HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSD-2025-485 - B 2025-032 - 776 Rockway DriveStaff Report
r
JR
Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca
REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment
DATE OF MEETING: December 9, 2025
SUBMITTED BY: Tina Malone -Wright, Manager, Development Approvals
519-783-8913
PREPARED BY: Brian Bateman, Senior Planner, 519-783-8905
WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 9
DATE OF REPORT: November 28, 2025
REPORT NO.: DSD -2025-485
SUBJECT: Consent Application B2025-032 - 776 Rockway Drive
RECOMMENDATION:
That Consent Application B2025-032 for 776 Rockway Drive requesting Consent to
sever a parcel of land having a lot width of 7.6 metres on Rockway Drive, a lot depth
of 36.6 metres, and a lot area of 278.3 square metres. The lands to be retained will
also have a lot width of 7.6 metres on Rockway Drive, a lot depth of 36.6 metres, and
a lot area of 277.9 square metres to allow each half of a proposed Semi -Detached
Dwelling having 3 Additional Dwelling Units (ADUs) (Attached) be dealt with
independently, BE APPROVED subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Owner's solicitor shall provide draft transfer documents and associated
fees for the Certificate of Official to the satisfaction of the Secretary -Treasurer and
City Solicitor, if required.
2. That the Owner shall obtain a tax certificate from the City of Kitchener to verify
that there are no outstanding taxes on the subject property(ies) to the
satisfaction of the City's Revenue Division.
3. That the owner provides a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared
by an Ontario Land Surveyor in PDF and either .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn
(Microstation) format, as well as two full size paper copies of the plan(s). The
digital file needs to be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital
Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist.
4. That the Owner provide a Building Location Survey and/or Reference Plan,
prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor, to confirm the boundaries of the new lots
and that the location of the foundation, with respect to the proposed new lot lines,
conforms with the Zoning By-law to the satisfaction of the Manager, Development
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
Page 169 of 251
Approvals.
5. That the Owner obtains Demolition Control Approval, in accordance with the
City's Demolition Control By-law, to the satisfaction of the City's Director,
Development and Housing Approvals.
6. That the Owner obtains a Demolition Permit, for the existing detached dwelling
proposed to be demolished, to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official, and
removes the existing dwelling prior to deed endorsement.
7. That the Owner shall:
a) Prepare a Tree Preservation Plan for the Severed and Retained lands, in
accordance with the City's Tree Management Policy, to be approved by the
City's Manager, Site Plans and the City's Director, Parks and Cemeteries, and
where necessary, implemented prior to any demolition, grading, servicing,
tree removal or the issuance of building permits. Such plans shall include,
among other matters, the identification of street trees, a proposed building
envelope/work zone, a landscaped area and the vegetation to be preserved. If
necessary, the plan shall include required mitigation and or compensation
measures.
b) That the Owner further agrees to implement the approved plan. No changes
to the said plan shall be granted except with the prior approval of the City's
Manager, Site Plans.
8. That the Owner pay to the City of Kitchener a cash -in -lieu contribution for park
dedication of $11,862.00.
9. That the Owner provides a servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal
servicing system to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services.
10. That the Owner submit a Development Asset Drawing (digital AutoCAD) for the
site (servicing, SWM etc.) with corresponding layer names and asset
information to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering Services,
prior to deed endorsement.
11. That the Owner makes financial arrangements for the installation of any new
service connections to the severed and/or retained lands to the satisfaction of the
City's Director of Engineering Services.
12. That any new driveways are to be built to City of Kitchener standards at the
Owner's expense prior to occupancy of the building to the satisfaction of the
City's Director of Engineering Services.
13. That the Owner provides confirmation that the basement elevation can be drained
by gravity to the street sewers to the satisfaction of the City's Director of
Engineering Services. If this is not the case, then the owner will need to pump the
sewage via a pump and forcemain to the property line and have a gravity sewer
Page 170 of 251
from the property line to the street to the satisfaction of the City's Director of
Engineering Services.
14. That prior to final approval the Owner submits the Consent Application Review
Fee of $350.00 to the Region of Waterloo.
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS:
• The purpose of this report is to assess a request to sever a parcel of land that would
allow each half of a proposed Semi -Detached Dwelling with 3 attached ADUs be dealt
with independently.
• The key finding of this report is the proposal is considered good planning. Semis are a
permitted use in the zoning for this property and there are no variances required to
facilitate the proposed lotting fabric nor the use of a semi with ADUs. Staff is therefore
recommending approval of the consent subject to conditions.
• There are no financial implications.
• Community engagement included a notice sign being placed on the property advising
that a Committee of Adjustment application has been received, notice of the
application was mailed to all property owners within 30 metres of the subject property
and this report was posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the
Committee of Adjustment meeting.
• This report supports the delivery of core services.
BACKGROUND:
The subject property is located on Rockway Drive near Rockway Gardens and Rockway
Golf Course. The neighbourhood is comprised of a mix of low and mid -rise residential
uses. The subject property contains an existing detached dwelling (see Figures 1 and 2)
that is proposed to be demolished to construct a semi-detached dwelling.
The subject property is identified as `Community Areas' on Map 2 — Urban Structure, is
designated `Low Rise Residential' on Map 3 — Land Use in the City's 2014 Official Plan.
The subject property is not within a Cultural Heritage Landscape identified on Map 9 in the
Official Plan.
The property is zoned `Low Rise Residential Four Zone (RES -4)' in Zoning By-law 2019-
051. This zone permits the use of a Semi -Detached Dwelling with up to 3 Additional
Dwelling Units (ADUs) (Attached) providing the zoning regulations can be met.
The purpose of the application is to sever a parcel of land to permit each half of a new
Semi -Detached Dwelling, with 3 attached ADUs, to be dealt with independently (see
Figure 3).
A Zoning Occupancy Permit (see Figure 4) has been issued to validate the use and
compliance with the zoning regulations. Demolition Control, a Demolition Permit,
demolition of the dwelling and a Building Permit, are required before the Consent receives
Final Approval and new dwelling can be built.
