zoning By-law
The City has previously taken the stance that the intent of the 10.5 metre lot width is to
ensure that side-by-side parking can be accommodated. Where this application differs
from previous application, is that the requested variance to 9 metres is an existing lot
condition. The intent of the zoning regulation may be to provide side-by-side parking, but
conversely the intent is not to prohibit additional dwelling units on existing lots where they
can reasonably be accommodated. By reducing the lot width, the minimum side yard
setbacks and landscaped areas of the Zoning By-law remain complied with. The resulting
parking arrangement is forced into a tandem arrangement, which is permitted by both the
Planning Act and Zoning By-law.
The zone provision for lot coverage for detached Additional Dwelling Units is to ensure a
complimentary built form relationship with the primary dwelling on the site, as well as
adjacent properties, while maintaining sufficient setbacks and landscaped areas. The
proposal continues to meet all setback and height requirements for detached Additional
Dwelling Units, and minimum landscaped areas are maintained. Additionally, the Zoning
By-law prescribes a maximum floor area for detached Additional Dwelling Units, which is
maintained by the proposal.
The intent of the 1.1 metre unobstructed walkway is to ensure accessibility to the dwelling
units. Pinch points of 1 metre width are supported by the City and are considered a
technical variance.
Minimum parking provisions are provided to ensure that sufficient parking spaces are
provided on a property. The City is typically supportive of reductions to parking standards
as a means to encourage a shift away from car dependency. One Grand River Transit bus
has a route through the subdivision, including a stop a short distance south of the subject
property on Woodbine Avenue. Active transportation routes are available along the hydro
corridor a short distance north of the subject property, with the Huron Natural Area also
being connected to the subdivision. Due to the parking reduction, it is expected that
advertisements and lease agreements for the ADU(s) clearly indicate that the unit(s) do
not have a parking space and parking on the street in not an acceptable alternative, nor is
parking on the property in non -parking area (i.e. straddling the access walkways).
It is staff's opinion that the requested variances meet the general intent of the Zoning By-
law.
Is/Are the Effects of the Variance(s) Minor?
To assess if the effects of a variance a minor, a common approach is to consider the
impacts on the surrounding area. By increasing the lot coverage maximum to 20% from
15%, the detached ADU may be 80 square metres in size (meeting the maximum size of a
detached ADU by floor area), rather than 60 square metres. The increase of detached
ADU size from 60 square metres to 80 is not anticipated to have adverse impacts.
As indicated in the comments from Transportation staff, the proposed parking
arrangement is required to be clearly communicated to future tenants. So long as the
requirements are adhered to, undue impacts are not anticipated by the parking space
Page 44 of 274
reduction. Tangentially, the reduction to the minimum lot width is not anticipated to
produce a negative impact, as the parking space reduction mitigates the impacts of
tandem parking.
The variance to permit the 1 metre pinch point along the unobstructed walkway is
generally technical in nature and no adverse impacts are anticipated.
It is staff's opinion that the effects of the requested variances are minor.
Is/Are the Variance(s) Desirable For The Appropriate Development or Use of the Land,
Building and/or Structure?
The subject property is located within a recently developed subdivision, which generally
consists of smaller backyards than the more central neighbourhoods of the City. This
development approach is generally incompatible with a detached ADU, limiting the
potential to introduce rental infill to these areas. The subject property has the depth and
width, partly due to the pie -shaped lot, to accommodate the ADU's where most other
properties in the area cannot. The variances facilitate the creation of two detached ADU's
and therefore the ownership mix and housing options available in the neighbourhood,
which is a desirable outcome. The lot coverage increase enables the detached units to be
larger, and more livable, than a typical detached dwelling unit.
The existing lot requires tandem parking, which will require vehicles to be "juggled" (i.e.
temporarily move the vehicle on the driveway to allow the car in the garage to exit). As the
Official Plan notes that this section of Woodbine Avenue is a "Local Street", it is intended
to provide access to abutting properties and not intended to carry high volumes of through
traffic. While juggling cars is not ideal, juggling is only required between two cars and is on
a street with low traffic volumes.
