The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCA Agenda - 2026-02-171 KITc�ivER Committee of Adjustment Agenda Tuesday, February 17, 2026, 10:00 a.m. -12:00 p.m. Council Chambers City of Kitchener 200 King Street W, Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 (Pursuant to the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13, as amended, and Ontario Regulations 197/96 and 200/96, as amended) TAKE NOTICE THAT the Committee of Adjustment for the City of Kitchener will meet in Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, Kitchener City Hall, 200 King Street West, on Tuesday, FEBRUARY 17, 2026, commencing at 10:00 a.m. for the purpose of hearing the following applications for Minor Variance and/or Consent. Applicants or Agents must attend in support of the application. This is a public meeting. Anyone having an interest in any of these applications may make an oral submission at the meeting or provide a written submission for Committee consideration. Please note this is a public meeting and will be livestreamed and archived at www.kitchener.ca/watchnow. The complete agenda, including staff reports will be available online the Friday prior to the week of the meeting date. Pages 1. COMMENCEMENT 2. MINUTES 3. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF Members of Council and members of the City's local boards/committees are required to file a written statement when they have a conflict of interest. If a conflict is declared please visit www.kitchener.ca/conflict to submit your written form. 4. APPLICATIONS FOR MINOR VARIANCE AND/ OR CONSENT PURSUANT TO THE PLANNING ACT 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 5.1 A 2026-004 - 37 Heiman Street, DSD -2026-027 4 Requesting minor variances to permit a parking area to be located 0.5m from the westerly side lot line rather than the required 1.5m; to permit a lot width of 14.2m rather than the required 19m; and, to permit a southerly side yard setback of 2.3m rather than the required 3m to facilitate the development of a 3 -storey multiple dwelling having 6 dwelling units. 5.2 B 2025-032 - 776 Rockway Drive, DSD -2025-485 30 Requesting consent to sever a parcel of land having a width of 7.6m on Rockway Drive, a depth of 36.6m, and an area of 278.3sq.m. The retained land will also have a width of 7.6m on Rockway Drive, a depth of 36.6m, and an area of 277.9sq.m. The Consent Application will allow each half of a proposed Semi -Detached Dwelling having 3 Additional Dwelling Units (ADUs) (Attached) to be dealt with independently. The existing dwelling is proposed to be demolished. 5.3 B 2025-033 - 104 Brentwood Avenue, DSD -2025-486 111 Requesting consent to sever a parcel of land having a width of 7.6m on Brentwood Avenue, a depth of 36.6m, and an area of 277.9sq.m. The retained land will also have a width of 7.6m on Brentwood Avenue, a depth of 36.6m, and an area of 277.9sq.m. The Consent Application will allow each half of a proposed Semi -Detached Dwelling having 3 Additional Dwelling Units (ADUs) (Attached) to be dealt with independently. The existing dwelling is proposed to be demolished. 6. NEW BUSINESS 6.1 A 2026-009 - 451 Old Chicopee Trail, DSD -2026-064 159 Requesting a minor variance to permit a rear yard setback of 4.9m rather than the minimum required 7.5m to facilitate the construction of a new sunroom at the rear of the existing detached dwelling. 6.2 B 2026-001 -153 -155 Fifth Avenue, DSD -2026-057 169 Requesting consent to sever a parcel of land having a width of 7.6m on Fifth Avenue, a depth of 34.4m and an area of 262.1sq.m. The retained land will also have a width of 7.6m, a depth of 34.4m and an area of 262.1sq.m. The consent will allow each half of a'Semi-Detached Duplex Dwelling', currently under construction, to be dealt with independently. 7. ADJOURNMENT 8. PLANNING ACT INFORMATION • Additional information is available at the Legislated Services Department, 2nd Floor, Kitchener City Hall, 200 King Street West, Kitchener 519-741-2203 or by emailing CofA(a)kitchener.ca. Page 2 of 187 Copies of written submissions/public agencies' comments are available the Friday afternoon prior to the meeting on the City of Kitchener website www.kitchener.ca/meetings in the online Council and Committee calendar; see the meeting date for more details. Anyone having an interest in any of these applications may attend this meeting. Only the Applicant, Minister, specified person (as defined in Section 1 of the Planning Act) or public body that has an interest in the matter has the right to appeal