Page 171 of 251
R S
7
JL
Al
-
It is noted that the foundation for the future building/dwelling has not yet been poured or
surveyed and a Reference Plan and Building Location Survey was not provided and
submitted with the Consent Application. Typically, best practices dictate that prior to the
Consent of a property proposed to contain an attached dwelling, the foundation is to be set
and surveyed so as to accurately capture the new lot line as constructed. The City is
cognisant of the construction challenges and excavation costs that this process poses,
and as such, will permit Consent Applications to proceed ahead of the foundation being
poured and surveyed. The Applicant is submitting this application with confidence that the
future foundation will coincide with the proposed lot dimensions and setbacks, no
maintenance easements are necessary and is proceeding with the application at this time
`at their own risk'. A new condition is proposed to be added to these types of Consent
Approvals as follows:
"That the Owner provide a Building Location Survey and/or Reference Plan,
prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor, to confirm the boundaries of the new lots
and that the location of the foundation, with respect to the proposed new lot lines,
conforms with the Zoning By-law to the satisfaction of the Manager, Development
Approvals".
Should the common wall of the foundation not be located on the common lot line, or the
setbacks of the building/dwelling do not meet zoning requirements, the Applicant will be
required to rectify and/or submit new Committee of Adjustment Applications to resolve the
errors and/or deficiencies at their own expense.
Page 173 of 251
SEVERANCE SKETCH
' LL 4F LOT 72.
RECIST=REO PLAN W
CiPf Of KfTCHEMER
REGION! -L YUNM-'IP-'LTY Of WATERLOO
arA �
k • r�
VAM MUM ilR'YP'blC W-
a
�f• � r
Y7.I
:11L1CC'T ..
rRoman
waveym cw ATE.
+6 Z•i+3•�alprp
TTS 79M 6R YtlC�GRr. 7473
trr i33a�ari1
R
li -
0 1 i-
i c
!a. . ■t
liA
* r
ou
RYiA
f 7- ARUMT I -W
l far f
{
. raawes
ar>e.�..
y'}at�
• A 7xaat
LOT
iLtb �!7
�
_ P(�s7a40
Oar.•a�.
T
,z
4 4! K
a
�f• � r
Y7.I
:11L1CC'T ..
rRoman
waveym cw ATE.
+6 Z•i+3•�alprp
TTS 79M 6R YtlC�GRr. 7473
trr i33a�ari1
R
li -
0 1 i-
i c
!a. . ■t
liA
* r
ou
RYiA
f 7- ARUMT I -W
l far f
{
som
A Paa -9 on a ft" cr MEN" "a wo" am w
x
y'}at�
7arfoatarrap
�4
1411r.}I rads.
_ P(�s7a40
Oar.•a�.
T
f. bTrrYl-Or'rri haw ala 2E0► s %*",n w Cw u
�
��
UlIpinPf'7 �]rI
FA1[Cil_
R O C K WA Y DRIVE
t'S
a
�f• � r
Y7.I
:11L1CC'T ..
rRoman
waveym cw ATE.
+6 Z•i+3•�alprp
TTS 79M 6R YtlC�GRr. 7473
trr i33a�ari1
R
li -
0 1 i-
i c
!a. . ■t
liA
* r
ou
RYiA
f 7- ARUMT I -W
l far f
{
som
A Paa -9 on a ft" cr MEN" "a wo" am w
x
11� Mia iK EE>'i74 >AMiVOr br ■e!n(rwn
�4
7at7-at 2M cr-ol ]
f. bTrrYl-Or'rri haw ala 2E0► s %*",n w Cw u
'FVi,Rin
s« q Ta R'1'r P�aba�e a. a ma
FA1[Cil_
R O C K WA Y DRIVE
n7t Tia-• "134 :
r • IN21%raraaq swlxlm ar
a
�f• � r
Y7.I
:11L1CC'T ..
rRoman
waveym cw ATE.
+6 Z•i+3•�alprp
TTS 79M 6R YtlC�GRr. 7473
trr i33a�ari1
R
li -
0 1 i-
i c
!a. . ■t
liA
* r
ou
RYiA
f 7- ARUMT I -W
l far f
Figure 3 — Severance Sketch
Page 174 of 251
som
A Paa -9 on a ft" cr MEN" "a wo" am w
11� Mia iK EE>'i74 >AMiVOr br ■e!n(rwn
7at7-at 2M cr-ol ]
f. bTrrYl-Or'rri haw ala 2E0► s %*",n w Cw u
s« q Ta R'1'r P�aba�e a. a ma
R O C K WA Y DRIVE
a GaKaa" am us rs+a w lawoz a.71w-1
.T7�ae.w..a�.•ly„f.
r • IN21%raraaq swlxlm ar
s la[a-r7��dwaaaLaaq aGLIKSY;.d ba'F[1G
ZQNW (RE"). LOW RUSE RE.SAMMIAL FOUR ZM • $E'1R OETACMED
x"OrraD=v""14 @ML. ..�,,.. ..
HTtf�
Marlyli wfAft
.11.r• .,,...� .7Ta..._.
c�it
,l�aalle►a
.Ts. .Tata ..aa.,
MIfSM/ltl/'Y��
.rl7r •aiSw •yln
a��
.pef •axw •ulw
nr�,+rrr - Srpr.
aa7�nan�s�rrr
.014 •Mla • Ya
w • s5" y: n a in
fawar �l�r1Klllal aMD
• U: • i-1 • 13.w
. - _ _
•13 -2A •Tbr
anrwwwra�r
+!a • Mill • *An
_
aas�rrNo w
WaMUM-LAM A
-/
ae7a7ax3►7:.
4yRQylp'(rs,..
Figure 3 — Severance Sketch
Page 174 of 251
THE CORPORATION OF THF CITY OF KIT( HEtiTR
MAING CER 1'IFIC..ATE
jJ
i5 RFQt.TRPiI Hti SYGTION 3*?1) dF THF PLA!, N & ACT -k-',DK AENER ZOND--,UVJAW'S OF THE{fi-OF=CU-NER
Certificate Number: 25 110976 Date Issued: October 15.202 i
Address: 774 KOC'KWAY DR
Permitted Use: Sena -detached Drwelling with 3 Additional Dwelling Units
~
(attached)
Total 4' of Units: 4
Zoning: RES -4 Zoning By lays-: 2019-051
Footprint
GFA
Pranei al Building: 110.49 nr
213.34 n7-
Required Prosided
Total Parkdng Spaces:
Bicycle Stalls: 2 4
C omments.'Conditions:
la accordance with approved Zoning Flan attached.
In accordance with Building Penvit 25-119481
9g'�'
zomfig officA fiff
Director orPlz ning and Kom= colic '.