It is staff's opinion that the requested variances are desirable for the appropriate
development of the site.
Environmental Planning Comments:
No concerns.
Heritage Planning Comments:
No concerns.
Building Division Comments:
The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance provided a building permit
for the detached ADU is obtained prior to construction. Please contact the Building Division at
building(a)kitchener.ca with any questions.
Engineering Division Comments:
The side yard currently accommodates overland stormwater flows from the rear yard. A
sidewalk is required to the rear yard in accordance with the Zoning By-law. The final
grading of this property shall not adversely affect the drainage of adjacent properties or the
overall grading control plan. The Owner is responsible to address storm water drainage at
the Building Permit stage. Attachment "A2025-089 - 239 Woodbine Ave — GRADING.png"
included for owner/builder reference.
Page 45 of 274
Parks and Cemeteries/Forestry Division Comments:
There is an existing City -owned street tree within the right-of-way on Woodbine Avenue. It
is expected that all City owned tree assets will be fully protected to City standards
throughout demolition and construction as per Chapter 690 of the current Property
Maintenance By-law. No revisions to the existing driveway or boulevard apron will be
permitted without Forestry approval. Tree Protection and Enhancement Plans to Forestry's
satisfaction will be required outlining complete protection of City assets prior to any
demolition or building permits being issued.
Transportation Planning Comments:
Transportation Services defer to Committee members regarding the request to provide 2
parking spaces instead of the required 3 parking spaces.
Transportation Staff support the parking reduction if the cost of parking is unbundled from
the cost of the unit, and residents/tenants are aware of whether an exclusive parking
space is available for their use before moving in.
Transportation Staff recognize that not all tenants will own a vehicle and are generally
supportive of parking reductions for residential units. However, Staff also are aware of the
limited amenities and transit services at this time near the site.
Page 46 of 274
The Applicant should be aware that the City does not permit on -street parking for more
than 3 consecutive hours on any street from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. unless signs are posted
otherwise.
Six Nations of the Grand River — Environmental Comments:
Advisory Comments.-
Six
omments:Six Nations of the Grand River (SNGR) Territory is within the most highly urbanized land in
Canada. Development has occurred on Six Nations' traditional territory without
consultation or consent of SNGR. The cumulative effects of this intense development has
contributed to significant environmental degradation, and as a result, Six Nations has
experienced severe impacts on its ability to exercise Aboriginal and Treaty Rights that are
not only set out in the treaties themselves but are also recognized and affirmed in Section
35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. These treaty lands are subject to unresolved litigation and
any infringement upon our treaty rights must be fully mitigated by the proponent. The 1701
Nanfan Treaty guarantees SNGR's right to harvest and hunt on this property for
perpetuity, but this proposal undermines those rights. SNGR must be accommodated to
mitigate any harm to its treaty rights caused by the proponent.
Six Nations of the Grand River:
Could you please confirm whether an archaeological assessment has been completed for
the site located at 239 Woodbine Ave? If available, we would appreciate receiving any
related documentation or reports.
Planning Staff Response.-
These
esponse:These lands are part of a subdivision from 2001, and the area has been area graded and the
lot has been developed with a detached dwelling. As review and approval of Archaeological
Assessments was a Regional responsibility, staff were not able to access any approved
Archaeological Assessment for the subdivision in advance of preparing this report. The
Owner is advised that if during construction, archaeological discoveries are found,
construction must be stopped and appropriate SNGR and Ministry Staff must be contacted.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
This report supports the delivery of core services.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget.
Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance
of the Committee of Adjustment meeting. A notice sign was placed on the property
advising that a Committee of Adjustment application has been received. The sign advises
interested parties to find additional information on the City's website or by emailing the
Page 47 of 274
Planning Division. A notice of the application was mailed to all property owners within 30
metres of the subject property.
PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES:
• Planning Act
• Provincial Planning Statement (PPS 2024)
• Regional Official Plan
• Official Plan (2014)
• Zoning By-law 2019-051
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A — Site Plan
Page 48 of 274
Attachment A — Site Plan
Page 49 of 274
Region of Waterloo
September 3, 2025
Connie Owen
City of Kitchener
200 King Street West
P.O. Box 1118
Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7
File No.: D20-20/
VAR KIT GEN
PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT
AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES
150 Frederick Street, 8th Floor
Kitchener ON N2G 4A Canada
Telephone: 519-575-4400
TTY: 519-575-4608
Fax: 519-575-4449
www. reg i o n ofwate r l o o. ca
Subject: Committee of Adjustment Meeting September 16, City of Kitchener
Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and
have the following comments:
1) A 2025 —
089 —
239 Woodbine Ave — No Concerns
2) A 2025 —
090 —
10 Abram Clemens St — No Concerns
3) A 2025 —
091 —
234-240 Frederick St — No Concerns
4) A 2025 —
092 —
184 Woolwich St — No Concerns
5) A 2025 —
093 —
535 Stirling Ave — No Concerns
6) A 2025 —
094 —
160 Samuel St — No Concerns
7) A 2025 —
095 —
66 Geogina St — No Concerns
8) A 2025 —
096 —
457 Maple Ave — No Concerns
9) A 2025 —
097 —
4438 King St E & 65 Gateway Park Dr — No Concerns
10) A 2025
— 098
— 180 Ahrens St W (Dwelling 1) — No Concerns
11) A 2025
— 099
— 180 Ahrens St W (Dwelling 2) — No Concerns
12) A 2025
— 100
—180 Ahrens St W (Dwelling 3) — No Concerns
Please be advised that any development on the subject lands is subject to the
provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 19-037 or any successor
thereof and may require payment of Regional Development Charges for these
developments prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The comments contained in this letter pertain to the Application numbers listed. If a site
is subject to more than one application, additional comments may apply.
Document Number: 5062644 Version: 1
Page 50 of 274
Please forward any decisions on the above-mentioned Application numbers to the
undersigned.
Yours Truly,
Tanikia Kinear, C.E.T.
Senior Transportation Planner
(519) 897-5691
Document Number: 5062644 Version: 1
Page 51 of 274
August 28, 2025
Administration Centre: 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Cambridge, ON N1 R 5W6
Phone: 519-621-2761 Toll free: 1-866-900-4722 Fax: 519-621-4844 www.grandriver.ca
Marilyn Mills
Secretary -Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment
City of Kitchener
200 King Street West
Kitchener, ON, N2G 4G7
Dear Marilyn Mills,
Re: Committee of Adjustment Meeting — September 16, 2025
Applications for Minor Variance
A 2025-089 239 Woodbine Avenue
A 2025-090 10 Abram Clemens Street
A 2025-091 234-240 Frederick Street
A 2025-093
535 Stirling Avenue South
A 2025-094
160 Samuel Street
A 2025-095
66 Georgina Street
A 2025-096
457 Maple Avenue
A 2025-097
4438 King Street East & 65 Gateway Park Drive
A 2025-098 to A 2025-100 180 Ahrens Street West
via email
Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) staff have reviewed the above -noted
applications.
GRCA has no objection to the approval of the above applications. The subject
properties do not contain any natural hazards such as watercourses, floodplains,
shorelines, wetlands, or valley slopes. The properties are not subject to Ontario
Regulation 41/24 and, therefore, a permission from GRCA is not required.
Should you have any questions, please contact me at aherreman(a)_grand river. ca or
519-621-2763 ext. 2228.
Sincerely,
Andrew Herreman, CPT
Resource Planning Technician
Grand River Conservation Authority
Member of Conservation Ontario, representing Ontario's 36 Conservation Authorities I The Grand — A Canadian Heritage River
Page 52 of 274
From: Jenna Auger
To: Committee of Adiustment (SM)
Subject: RE: ACTION REQUIRED - Committee of Adjustment Application Review — September 16, 2025 Meeting
Date: Monday, August 25, 2025 2:42:24 PM
Attachments: image001.ong
Good afternoon,
Thank you for circulating the September 16th, 2025, Committee of Adjustments agenda for
Kitchener.