of decisions of the Committee of Adjustment. These parties must make written submissions to the Committee prior to the Committee granting or refusing Provisional Consent otherwise, the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) may dismiss the appeal. Any personal information received in relation to this meeting is collected under the authority s. 28(2) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, and will be used by the City of Kitchener to process Committee of Adjustment applications. Questions about the collection of information should be directed to Marilyn Mills at marilyn.mills(a)kitchener.ca. If you wish to be notified of a decision, you must make a written request to the Secretary -Treasurer, Committee of Adjustment, Kitchener City Hall, 200 King St. W., Kitchener ON, N2G 4G7. The Notice of Hearing for this meeting was published in the Record on the 30th day of January, 2026. Marilyn Mills Secretary -Treasurer Committee of Adjustment Page 3 of 187 Staff Report r JR Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: January 20, 2026 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: January 5, 2026 REPORT NO.: DSD -2026-027 SUBJECT: Minor Variance Application A2026-004 - 37 Heiman Street RECOMMENDATION: That Minor Variance Application A2026-004 for 37 Heiman Street requesting relief from the following Sections of Zoning By-law 2019-051 to: i) Section 5.3 e) i), permit a parking area to be located 0.5 metres from a side lot line instead of the minimum required 1.5 metres; ii) Section 7.3, Table 7-6, to permit a lot width of 14.2 metres instead of the minimum required 19 metres; and iii) Section 7.3, Table 7-6, to permit a right side yard setback of 2.3 metres instead of the minimum required 3 metres; to facilitate the development of a 3 -storey multiple dwelling having 6 dwelling units in accordance drawings, dated December 11, 2025, prepared for a Zoning Occupancy Permit, BE DEFERRED until June 20, 2026 or sooner to allow the Applicant/Owner: i) To prepare a Scoped Environmental Impact Study (EIS) and Tree Management and Enhancement Plan (TMEP) to the satisfaction of the Director of Development and Housing Approvals; and ii) To satisfy the Conditions of the Grand River Conservation Authority as noted in their comments dated December 31, 2025. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: The purpose of this report is to assess Minor Variances requested to facilitate a plan to develop 37 Heiman Street with a 3 -storey, 6 unit multiple dwelling. The key finding of this report is that a decision on whether these variances are `minor' is premature until such time as a Scoped Environmental Impact Study (EIS) and Tree *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 4 of 187 Management and Enhancement Plan (TMP) have been submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Director of Development and Housing Approvals, and satisfaction of the Grand River Conservation Authority conditions. Therefore staff are recommending Deferral at this time. • This property was created through Consent Applications B2018-021 to B2018-023. Agreement WR1125863 was entered into requiring the preparation of a Tree Management and Enhancement Plan (TMP) and Scoped Environmental Impact Study (EIS) prior to issuance of a Building Permit. • 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 a vacant undeveloped parcel of land addressed as 37 Heiman Street (see Figure 1). This rectangular parcel of land was created through Consent Applications B2018-021 to B2018-023 with the intent of developing the property at a future date. Because there are trees on-site, the owner was required to enter into an Agreement with the City (WR1125863 — see attachment) as part of Consent Approval. The agreement requires the preparation of a Tree Management and Enhancement Plan (TMP) and Scoped Environmental Impact Study (EIS) prior to issuance of a Building Permit. When the agreement was entered into, it was anticipated that the development would require Site Plan Approval and these studies would have been required at this time to support the proposed development. The requested variances would have been reviewed and assessed as part of the Site Plan Approval process. In the absence of a Site Plan Application, as none is required, the studies need to be submitted as part of the review of this Minor Variance Application. Also, as the variances implement a plan that will remove and/or impact trees, staff feel it is imperative to require the environmental work upfront. The subject