DM Depuftwat
Important Notice
With authosiry of the Panning Act, a certincare of zoning =_ i:c .: enfies fat the use i pm=ed i,•
the City of Kitchener's Zoning By -Law. A cemficate of zoninf .r, cup an aces not exempt the recgn a::
from obtaining a buildme permit and e3raring compliance m•itL 3' ding.a Fire Code Regulations,
mc.udm? occun:Ac': ]"s;trivamEa:: 'AntCu :_9 Bn:.cn:z Ccll .
Figure 4 — Zoning Occupancy Certificate
REPORT:
Planning Comments:
In considering all the relevant Provincial legislation, Regional and City policies and
regulations, Planning staff offer the following comments:
Provincial Planning Statement (PPS 2024)
In considering all the relevant Provincial legislation, Regional and City policies and
regulations, Planning staff offer the following comments:
Staff are satisfied that the proposed infill severance application is consistent with the
Provincial Planning Statement in general and as it related to housing policies in Chapter 2
regarding intensification and facilitating housing options. Section 2.2 1 (b) states that
Page 175 of 251
Planning authorities shall provide for an appropriate range and mix of housing options and
densities to meet projected needs of current and future residents of the regional market
area by permitting and facilitating all housing options required to meet the social, health,
economic and well-being requirements of current and future residents.
Regional Official Plan (ROP):
ROP Urban Area policies state that the focus of the Region's future growth shall be within
the Urban Area. The subject lands fall within the `Urban Area' and are designated `Built -Up
Area' in the ROP. The proposed development conforms to Policy 2. D.1 of the ROP as this
neighbourhood provides for the physical and community infrastructure required for the
proposed residential development, including transportation networks, municipal water and
wastewater systems, and a broad range of social and public health services. Regional
polices require municipalities to plan for a range of housing in terms of form, tenure,
density, and affordability to satisfy the various physical, social, economic, and personal
support needs of current and future residents. Staff are satisfied that the proposed
severance application adheres to these policies and conforms to the ROP.
City's Official Plan (2014)
The subject property is identified as `Community Areas' on Map 2 — Urban Structure and is
designated `Low Rise Residential' on Map 3 — Land Use in the City's Official Plan.
Section 17.E.20 of the Official Plan implements Section 51 of the Planning Act and
contains policies regarding infill development and lot creation (Consent Policies). Policy
17.E.20.5 states the following:
"17.E.20.5 Applications for consent to create new lots will only be granted where:
a) the lots comply with the policies of this Plan, any Community Plan
and/or Secondary Plan, and that the lots are in conformity with the
Zoning By-law, or a minor variance has been granted to correct any
deficiencies;
b) the lots reflect the general scale and character of the established
development pattern of surrounding lands by taking into consideration
lot frontages, areas, and configurations;
c) all of the criteria for plan of subdivision are given due consideration;
d) the lot will have frontage on a public street;
e) municipal water services are available;
f) municipal sanitary services are available except in accordance with
Policy 14.C.1.19;
g) a Plan of Subdivision or Condominium has been deemed not to be
necessary for proper and orderly development; and,
Page 176 of 251
h) the lot(s) will not restrict the ultimate development of adjacent
properties."
Zoning By-law 2019-051
The property is zoned 'Low Rise Residential Four Zone (RES -4)' in Zoning By-law 2019-
051. This Zone category permits the use of a Semi -Detached Dwelling with up to 3 ADUs
(Attached) providing the zoning regulations can be met. A Zoning Occupancy Certificate
has been issued confirming compliance with the zoning regulations.
Planning Conclusions/Comments:
With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51(24) of the
Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, staff is satisfied that the creation of the severed lot is
desirable and appropriate. The uses of both the severed and retained parcels are in
conformity with the City's Official Plan and Zoning By-law. Planning staff is of the opinion
that the size, dimension and shape of the proposed lots are suitable for the use of the
lands and compatible with the surrounding community. The severed lands front onto an
established public street and are serviced with municipal services. Staff is further of the
opinion that the proposal is consistent with the Region of Waterloo Official Plan, the
Provincial Planning Statement, and is good planning and in the public interest.
Environmental Planning Comments:
Request the standard consent condition to enter into an agreement to complete, submit,
obtain approval of, and implement a Tree Preservation and Enhancement Plan (TPEP) for
both the severed and retained lots, prior to site alteration, demolition and/or building
permit. In this case it would be appropriate to require the TPEP as a condition of Final
Approval given that a Demolition Permit is required in advance of obtaining the Certificate
of the Official. Although the Applicant may not be actively clearly all of the conditions of
this Consent at the time of consideration of Demolition Control/Permit of the existing
detached dwelling, the Applicant is advised that the TPEP Condition is still applicable and
must be approved prior to Demolition Permit issuance.
Heritage Planning Comments:
No concerns or comments.
Resident Comments
Staff wish to acknowledge a letter (see attachment) received from a member of public
voicing concern with the proposal as it relates to heritage. Planning Staff discussed this
matter with Heritage Staff. Heritage Planning Staff confirm that this property has no
heritage value and is not contiguous to and across from any identified heritage resources.
Building Division Comments:
The Building Division has no objections to the proposed consent. Region of Waterloo and
Area Municipalities' Design Guidelines and Supplemental Specifications for Municipal
Services (DGSSMS) allows only one service per lot. Separate building permit(s) will be
required for the demolition of the existing building, as well as construction of the new
residential buildings.
Page 177 of 251
Engineering Division Comments:
• Severance of any blocks within the subject lands will require separate, individual
service connections for sanitary, storm, and water, in accordance with City policies.
• The owner is required to make satisfactory financial arrangements with the
Engineering Division for the installation of new service connections that may be
required to service this property, all prior to severance approval.
• Any new driveways are to be built to City of Kitchener standards. All works are at the
owner's expense, and all work needs to be completed prior to occupancy of the
building.
• A servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing system will be required to
the satisfaction of the Engineering Division prior to severance approval.
• A Development Asset Drawing (digital AutoCAD) is required for the new site
infrastructure with corresponding layer names and asset information to the satisfaction
of the Engineering Division prior to severance approval.
• The Owner must ensure that the basement elevation of the building can be drained by
gravity to the municipal sanitary sewer. If basement finished floor elevations do not
allow for gravity drainage to the existing municipal sanitary system, the owner will
have to pump the sewage to achieve gravity drainage from the property line to the
municipal sanitary sewer in the right of way.
• The Owner shall implement a suitable design solution for a sump pump outlet to the
satisfaction of the Director of Engineering.