Upon review, we note there are no applications that are subject to the Metrolinx review zone.
As such, Metrolinx issues no comments or concerns on this agenda.
Best Regards,
Jenna Auger (She/Her)
Project Analyst, Adjacent Construction Review (ACR)
Development & Real Estate Management
T: (416)-881-0579
20 Bay Street I Toronto I Ontario I M5J 2W3
=0(�= METROLINX
**Adjacent Construction Review (ACR) was formerly Third -Party Projects Review (TPPR)**
From: Committee of Adjustment (SM) <CommitteeofAdjustment@kitchen er.ca>
Sent: August 22, 2025 3:54 PM
To: Committee of Adjustment (SM) <CommitteeofAdjustment@kitchener.ca>
Subject: ACTION REQUIRED - Committee of Adjustment Application Review — September 16, 2025
Meeting
EXTERNAL SENDER: Do not click any links or open any attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.
EXPEDITEUR EXTERNE: Ne cliquez sur aucun lien et n'ouvrez aucune piece jointe a moins qu'ils ne proviennent d'un expediteur
fiable, ou que vous ayez I'assurance que Ie contenu provient d'une source sure.
Hello,
Please be advised the applications for the City of Kitchener Committee of Adjustment
meeting scheduled for Tuesday, September 16, 2025, have been loaded and circulated
through ShareFile. You should have already received the necessary link.
If you wish to make comments, provide advice, or request the imposition of any conditions
on any of these applications, please provide the Committee with a written report.
Page 53 of 274
Please note: If you have comments, your written report must be sent to
CofA&kitchener.ca no later than 12 noon on Friday, August 29, 2025.
If you have no comments for the Committee's consideration, you do not need to respond.
Connie Owen.
Administrative Clerk I Legislated Services I City of Kitchener
519-741-2203 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 cofaPkitchener.ca
This e-mail is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed. If you received
this in error, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the e-mail together with any
attachments.
Page 54 of 274
From:
Tierra Henhawk
To:
Committee of Adiustment (SM)
Cc:
Tanya Hill -Montour
Subject:
RE: ACTION REQUIRED - Committee of Adjustment Application Review — September 16, 2025 Meeting
Date:
Monday, August 25, 2025 10:39:19 AM
Good morning,
Please find SNGR comments via email
Would the City of Kitchener have any GIS data or archaeological potential mapping that
could be shared in support of development application reviews?
A2025-089 - 239 Woodbine Ave
Could you please confirm whether an archaeological assessment has been completed for the
site located at 239 Woodbine Ave? If available, we would appreciate receiving any related
documentation or reports.
A2025-090 - 10 Abram Clemens St
If an archaeological assessment has not been completed, SNGR requests that a minimum
Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment be conducted. SNGR Archaeological Supervisor, Tanya
Hill -Montour, (tanyahill-montour@sixnations.ca) will require copies of all Archaeological
Assessment Reports related to the project for her review and comments. Should further
archaeological work be required following the Stage 1 assessment, SNGR requests the
participation of a Six Nations archaeological monitor in subsequent stages.
A2025-091 - 234-240 Frederick St
Could you please confirm whether an archaeological assessment has been completed for the
site located at 239 Woodbine Ave? If available, we would appreciate receiving any related
documentation or reports. If no archaeological assessment has been completed, SNGR would
like a standard archaeological warning clause applied to the file.
A2025-092 - 184 Woolwich St.
Could you please confirm whether an archaeological assessment has been completed for the
site located at 239 Woodbine Ave? If available, we would appreciate receiving any related
documentation or reports. If no archaeological assessment has been completed, SNGR would
like a standard archaeological warning clause applied to the file.
A2025-093 - 535 Stirlimi Ave. S
Given the significant prior disturbance to the area, an archaeological assessment is not
deemed necessary for this site.
A2025-094 - 160 Samuel St.
Given the significant prior disturbance to the area, an archaeological assessment is not
deemed necessary for this site.