property is identified as `Community Areas' on Map 2 — Urban Structure and is designated `Low Rise Residential' on Map 3 — Land Use in the City's 2014 Official Plan. The rear portion of 37 Heiman Street is also within the Grand River Conservation Authority's Regulatory Limit. The property is zoned `Low Rise Residential Five Zone (RES -5)' in Zoning By-law 2019- 051. Page 5 of 187 Figure 1 — Subject Property (outlined in red) and Surrounding Lands Figure 2 — Photograph of Subject Property The purpose of the application is to seek approval of 3 variances for the existing lot width, the side yard setback to a parking area and the side yard setback for a multiple dwelling, which are required to facilitate the plan shown in Figure 3 below: Page 6 of 187 Figure 3 — Proposed Site Plan REPORT: Planning Comments: Staff is recommending Deferral so that the applicant can prepare the required Scoped EIS and TMP as required through Agreement (WR1125863) to support his request for the Minor Variances and built form under consideration. A 6 month Deferral, (or sooner if the reports are completed and reviewed in advance), is suggested so that the Applicant/Owner has time to prepare the necessary work and for staff to review it and report back to Committee. The Deferral would also allow satisfaction of the GRCA comments/conditions. Environmental Planning Comments: A Tree Management and Enhancement Plan (TMP) and Scoped Environmental Impact Study (EIS) is required through Agreement (WR1125863). Heritage Planning Comments: No comments or concerns. Building Division Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance provided a building permit for the 6 -unit residential building is obtained prior to construction. Please contact the Building Division at building(a)kitchener.ca with any questions. Engineering Division Comments: No concerns. Parks and Cemeteries/Forestry Division Comments: Cash -in -lieu of parkland dedication will be required prior to issuance of a building permit. No other concerns or requirements. Page 7 of 187 Y _ Reduced Side Yard Setback Wo WERE '� £ •.: ME 09� J� ninu��iiitm MEN Room ME 'WE no u W, i - uu ii 1 �Yll�ll fl� ii ■F �pµ:.rq��{ ..;. WEED.. Nom a MEN MEQ Reduced Setback to Parking Area Figure 3 — Proposed Site Plan REPORT: Planning Comments: Staff is recommending Deferral so that the applicant can prepare the required Scoped EIS and TMP as required through Agreement (WR1125863) to support his request for the Minor Variances and built form under consideration. A 6 month Deferral, (or sooner if the reports are completed and reviewed in advance), is suggested so that the Applicant/Owner has time to prepare the necessary work and for staff to review it and report back to Committee. The Deferral would also allow satisfaction of the GRCA comments/conditions. Environmental Planning Comments: A Tree Management and Enhancement Plan (TMP) and Scoped Environmental Impact Study (EIS) is required through Agreement (WR1125863). Heritage Planning Comments: No comments or concerns. Building Division Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance provided a building permit for the 6 -unit residential building is obtained prior to construction. Please contact the Building Division at building(a)kitchener.ca with any questions. Engineering Division Comments: No concerns. Parks and Cemeteries/Forestry Division Comments: Cash -in -lieu of parkland dedication will be required prior to issuance of a building permit. No other concerns or requirements. Page 7 of 187 Transportation Planning Comments: Transportation Services have no concerns with this application but note that drivers are expected to face some delays as the proposed drive aisle can only facilitate one direction of vehicle travel at a time. The wider area near the parking spaces will help facilitate an approximate 5 -point turn if all parking spaces are occupied to allow a vehicle to exit the site in a forward motion. GRCA Comments: The GRCA has reviewed this application under Ontario Regulation 686/21, acting on behalf of the Province regarding natural hazards identified in Section 5.2 of the Provincial Planning Statement (PPS, 2024), as a public body under the Planning Act, as well as in accordance with Ontario Regulation 41/24 and GRCA's Board approved policies. Information currently available at our office indicates that the subject lands contain the Shoemaker Creek floodplain. This portion of the floodplain is a Two -Zone Policy Area. The Regulatory Floodplain Elevation (RFE) for the property is 321.8 metres (CGVD28). The