• The side yard currently accommodates overland stormwater flows. A sidewalk is
required to the rear yard in accordance with the Zoning By-law. The final grading of
this property shall not adversely affect the drainage of adjacent properties or the
overall grading control plan. The Owner is responsible to address storm water
drainage at the Building Permit stage.
Parks and Cemeteries/Forestry Division Comments:
Cash -in -lieu of park land dedication will be required at the time of severance for the
severed parcel as 1 new development lot will be created. The cash -in -lieu dedication
required is $11,862.00. Park Dedication is calculated at 5% of the new development lot
only, with a land valuation calculated by the lineal frontage of 7.6 metres and a land value
of $36,080.00 per frontage metre, which equals $13,710.40. In this case, a per unit cap of
$11,862.00 has been applied.
There is an existing City -owned street tree within the right-of-way on Rockway Drive. 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. Tree Protection and Enhancement Plans to Forestry's satisfaction
will be required outlining complete protection of City assets prior to any demolition or
building permits being issued.
Transportation Planning Comments:
No concerns.
Region of Waterloo Comments:
Regional staff have no objection to this application, subject to the following condition(s):
Page 178 of 251
That the applicant submit the regional consent review fee of $350.00 per application
to the satisfaction of the Region of Waterloo.
GRCA Comments:
No concerns.
SNGREC Comments:
No comments.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
This report supports the delivery of core services.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget.
Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance
of the Committee of Adjustment meeting. A notice sign was placed on the property
advising that a Committee of Adjustment application has been received. The sign advises
interested parties to find additional information on the City's website or by emailing the
Planning Division. A notice of the application was mailed to all property owners within 30
metres of the subject property.
PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES:
• Planning Act
• Provincial Planning Statement (PPS 2024)
• Regional Official Plan (ROP)
• Official Plan (2014)
• Zoning By-law 2019-051
Page 179 of 251
N*
Region of Waterloo
Connie Owen
Administrative Clerk, Legislative Services
Committee of Adjustment
City of Kitchener
P.O. Box 1118
200 King Street East
Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7
Dear Ms. Owen:
PLANNING, DEVELOPMENTAND
LEGISLATIVE SERVICES
150 Frederick Street, 8t" floor
Kitchener Ontario N2G 4J3 Canada
Telephone: 519-575-4400
Fax: 519-575-4449
www.regionofwaterloo.ca
Erica Ali, MCIP, RPP
File: D20-20/25 KIT
November 24, 2025
Re: Comments on Consent Applications — B 2025-032 to B2025-036 (inclusive)
Committee of Adjustment Meeting — December 9, 2025
City of Kitchener
Page 180 of 251
File: B2025-032
Address: 776 Rockway Dr
Description: Plan 649, Lot 22
Owner: 2832516 Ontario Inc c/o Tara Bruwer-Sutton
Applicant: Masri O Inc Architects c/o Reema Masri
The applicant/owner is proposing consent to sever to create a new residential lot. The
severance will facilitate the redevelopment of each lot with a semi-detached duplex,
providing 4 units per dwelling, for a total of 8 units. The existing single detached
dwelling will demolished. The subject lands are currently serviced through municipal
water and waste services, with access to a local road. Minor variance applications are
not required to facilitate the consent.
The proposed lot configuration is as follows:
Severed — 278.8 sqm area with 7.62m frontage
Retained — 278.422 sqm with 7.62m frontage
The subject lands are designated Built -Up Area within the Urban Boundary in the
Regional Official Plan (ROP), Low -Rise Residential in the City of Kitchener Official Plan,
and zoned RES -4.
Threats Inventory Database (Advisory)
The following information from the Region's Threat Inventory Database (TID) is
provided until such time as access is transferred to the City of Kitchener. Noting, there
are no medium or high threats identified on or adjacent to the subject property.
Hydrogeology & Source Water Protection Plan (Advisory)
The subject lands are located in a Source Plan Protection Area where restrictions or
prohibitions may apply in accordance with the Clean Water Act, Part IV. As such a
Notice of Source Protection Plan Compliance (Section 59 Notice) is required as part of
a formal application for Consent. Regional Staff acknowledge receipt of the S. 59
Notice.
Fees
Regional staff are not in receipt of the required consent review fee of $350 for consent
application. The outstanding fee(s) will be required as a condition of consent approval if
not received by the Region prior to the Decision of the Committee of Adjustment.
Regional staff have no objection to this application, subject to the following
condition(s):
1. That the applicant submit the regional consent review fee of $350 per application to
the satisfaction of the Region of Waterloo.
Page 181 of 251
File: B2025-033
Address: 104 Brentwood Ave
Description: Plan 651, Lot 158
Owner: Veasna Suon
Applicant: Masri O Inc Architects c/o Reema Masri
The applicant/owner is proposing consent to sever to create a new residential lot. The
severance will facilitate the redevelopment of each lot with a semi-detached duplex,
providing 4 units per dwelling, for a total of 8 units. The existing single detached
dwelling will demolished. The subject lands are currently serviced through municipal
water and waste services, with access to a local road. Minor variance applications are
not required to facilitate the consent.
The proposed lot configuration is as follows:
Severed — 277.9 sqm area with 7.6m frontage
Retained — 277.9 sqm with 7.6m frontage
The subject lands are designated Built -Up Area within the Urban Boundary in the
Regional Official Plan (ROP), Low -Rise Residential in the City of Kitchener Official Plan,
and zoned RES -4.
Threats Inventory Database (Advisory)
The following information from the Region's Threat Inventory Database (TID) is
provided until such time as access is transferred to the City of Kitchener. Noting, there
are no medium or high threats identified on or adjacent to the subject property.
Hydrogeology & Source Water Protection Plan (Advisory)
The subject lands are located in a Source Plan Protection Area where restrictions or
prohibitions may apply in accordance with the Clean Water Act, Part IV. As such a
Notice of Source Protection Plan Compliance (Section 59 Notice) is required as part of
a formal application for Consent. Regional Staff acknowledge receipt of the S. 59
Notice.
Fees
Regional staff are not in receipt of the required consent review fee of $350 for consent
application. The outstanding fee(s) will be required as a condition of consent approval if
not received by the Region prior to the Decision of the Committee of Adjustment.
Regional staff have no objection to this application, subject to the following
condition(s):
1. That the applicant submit the regional consent review fee of $350 per application to
the satisfaction of the Region of Waterloo.