Page 55 of 274
A2025-095 - 66 Georgina St.
Given the nature of the proposal, we have no objections or concerns at this time.
A2025-096 - 457 Maple Ave.
Given the significant prior disturbance to the area, an archaeological assessment is not
deemed necessary for this site.
A2025-097 - 4438 King St. E. & 65 Gateway Park Dr.
Given the nature of the proposal, we have no objections or concerns at this time.
A2025-098 - 180 Ahrens Street West Dwellings 1-3
Could you please confirm whether an archaeological assessment has been completed for the
site located at 180 Ahrens Street West? If available, we would appreciate receiving any related
documentation or reports.
Nya:weh! /Thank You!
Sincerely,
Tierra Henhawk
Archaeology Community Monitor Administrative Assistant
Six Nations of the Grand River (SNGR)
Lands and Resources Department
2498 Chiefswood Road, Ohsweken ON
(T) 519-445-2205 ext: 5465
Lands & Resources Department (T) 519-753-0665
acmaa(&sixnations.ca
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipients and may
contain private and confidential information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If
you are not the intended recipient or this information has been inappropriately forwarded to you, please contact the
sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original.
From: Committee of Adjustment (SM) <CommitteeofAdjustment@kitchener.ca>
Sent: August 22, 2025 3:54 PM
To: Committee of Adjustment (SM) <CommitteeofAdjustment@kitchener.ca>
Subject: [External] ACTION REQUIRED - Committee of Adjustment Application Review — September
16, 2025 Meeting
Hello,
Page 56 of 274
Please be advised the applications for the City of Kitchener Committee of Adjustment
meeting scheduled for Tuesday, September 16, 2025, have been loaded and circulated
through ShareFile. You should have already received the necessary link.
If you wish to make comments, provide advice, or request the imposition of any conditions
on any of these applications, please provide the Committee with a written report.
Please note: If you have comments, your written report must be sent to
CofA&kitchener.ca no later than 12 noon on Friday, August 29, 2025.
If you have no comments for the Committee's consideration, you do not need to respond.
Connie Owen
Administrative Clerl< I Legislated Services I City of Kitchener
519-741-2203 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 cofa(@kitchener.ca
Page 57 of 274
From:
Emmett Vanson
To:
Committee of Adiustment (SM)
Subject:
SNGREC Environmental Comments for Sept 16 Committee of Adjustments
Date:
Monday, August 25, 2025 11:58:56 AM
Attachments:
imaoe.pno
Sekon (Hello),
Included are my environmental comments on behalf of Six Nations of the Grand River Elected
Council (SNGREC) regarding all applications included for the Sept 16 Kitchener Committee of
Adjustments.
The following Preamble applies to all applications:
Haldimand Tract and 1701 Nanfan Treaty Preamble
Six Nations of the Grand River (SNGR) Territory is within the most highly urbanized land in
Canada. Development has occurred on Six Nations' traditional territory without consultation or
consent of SNGR. The cumulative effects of this intense development has contributed to
significant environmental degradation and, as a result, Six Nations has experienced severe
impacts on its ability to exercise Aboriginal and Treaty Rights that are not only set out in the
treaties themselves but are also recognized and affirmed in Section 35 of the Constitution Act,
1982. These treaty lands are subject to unresolved litigation and any infringement upon our
treaty rights must be fully mitigated by the proponent. The 1701 Nanfan Treaty guarantees
SNGR's right to harvest and hunt on this property for perpetuity, but this proposal undermines
those rights. SNGR must be accommodated to mitigate any harm to its treaty rights caused by
the proponent.
160 Samuel St.
No Comment
239 Woodbine Ave.
No Comment
10 Abram Clemens St.
Treaty Rights Compensation
As this development will essentially ensure that this land will never be returned to a
natural state, SNGREC requests that this development be paired with compensation for impacts
to Six Nations Aboriginal and Treaty Rights and to the environment. SNGREC requests that these
Page 58 of 274
compensations come in the forms of affordable units, dedicated units for First Nations people,
and environmental enhancements. Please reach to plan a meeting to collaborate on determining
compensation.