proposed building elevations indicate the top of the ground floor will be 425.75 metres, which seems implausible, but no vertical datum is cited. The site plan also appears to show all development will be outside of the floodway portion of the floodplain, but GRCA staff cannot be certain without grading details and a higher resolution drawing that does not blur the measurement text. These issues will need to be corrected in the final drawings. The proposed building and associated grading must be above the RFE, and all development activity is outside of the floodway, in accordance with City of Kitchener Official Plan Policies 6.C.2.5(c)(i) and 6.C.2.7(b), as well as GRCA Policies 8.1.30 and 8.1.31. In order to demonstrate meeting these policies, the GRCA will require the following plans, all of which must note the horizontal and vertical datums (e.g., NAD83 UTM Zone 17, CGVD28): A Topographic Survey, completed by an Ontario Licensed Surveyor, showing the extent of the Regulatory Floodplain Elevation (RFE) as per the surveyor's measurements. 2.A Grading Plan showing: a) The floodway/flood fringe boundary as derived directly from our floodplain layer, which can be downloaded from the Grand River Information Network at https://data.grandriver.ca/. b) The post -development extent of the Regulatory Floodplain Elevation (RFE), sufficiently floodproofing the building and driveway/ parking. 3. Building plans and cross-sections (i.e., a revised version of building plan A-300), showing corrected geodetic floor elevations, and with all floor space above the Regulatory Floodplain Elevation (RFE). The GRCA has confidence that the applicant can revise their plans accordingly to demonstrate the above. As such, the GRCA recommends approving the application Page 8 of 187 conditional on providing these plans to the GRCA's satisfaction, as well as obtaining a GRCA permit. Region of Waterloo Comments; No concerns. Six Nations of the Grand River Elected Council (SNGREC) Comments: 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 using warmer lights that are directed downwards and away from natural areas. Hundreds of millions of birds are killed by windows in North America each year, with 56% being from low-rise residential, thus this request extends to all sizes of development. (https://ontarionature.org/sustainable-building-design-can-stop-millions-of-birds-deaths- blog/). 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/2017/08/8d 1 c-Bird- Friend ly-Best-Practices- Glass.pdf https://www. toronto.ca/wp-content/upload s/2018/03/8ff6-city-pIan ning- bird-effective- lightinq.pdf STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Committee of Adjustment meeting. A notice sign was placed on the property advising that a Committee of Adjustment application has been received. The sign advises interested parties to find additional information on the City's website or by emailing the Planning Division. A notice of the application was mailed to all property owners within 30 metres of the subject property. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Planning Act • Provincial Planning Statement (PPS 2024) • Regional Official Plan • Official Plan (2014) Page 9 of 187 • Zoning By-law 2019-051 • Planning Report for 82018-021 to 82018-023 ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Agreement WR1125863 Page 10 of 187 Region of Waterloo January 9, 2026 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 December 9, City of Kitchener Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and have the following comments: 1) A 2026-001 — 532 Courtland Avenue East — No Concerns 2) A 2026-002 — 546 Courtland Avenue East — No Concerns 3) A 2026-003 — 4417 King Street East — It is unclear if this application will result in an impact on the water supply. Please be advised that the Region is currently updating the Water Supply Strategy. We wish to bring to your attention that through this work, concerns have been identified regarding water servicing capacity within the Mannheim Service Area. Regional staff are currently undertaking work to better understand the magnitude of the concerns. As such, we note that subsection 3(5) of the Planning Act requires that decisions made by approval authorities be consistent with the policies of the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS) including those polices found in s. 3.6 of the PPS relating to water services. 