Page 182 of 251
File: B2025-034/5
Address: 67/71 Blucher St
Description: Plan 328, Lot 6; Plan 339, Part lot 4
Owner: Marko Podobnik
Applicant: GSP Group Inc c/o Kristen Barisdale
The applicant/owner is proposing consent to sever to create a new residential lot and to
create reciprocal easements for shared access/servicing. The lot to be severed (71
Blucher) contains an existing linear townhouse building (10 units). The lot to be retained
(67 Blucher) contains an existing linear townhouse building (4 units) which would be
demolished to in order to develop two 8 -unit linear stacked townhouse (total of 16 units).
The subject lands are currently serviced through municipal water and waste services,
with access to a local road. Minor variance applications are required to facilitate the
consent for the severed lands, pertaining to lot width, and setbacks. The ands were
subject to Stamp B Site Plan Approval (SP23/073/B/TS) in Feb 2024 to formalize
existing conditions. SP23/084/B/TS conditional site plan approval was granted in March
2024 for the redevelopment of 67 Blucher.
The proposed lot configuration is as follows:
Retained - B2025-034 - - 67 Blucher — 1,594.68 sqm with 26.8m frontage
Severed — B2025-035 - 71 Blucher - — 2,127,47 sqm area with 5.8m frontage
The subject lands are designated Built -Up Area (within the Urban Boundary), with an
MTSA (Central Station) and Urban Growth Centre (Downtown Kitchener) in the
Regional Official Plan (ROP), Low -Rise Residential and Community Area in the City of
Kitchener Official Plan, and zoned RES -5.
Threats Inventory Database (Advisory)
The following information from the Region's Threat Inventory Database (TID) is
provided until such time as access is transferred to the City of kKitchener. Noting, there
are no medium or high threats identified on or adjacent to the subject property.
Hydrogeology & Source Water Protection Plan
The subject lands are located in a Source Plan Protection Area where restrictions or
prohibitions may apply in accordance with the Clean Water Act, Part IV. As such a
Notice of Source Protection Plan Compliance (S. 59 Notice) is required as part of a
formal application for Consent. Regional Staff are not in receipt of the S. 59 Notice and
this will be required as a condition of consent approval if not received by the Region
prior to the Decision of the Committee of Adjustment.
Fees
Regional staff are not in receipt of the required consent review fee of $350 for consent
application. The outstanding fee(s) will be required as a condition of consent approval if
not received by the Region prior to the Decision of the Committee of Adjustment.
Page 183 of 251
Regional staff have no objection to this application, subject to the following
condition(s):
1. That the applicant submit the regional consent review fee of $350 per application
to the satisfaction of the Region of Waterloo
2. That the applicant submit the Notice of Source Protection Plan Compliance (S.
59 Notice) to the satisfaction of the Region of Waterloo
Page 184 of 251
File: B2025-036
Address: 25 Breithaupt St
Owner: 2184647 Ontario Ltd c/o Perimeter Development
Applicant: MHBC c/o Juliane von Westerholt
The purpose of consent is to establish a long-term lease in excess of 21 years for the
subject lands. The lease is between Perimeter Group and Google. The lease includes
the use of the entire building located at 25 Breithaupt Street including floors 1 to 5 and
the penthouse floors, as well as access to the parking garage.
The subject lands are designated Built -Up Area within the Urban Boundary in the
Regional Official Plan (ROP), Strategic Growth Area (B) in the City of Kitchener Official
Plan, and zoned SGA -4,(51)(19H)(81 H) and SGA -3(54)(132)133)(81 H).
Threats Inventory Database (Advisory)
The following information from the Region's Threat Inventory Database (TID) is
provided until such time as access is transferred to the City of Kitchener. Noting, there
are medium and/or high threat(s) identified on and/or adjacent to the subject property.
There is one (1) known threat extent mapped, and one (1) Record of Site Condition.
Record of Site Condition
RSC Number: 223120
Site Address: 51 BREITHAUPT STREET, KITCHENER, ON N2H 5G5, 25 BREITHAUPT STREET, KITCHENER,
ON N2H 5G5
Intended Property Use: Commercial
QP Employer: GHD LIMITED
Filing Date: Mar 23, 2017 8:00 PM
Certification Date: May 26, 2016 8:00 PM
Site Conditions: Full Depth Generic Site Conditions Standard, with Potable Ground Water, Coarse
Textured Soil, for Commercial property use, with RA
Page 185 of 251
Known Threat Extent
THREAT—ID: 3800
Description: Plume of contaminated groundwater estimated per 2005 XCG report
Threats Inventory
Threat ID: 20911
Company: COLLINS & AIKMAN CANADA INC.
Threat Rank: Medium
Address: 51 BREITHAUPT ST
NAICS: 314110
NAICS Description: Carpet and Rug Mills
Location Code: Inherited geocode value (i.e. previous databases, consultants, other RMOW
departments); methodology, reliability and accuracy unknown
Source Table: 2003 Dun & Bradstreet Business Listing
Threat ID: 3578
Company: CANADIAN CONSOLIDATED/MERCHANTS/DOMINION RUBBER CO
Threat Rank: Medium
Address: 51 BREITHAUPT ST
SIC E 1980: 1599
SIC E 1980 Description: Other Rubber Products Industries
Location Code: Automatic or manual geocode (remnant of IPCS classification), reliability and accuracy
good
Source Table: Kitchener -Waterloo Historical Survey —Businesses
Threat ID: 6041
Company: PERSTORP COMPONENTS (CANADA) INC.
Threat Rank: Medium
Address: 51 BREITHAUPT ST
SIC E 1980: 1699
SIC E 1980 Description: Other Plastic Products Industries n.e.c.
Location Code: Automatic address match in Mapinfo with assessment points, reliability and accuracy
good
Source Table: 1993 Dun & Bradstreet Business Listing
Threat ID: 14332
Company: COLLINS & AIKMAN
Threat Rank: High
Address: 51 BREITHAUPT STREET
NAICS: 336390
NAICS Description: Other Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing
Location Code: Automatic address match in Mapinfo with assessment points, reliability and accuracy
good
Source Table: Waste Generating Companies
Threat ID: 32233
Company: PERIMETER DEVELOPMENT INC.
Page 186 of 251
Threat Rank: High
Address: 51 BREITHAUPT STREET
NAICS: 531310
NAICS Description: Real Estate Property Managers
Location Code: Automatic address match in Mapinfo with assessment points, reliability and accuracy
good
Source Table: Waste Generating Companies
Threat ID: 13687
Company: PERSTORP COMPONENTS CANADA INC.