Landscaping
SNGREC requests that only native plant species are used in landscaping efforts. Please
provide SNGREC with a landscape plant list before procurement begins. SNGREC requests that
the proponent uses Kayanase Plant Nursery for procurement of plants if Kayanase's capacity
allows.
4438 King Street East & 65 Gateway Park Drive.
Treaty Rights Compensation
As this development will result in a large amount of emissions and waste through
demolition and paving, SNGREC requests that this development be paired with compensation
for impacts to Six Nations Aboriginal and Treaty Rights and to the environment. SNGREC
requests compensation in the form of offsite environmental enhancements. Please reach out to
lrlust(-Osixnations.c; to collaborate on determining compensation.
535 Stirling Ave. S.
Bird and Light Friendly Design
SNGREC requests that the building is designed using bird and light friendly practices. This
includes minimizing reflective surfaces, creating visual markers on windows, and directing light
downwards. Large windows are shown on the sunroom in Figures 2 and 3. Please treat these
windows to minimize bird kills.
Please see the City of Toronto's bird friendly practices for glass and for lighting as
guidelines and implement them thoroughly across the entire design:
https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/8dl c- Bird -Friend ly- Best- Practices-
Glass.pdf
184 Woolwich St.
Environmental Impact Study (EIS)
SNGREC requests an EIS for this property to evaluate downslope impacts and impacts to
the wetland on the property (as identified via GRCA mapping). SNGREC believes that this should
have been required before tree clearing on the property, and thus requests enhanced
environmental compensation from the proponent for this development. This requirement could
be solved by sufficient environmental compensation such as habitat creation and construction
of artificial habitat structures (i.e. bat boxes).
Page 59 of 274
Tree Replacement
SNGREC requests a 10:1 tree replacement ratio for all trees removed regardless of DBH
and 1:1 for any dead trees/snags removed as these are an important habitat feature. A high tree
replacement ratio helps to restore lost ecological function and considers time for regrowth and
reduced survivability due to deer browsing and tree die -off. The goal of an increased tree
replacement ratio is also to create habitat and strengthen ecological resilience. On this site, this
would include trees removed before approval of this application. If accurate tree counts are not
already recorded, SNGREC will accept a liberal estimate (higher count). SNGREC acknowledges
that this site would not fit this level of tree replacement and thus requests offsite tree planting.
Further, the higher tree replacement ratio better compensates for the long lasting,
permanent impact of the development that will no longer be able to be used by Indigenous
people. The removal of or damage to the natural environment has an immense negative impact
to Six Nations of the Grand River Aboriginal and Treaty Rights in this area. Planting additional
trees and improving the environment helps make up for the negative impacts from development
on these rights.
Planted trees must be site-specific native species and should be planted as close to the
site as possible without impacting existing features and ecosystems, as should any future
landscaping species be native species.
Please consider planting plugs or other earlier -growth trees to help increase the feasibility
of planting additional trees. SNGREC requires planting best practices are used and suggests
collaboration with Kayanase Plant Nursery for recommendations and guidance.
Please be advised, if tree offset is not feasible onsite, SNGREC expects offset plantings to
take place as close as reasonably possible to the impacted site. SNGREC encourages
collaboration with the Grand River Conservation Authority, City of Kitchener, Region of Waterloo,
or RARE to achieve these offset plantings. Lastly, the Six Nations of the Grand River
Environmental Levy may be considered should closer sites be unavailable. SNGREC expects that
the tree replacement is paired with a robust and complete monitoring and maintenance plan
complete with contingency actions to ensure successful establishment of the trees for long term
success.
Wetland Buffer Encroachment
SNGREC requests that any encroachment into the wetland buffer (as shown for the
proposed driveway) is compensation for with enhancement or creation of wetlands.
To minimize the required compensation, SNGREC suggests changing the driveway
location to fit closer to the north edge of the lot and to have the garage and parking on the north
side of the property.
Landscaping
Page 60 of 274
SNGREC requests that only native plant species are used in landscaping efforts. Please
provide SNGREC with a landscape plant list before procurement begins. SNGREC requests that
the proponent uses Kayanase Plant Nursery for procurement of plants if Kayanase's capacity
allows.
Bird and Light Friendly Design
SNGREC requests that the building is designed using bird and light friendly practices. This
includes minimizing reflective surfaces, creating visual markers on windows, and directing light
downwards.
Please see the City of Toronto's bird friendly practices for glass and for lighting as
guidelines and implement them thoroughly across the entire design:
https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/8dl c-Bird-Friendly-Best-Practices-
Glass.pdf
https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/8ff6-city-plannin-bird-effective-
lighting.pdf
180 Ahrens St.
No Comment
457 Maple Ave.
No Comment
Thank you for taking my comments. I look forward to hearing and collaborating more on these
applications. Please do not hesitate to reach out if you have any questions or concerns.
Nia:wen (thank you),
Emmett Vanson, BSc. (he/him)
Land Use and Stewardship Technician
Six Nations of the Grand River Elected Council Lands and Resources Department
lrlustPsixnations.ca
Page 61 of 274
Confidentiality Notice: This email, including any attachments, is for the sole purpose ofthe intended recipients and may contain private, confidential, and privileged information. Any
unauthorized review; use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient or this information has been inappropriately forwarded to you, please contact the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original.
Page 62 of 274
Ana Carolina Cronemberger C Mendonca
Breno Ferraira de Mendonca
September 08, 2025
To:
Committee of Adjustment
Legislated Services
Kitchener
Re: Opposition to Application A 2025-089 - 239 Woodbine Avenue
Committee of Adjustment Meeting - Tuesday, September 16, 2025
Dear Members of the Committee,
As residents and homeowners of we are writing to formally
oppose the application for A 2025-089 - 239 Woodbine Avenue to add two additional dwelling
units to the existing house.
My opposition is based on the following concerns:
1. Overdevelopment and Density
Adding two more units to this property would significantly increase density on a lot that
was not designed for such use. Our street already suffers from increased density, as
several houses have converted their basements into secondary dwelling units. This has
already introduced challenges related to parking congestion, garbage management, and
general strain on shared community resources. Allowing further intensification on top of
this situation would worsen these problems and set a harmful precedent for unchecked
overdevelopment in the neighbourhood.
2. Parking and Traffic Impact
Our street already experiences parking, particularly during evenings and weekends.
Additional dwelling units would exacerbate this issue, leading to unsafe conditions,
especially for children and pedestrians. As illustrated in the attached photos (Appendix),
existing basement units on our street already contribute to parking pressure and density
concerns. This demonstrates that the neighbourhood already carries more than its fair
share of intensified housing, and further additions would push it beyond a reasonable
limit.
3. Impact on Municipal Services and Winter Road Maintenance
Parking overflow from additional units would further obstruct snowplowing and road
clearing in the winter. Vehicles parked on the street already reduce the efficiency of city
services, and more units would worsen this situation, leaving roads narrower, icier, and
less safe for both drivers and pedestrians.
4. Impact on Privacy and Light
Extending the house may reduce natural light for adjacent homes and negatively impact
1/3
Page 63 of 274
neighbours' (privacy and enjoyment of their property.
5. Infrastructure Capacity
Increased occupancy places an additional burden on local infrastructure, including water,
sewage, and waste collection. These systems were not intended to support multi -unit
developments on single-family lots.
6. Zoning Intent and Precedent
The zoning by-laws for this area were established to preserve low-density residential
use. Approving this application could set an unfavourable precedent for similar
developments, leading to cumulative over -intensification of the neighbourhood.
For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Committee to deny this application and uphold the
intent of the zoning by-laws, ensuring that development remains compatible with the existing
neighbourhood.
Thank you for considering my submission.
Sincerelv.
Ana Carolina Cronemberger C Mendonca -
Breno FerrAiira de Mendonca
2/3
Page 64 of 274
Appendix
Kv
r'
r
313
Page 65 of 274