Threat Rank: High
Address: 51 BREITHAUPT STREET
SIC E 1980: 1611
SIC E 1980 Description: Foamed and Expanded Plastic Products Industry
Location Code: Automatic address match in Mapinfo with assessment points, reliability and accuracy
good
Source Table: Waste Generating Companies
Hydrogeology & Source Water Protection Plan
The subject lands are located in a Source Plan Protection Area where restrictions or
prohibitions may apply in accordance with the Clean Water Act, Part IV. As such a
Notice of Source Protection Plan Compliance (S. 59 Notice) is required as part of a
formal application for Consent. Regional Staff are not in receipt of the S. 59 Notice
which will be required as a condition of consent approval if not received by the Region
prior to the Decision of the Committee of Adjustment.
Fees
Regional staff are not in receipt of the required consent review fee of $350 for consent
application. The outstanding fee(s) will be required as a condition of consent approval if
not received by the Region prior to the Decision of the Committee of Adjustment.
Regional staff have no objection to this application, subject to the following
condition(s):
1. That the applicant submit the regional consent review fee of $350 per application
to the satisfaction of the Region of Waterloo.
2. That the applicant submit the Notice of Source Protection Plan Compliance (S.
59 Notice) to the satisfaction of the Region of Waterloo.
Page 187 of 251
General Comments
Any future development on the lands subject to the above -noted consent applications
will be subject to the provisions of Regional Development Charge By-law 19-037 or any
successor thereof. Prior to final approval, City staff must be in receipt of the above -
noted Regional condition clearances. Please accept this letter as our request for a copy
of the staff reports, decisions and minutes pertaining to each of the consent applications
noted above. Should you require Regional Staff to be in attendance at the meeting or
have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Thank you,
Erica Ali, MCIP, RPP
Planner
Regional Growth, Development and Sustainability Services
Regional Municipality of Waterloo
Page 188 of 251
November 21, 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 — December 9, 2025
Applications for Minor Variance
A 2025-117
2922 King Street East
A 2025-118
630 Benninger Drive
A 2025-119
455 Old Chicopee Trail
A 2025-122
117 Samuel Street
A 2025-123
20 Gildner Street
A 2025-125
50-56 Weber Street West & 107 Young Street
A 2025-127
71 Blucher Street
Applications for Consent
B 2025-032
776 Rockway Drive
B 2025-033
104 Brentwood Avenue
B 2025-034
71 Blucher Street
B 2025-035
67 Blucher Street
via email
Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) staff have reviewed the above -noted applications.
GRCA has no objection to the approval of the above applications. The subject properties do not
contain any natural hazards such as watercourses, floodplains, shorelines, wetlands, or valley
slopes. The properties are not subject to Ontario Regulation 41/24 and, therefore, a permission
from GRCA is not required.
Should you have any questions, please contact me at aherremana-grandriver. 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 189 of 251
From:
Marilyn Mills
To:
Committee of Adiustment (SM)
Subject:
FW: KITCHENER - 776 ROCKWAY DRIVE - B 2025.032
Date:
Tuesday, December 2, 2025 10:34:26 AM
Attachments:
imaae001.ona
From: LANDUSEPLANNING <LandUsePlanning@HydroOne.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 10:33 AM
To: Marilyn Mills <Marilyn.Mills@kitchener.ca>
Subject: KITCHENER - 776 ROCKWAY DRIVE - B 2025.032
You don't often get email from landuseplanning�cthvdroone.com. Learn why this is important
Hello,
We are in receipt of your Application for Consent, B 2025.032 dated 2025-11-21. We have reviewed the documents
concerning the noted Plan and have no comments or concerns at this time. Our preliminary review considers
issues affecting Hydro One's'High Voltage Facilities and Corridor Lands' only.
For proposals affecting'Low Voltage Distribution Facilities' the Owner/Applicant should consult their local area
Distribution Supplier. Where Hydro One is the local supplier the Owner/Applicant must contact the Hydro
subdivision group at subdivisionCcaHydroone.com or 1-866-272-3330.
To confirm if Hydro One is your local distributor please follow the following link: Stormcentre (hydroone.com)
Please select "Search" and locate the address in question by entering the address or by zooming in and out of the
map.
? a
MENU HELP SEARCH
hydroone
Customers Affected: 0 >5000 Q 501-5000 a 51-500 0 21-50 V -20 4 Multiple ® Crew — Service Area
U si
Ottaw . � Montreal
o
b
{d
0
'
a �
v �
Kitcl
A�
Hunt: wofe //\�pT 417
400 tl
o _
�� 41fi 4
kr
Kawarlha
akea5s
s i5 Burlir
' Peierh�rough
t� Kin
#r�4ry�JI�' eel�vile �
• ° � R! s s 115
WCEoEdwar Watertown
40 4 0
P_
)p o Toronto
ississauga
lar Tilton
¢R o Rochester
h - r Map data €2019 Google 50 km L ----j Terms of Use Report a map error
If you have any further questions or inquiries, please contact Customer Service at 1-888-664-9376 or e-mail
CustomerCommunications()HydroOne.com to be connected to your Local Operations Centre
Page 190 of 251
If you have any questions please feel free to contact Land Use Planning.
Thankyou,
Land Use Planning Department
Hydro One Networks Inc.
Email: LandUseRanning(a)HydroOne.com
Page 191 of 251
From:
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2025 7:30 PM
To: Committee of Adjustment (SM) <CommitteeofAdjustment@kitchener.ca>
Subject: 776 Rockway Drive (62025-032)
My written submission opposing the notice of application for 776 Rockway Drive
Kitchener (132025-032) from;
Tracy Livingstone
I am a homeowner of Rockway Drive (built in 1952) and have lived in this beautiful "historical"
neighborhood" for almost 15 years. I purchased my home in this specific area due to the stunning
classic Victorian gardens only steps away from home. An old vibe neighborhood with no sidewalks and
unique characteristics, including each single family home having it's own distinct aesthetic look with a
history of our homes being built as far back as 1952. Rockway Gardens built in 1928 is considered a
historical site and the gardens have a long association with the Kitchener Horticultural Society, which
has maintained and beautified the site for decades. They are also associated with individuals important
to the community, such as garden founder J. Albert Smith.
Heritage Designation: A heritage study found that the gardens meet the criteria for protection under
the Ontario Heritage Act. The City of Kitchener has designated it as a Cultural Heritage Landscape
This neighborhood prides itself in maintaining this historical vibe with each home having unique
elements from the 1950's along with each single family home that sits on their own plot of land,
providing more distance from neighbors, which reduces noise and offers greater privacy and of course a
long-term investment. I did not purchase my home 15 years ago to have a semi-detached dwelling, each
half having 3 additional dwelling units next to me. I understand that we are facing a housing crisis,
however allowing this development will not only destroy the historical look of Rockway Drive (and the
rest of the neighborhood) but it will also decrease the value of our homes that we worked so hard to
have. Who wants to buy a home with a sixplex unit beside it .....
This property at 776 Rockway Drive (and proposed build) is too narrow for two buildings and 6 units, not
to mention providing a parking lot and vehicles to park. Each one of us on Rockway Drive enjoy sitting in
our backyards with our beautiful gardens (and privacy) to only have an influx of exhaust fumes now
entering our backyards and our homes. I can't image where the parking lot for this unit would be,
destroy the back yard and lay asphalt so the homes that surround this dwelling are greatly impacted
with the smell of exhaust fumes while we are trying to enjoy our backyard? This is outrageous ......
Allowing this type of build at 776 Rockway Drive will greatly impact our privacy by having units looking
into peoples windows as well as significant, major changes to our stunning and beautiful
neighborhood. This will also set a precedent for our neighborhood to have buildings shoved into very
small spaces.
It's horrible that the new owner of 776 Rockway Drive (a hungry landlord) wants to come to Rockway
Drive with a lack of respect for a neighborhoods heritage look is outrageous. The area of Rockway is
RES4 which generally allows for low-density residential dwellings. This home located at 776 Rockway sits
on a very small piece of land (built back in the 1950's) this home has character and would certainly make
a family happy if left alone and simply rented.
Page 192 of 251
This neighborhood of Rockway Drive just finished another fight of bike lanes that were going to be
installed and we won H Reroute before you uproot (Rockway Gardens) was yet another battle that this
entire community of Rockway came together to fight.
Please do not allow this application and build to follow through and allow Rockway Drive to maintain
our look by adhering to specific guidelines and best practices that preserve our area's unique character
and historical integrity.
Please protect our neighborhood and do not pass this application. We cannot allow a landlord to come
to Rockway Drive and completely destroy our street, our neighborhood, our privacy, our heritage.
Please stop this.
Garbage Concerns
This unit and its proposed plans to demolish the existing home, sever the property and build an
additional 8 units does meet the requirements for garbage removal and the new cart system that is
being implemented in March 2026.
A property owner with a 3-6 unit building (each registered unit will receive one garbage cart. Two green
carts will be shared between the 3-6 units).
Properly storing garbage, yard waste and recycling in a back shed on this property will only add to the
current rat problem this neighborhood has been dealing with over the past year. Not to mention the
increased risk of smell to the surrounding neighbours.
The waste management rule is that more than 6 units on a property requires private collection or a
dumpster. If the proposed severance is approved, there would be 4 units on each side of the semi -
detached dwelling which qualifies for municipal curb side pick up for waste.
So in total we would have 8 large new black garbage bins at the curb for pick up weekly ??? Is there
enough curb side space for all these garbage bins and what about all the recycling bins, how would
everything fit ? This would also create a hazard to pedestrians walking on the street since we do not
have any sidewalks.
This is too many units on this property without this beautiful street starting to look congested and the
historical component gone H
Sincerely,
Tracy Livingstone
Page 193 of 251
From:
To: Committee of Adjustment (SM); Debbie Chapman
Cc: Marilyn Mills
Subject: B 2025-032 - 776 Rockway Drive
Date: Wednesday, December 3, 2025 9:27:56 PM
Good Day,
I am writing to share my thoughts and concerns regarding the proposed plans to sever the land at
776 Rockway and the plan to build two two-level dwellings, each with four units, for a total of eight
units. After reviewing the documents I've received, I understand that the development would also
include four parking spaces and eight bike stalls.
While I am not opposed to the idea of replacing the existing house with new, thoughtfully designed
dwellings, I do have concerns regarding the scale and impact of this development on our cherished
neighborhood and the precedent it will be setting for other homes going up for sale. I truly
appreciate that the developer is mindful of maintaining the overall height and scale of the building
to blend with the surrounding residential area, but I fear that placing eight units on just two lots may
result in very small living quarters (320-600 sq.ft)—especially when it comes to the comfort and
long-term happiness of the tenants.
As a resident of this wonderful neighborhood for over ten years, I've witnessed firsthand how close-
knit our community is. We have neighbors who support each other and look out for one another,
and many seniors who may want to downsize but remain in this area. It's our hope that new
residents will join us and enjoy the warmth and support of a community they can truly call home.
However, when I think about the potential size of these units and the experiences we've already had
with other small-scale developments, I worry that these units may feel more like cramped spaces
than true homes. We've already seen developments with similar layouts—many of which have yet to
be completed—and we've heard from tenants who find the living spaces too small for comfort. With
knowing the square footage range of these units, I also have concerns regarding the units
themselves. If each unit is to be equipped with its own in -suite laundry, valuable space within each
unit will be taken up by these necessary appliances.
Another point I'd like to raise is the absence of green space within the proposed plan. I believe it's
essential that the property includes outdoor space for residents to enjoy, whether that's for
relaxation, gardening, or simply sitting outside with neighbors, especially since balconies are not part
of the plan because of the minimum setbacks required. Our community values these shared green
spaces, and they provide more than just aesthetic beauty—they help foster a sense of connection.
As it stands, the plan seems to prioritize concrete and parking over green space, which could be
detrimental to the overall feel of the area in the long term and to the tenants residing there.
Speaking of parking, I'm also concerned about the limited number of parking spaces in the proposal
—only four spaces for eight units. With our neighborhood's current infrastructure and the reality
that not everyone will be able to rely solely on bikes or public transit, this limited parking raises
questions about where overflow vehicles will be parked. Will there be additional provisions made for
visitors or residents with multiple cars?
Another concern with 4 units on each lot, that means there will be 8 large compost bins and 8 large
garbage bins and recycling bins outside at all time. Whether its at the curb for pickup, or stored
somewhere inconvenient for the tenants. We also have a rodent problem in this area, with several
houses hiring pest control, which is not safe for the wild life that feed off the rodents.
In light of these concerns, I'd like to offer an alternative suggestion. Rather than severing the land to
Page 194 of 251
build 2 compact units, we should keep the land as is, and allow bigger developments decades down
the road and setting an example of the possibilities to lightly increase density with comfortable
living. Perhaps the developer could consider building a two-story building (possibly with basement
like 15 Floral) with 4-6 livable units or 3 or 4 townhomes like 739 Rockway drive , which would allow
for more space per unit, additional parking in the front, and a greater opportunity to include green
space in the back, less cramped quarters and a secure area for garbage/compost. This would not
only provide residents with a more comfortable living environment but would also maintain the
charm and livability of the neighborhood for decades to come.
I truly believe that thoughtful development can enhance our neighborhood without compromising
its warmth and sense of community. I hope my concerns are taken into consideration as we work
together to create a development that benefits everyone.
Thank you for your time and I wish to be notified of decisions made with this property.
Gina Georgiou
Page 195 of 251
Frons:
To: Committee. of Adiustment (SM)
Subject: Application No D 2025-032
Date: Thursday, December 4, 2D25 3:43:57 Ph1
You don't often get email from Learn why t ; sim ori rtant
I visited many houses and neighborhoods prior to making a choice to live in the
Rockway neighborhood. It's a beautiful neighborhood consisting of two story; one
and half story; bungalows, three and six Alex's. Each dwelling somewhat different
but they are unified and it looks and operates like a community. This neighborhood is
for families. Neighbors don't just know the people who live beside them but many
neighbors from other streets. so I guess you could say we are close knit
neighborhood. Neighbors help each other out which I believe contributes to why
Rockway is considered a desirable community to live in.
I recognize that as time goes by there will be changes to our neighborhood as most
houses are reaching 75+ years, some maintained better than others and there will
always be investors and developers that will be looking to purchase. rebuild and
make a profit. That being said, this is my home and I'm very concerned with the
proposal for the building on 776 Rockway. This proposal to severance the property
and then build 2 buildings that appear as one building and then operate them
separately is interesting. It allows the builder to build more units, which I guess is
more profitable for them.
To be clear, I am opposed to severing of this property for so many reasons. Severing
the property allows the builder to have 4 very small units for each property. There is
little green space in my opinion and does not fit well within our existing
neighborhood. We do have 3 and 6 plex buildings in this neighborhood however
there is adequate green space allowing residents to sit outside and enjoy, perhaps
have a small vegetable or flower garden. This building will use most of the green
space for the building, bike sheds and garbage/recycle sheds/buildings.
I don't believe the proposed properties are for families and I suspect the studio's will
be transient. These units will just be too small for people to feel comfortable to stay
for long. I thought we learnt this lesson during Covid that people need a little space?
The existing proposal 8 units, 4 parking spots will be an issue as it is everywhere else
in KW where an effort has been made to reduce parking spots. There are ads every
week with individuals looking to rent a parking spot. I recognize the city of Kitchener
allows/encourages reduced parking spaces, and in some areas it makes sense. That
being said, people drive cars and continue to drive cars, when there is no room in the
drive they park on the street, we are seeing this everywhere_ In this case maybe the
street during the day and Rockway Golf Course overnight? This property is located
where there is a slight turn on Rockway Drive, parking on the street will be a safety
issue for cars and pedestrians; there are no sidewalks on this street. Cars parked on
the street (residents or visitors) will force people to walk around them on the street.
This is a busy street with a high school where students are dropped off and picked up
daily, a golf course and Rockway Gardens within 1-2 blocks of this building. This is
Page 196 of 251
a safety issue. In this case, for this property, I believe more parking should be
available.
I am also concerned with flooding, the green space will be reduced significantly on
this property, our properties are on incline from the top of Rockway by the golf course
down to Dixon and there have been several instances where residents have
encountered flooding, for many more than once. Some residents have made some
changes installing pavers and stone and now receive storm water credits for making
changes allowing additional drainage, this should be highly considered. The green
space in our neighborhood is important to mitigate this from re -occurrence. I suspect
additional flooding would also impact to Schneider's Creek as well?
As I understand the waste management rules, this building / units will qualify for
curbside pick up. If there are 8 units, that is 8 bins for garbage and 16 for recycle,
effective March 2026, re -cycle will be reduced to every 2 weeks. We have existing
rodent concerns in this neighborhood to begin with there are numerous raccoons,
skunks and rats. I am aware of 4 properties in our area including my own where a
professional company has been hired to eliminate, mitigate or prevent issues on their
property. At least one property had an infestation of rats in their house. Garbage
has to be maintained to not create a bigger problem than we have. Garbage and
recycle from 8 units is way too much and very concerning on how that could even be
managed properly.
I think when a new building is coming into a neighborhood, it should be built to be
unified with the existing neighborhood. The building can be modern, but should fit
into the neighborhood with the other houses, exterior should be brick, attractive. I see
the letter with the application to the committee of adjustment references the intention
to maintain this however without details I'm not sure if we should have faith that will
occur. Who will monitor this, regardless of what is built on this property?
I was pleased the building height would be 2 story and I could support 4 nice sized
units with 4 parking spots allowing the developer to have a profit and 4 families to
have a nice unit to live in.
Neighbors privacy should be respected and protected at all costs. There is no reason
that the new residents should be looking into someone else's property or vice versa.
It should never be necessary for an existing resident to have to build a large wooden
fence to maintain their privacy.
My property corner butts this property and my house was built with many windows, I
have fears of being at the dinner table and looking into someone's apartment. I have
these fears as I have no idea what this building will look like.
I am aware of `bill C23'. I am also aware that there are thousands and thousands well
in excess of 30,000 approved building applications in Kitchener approved by our
council and planning teams where the shovel has not hit the ground as yet, four of
these 20+ towers are within two blocks of this property. I see an abundance of
apartment rentals in my neighborhood and throughout the city so I do not see any
urgency or need to have 8 units jammed into this building.
Page 197 of 251
This is my home and my neighborhood. I would be in favor of less more spacious
units, and more green space. These type of units would be welcomed by residents
ready to downsize from their house to an apartment.
At the end of the day, I would like to see a building that people will enjoy to live in, fits
in our neighborhood. I want to see a building that will ensure my properties value is
maintained or exceeded by the new building. I don't want the sale of my house
someday to be impeded by this building.
I would encourage the Committee of Adjustment to do what's right when decisions
are made, there are so many reasons to not do this. It's important to consider whether
it's appropriate or permissible for here. I thank you for taking my input and concerns
into consideration.
•Ti LTA UTO
Page 198 of 251