4) A 2026-004 — 37 Heiman Street — No Concerns 5) A 2026-005 — 1541 Fischer -Hallman Boulevard — No Concerns 6) A 2026-006 — 235 Hoffman Street — No Concerns 7) A 2026-007 — 56 Woolwich Street — No Concerns 8) A 2026-008 — 14 Sportsman Hill Street — 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: 5169327 Page 11 of 187 Please forward any decisions on the above-mentioned Application numbers to the undersigned. Yours Truly, Ck"'r9 L m a-rc'-y Cheryl Marcy Manager, Corridor Development Document Number: 5169327 Page 12 of 187 �tarid R��t 0 7 ��~yetian p��r December 31, 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 Committee of Adjustment City of Kitchener 200 King Street West Kitchener ON N2G 4V6 CofA(a)kitchener.ca Re: Minor Variance Application A2026-004 37 Heiman Street, Kitchener Shanaya Ventures Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) staff have reviewed the above -noted application for variances to facilitate a six -unit multiple dwelling. Recommendation The GRCA recommends that the application is approved subject to the following condition: • Prior to any grading or construction on the site, the owners or their agents submit the following to the satisfaction of the Grand River Conservation Authority. a. A topographic survey by an Ontario Licensed Surveyor; b. A detailed grading plan; c. Building plans and cross-sections; d. The submission and approval of a Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Permit from the Grand River Conservation Authority. Documents Reviewed by Staff Staff have reviewed the site and building plans (Khalsa Design, dated December 11, 2025) submitted with this application. This follows our August 3, 2021 pre -consultation comments. Page 1 of 3 Member of Conservation Ontario, representing Ontario's 36 Conservation Authorities I The Grand — A Canadian Heritage River Page 13 of 187 GRCA Comments The GRCA has reviewed this application under Ontario Regulation 686/21, acting on behalf of the Province regarding natural hazards identified in Section 5.2 of the Provincial Planning Statement (PPS, 2024), as a public body under the Planning Act, as well as in accordance with Ontario Regulation 41/24 and GRCA's Board approved policies. Information currently available at our office indicates that the subject lands contain the Shoemaker Creek floodplain. This portion of the floodplain is a Two -Zone Policy Area. The regulatory floodplain elevation (RFE) for the property is 321.8 metres (CGVD28). The proposed building elevations indicate the top of the ground floor will be 425.75 metres, which seems implausible, but no vertical datum is cited. The site plan also appears to show all development will be outside of the floodway portion of the floodplain, but GRCA staff cannot be certain without grading details and a higher resolution drawing that does not blur the measurement text. These issues will need to be corrected in the final drawings. The proposed building and associated grading must be above the RFE, and all development activity is outside of the floodway, in accordance with City of Kitchener Official Plan Policies 6.C.2.5(c)(i) and 6.C.2.7(b), as well as GRCA Policies 8.1.30 and 8.1.31. In order to demonstrate meeting these policies, the GRCA will require the following plans, all of which must note the horizontal and vertical datums (e.g. NAD83 UTM Zone 17, CGVD28): A topographic survey, completed by an Ontario Licensed Surveyor, showing the extent of the RFE as per the surveyor's measurements. 2. A grading plan, showing: a. The floodway/flood fringe boundary as derived directly from our floodplain layer, which can be downloaded from the Grand River Information Network at https://data.grandriver.ca/. b. The post -development extent of the RFE, sufficiently floodproofing the building and driveway / parking. 3. Building plans and cross-sections (i.e. a revised version of building plan A-300), showing corrected geodetic floor elevations, and with all floor space above the RFE. The GRCA has confidence that the applicant can revise their plans accordingly to demonstrate the above. As such, the GRCA recommends approving the application Page 2 of 3 Page 14 of 187 conditional on providing these plans to the GRCA's satisfaction, as well as obtaining a GRCA permit. This is considered a `minor' minor variance application. Consistent with GRCA's 2023- 2025 approved fee schedule, we will invoice the applicant $300 for our review. A separate fee will be required for a GRCA permit. We trust this information is of assistance. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at 519-621-2761 ext. 2292 or theywood(a)grand river. ca. Sincerely, Trevor Heywood Resource Planner Grand River Conservation Authority Encl. Resource Mapping cc: Sharath Samudrala Amritpal Bansal, Khalsa Design Page 3 of 3 Page 15 of 187 L_ o~ O N _ L _ U 7 _y LL ^♦ Q {tel ,,'yy4 < ,y L It V C U o Y 5Ua c� m m 70 0c •L c ~ 0 w 4 co co � a � a T .T [ i CU E L} a 0 a LX of r cr 0 d w " C] QaCD o _ W W W W tl] m tl] tl] CV) ,Fo w w < W CJ7 O G7 Y Y Y Y O ir a of CC a n I m o a o LL fs7 U7 ' N .`d �-a t � - 4 r� c ANN, gyp- �°iwa4 � G �t oel t '?X y� _rho - u _= E O -� �.O O O - ow>mN �m �J ° 5:a au _ 0_� v im ) o - o U wo Q 0 O Z Fm m'E c 1. > > - T -- $w U Or o-2 u E Ftp y� From: Emmett Vanson To: Committee of Adiustment (SM) Cc: Peter Graham Subject: SNGREC Comments Re: Kitchener January CofA Date: Monday, January 5, 2026 1:56:45 PM Attachments: Outlook-kexd Ifm 1. ona Hello, The following are my comments for the January CofA for Kitchener. Comments are separated by a bold and underlined heading with addresses, and I have combined multiple applications to receive the same comment. For 532 and 546 Courtland Ave 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 usingwarmer lights that are directed downwards and away from natural areas. 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: httDs://www.toronto.ca/wD-content/ualoads/2017/08/8dl c-Bird-Friend ly- Best- Practices- Glass.pdf httDs://www.toronto.ca/wr)-content/ur)[oads/201 8/03/8ff6-citv-r)[anning-bird-effective- hting.pdf Landscaping SNGREC requires that native plant species are prioritized in landscaping efforts, and that invasive or potentially invasive species are completely avoided. Non-native species are less ecologically beneficial, and some non-native species can become invasive even after decades of seeming fine. SNGREC requires an opportunity to review any landscape plant lists before procurement begins. SNGREC requests that the proponent uses Kayanase Plant Nursery for procurement of plants if Kayanase's capacity allows. SNGREC strongly encourages the creation of pollinator gardens using native plant species in landscaped areas not intended for human movement. Pollinator gardens can offer food, breeding space, and sanctuary for pollinators that are harmed by human expansion as they lose functional habitat, and their remaining habitat becomes more fragmented. Pollinator gardens will also increase the visual attractiveness of the area. For 56 Woolwich St. 14 Sportsman Hill St. 1541 Fischer -Hallman St. 37 Heiman St Bird and Light Friendly Design Page 17 of 187 SNGREC requests that the building is designed using bird and light friendly practices. This includes minimizing reflective surfaces, creating visual markers on windows, and using warmer lights that are directed downwards and away from natural areas. Hundreds of millions of birds are killed by windows in North America each year, with 56% being from low-rise residential, thus this request extends to all sizes of development (https://ontarionature.org/sustainable-buildin.E�- desi n-can-stop-millions-of-birds-deaths-blog/). 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/2017/08/8d1 c-Bird-Friendly-Best-Practices- Glass.pdf https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/8ff6-city_planningf-bird-effective- lightin df Nia:wen (thank you), Emmett Vanson, BSc., Grad. Cert. (he/him) Land Use and Stewardship Technician Six Nations of the Grand River Elected Council- Lands and Resources Department - Consultation and Accommodation Process Team lrlust@sixnations.ca ,ATI Confidentiality Notice: This email, including any attachments, is for the sole purpose oft he intended recipients and may contain private, confidential, and privileged information. Any unauthorized review; use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. Ifyou are notthe intended recipient orthis information has been inappropriately forwarded to you, please contactthe sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original. Page 18 of 187 Subject: Concerns Regarding Proposed Variances for 37 Heiman Street Dear Committee, I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed minor variances for the property located at 37 Heiman Street, particularly as an adjacent property owner. I believe these changes could potentially affect not only my property but also the broader neighborhood. One of my primary concerns is related to the reduction in the setback for the parking lot, which is proposed to decrease from the minimum requirement of 1.5 meters to just 0.5 meters. This reduction places the parking lot significantly closer to the property line than what is typically allowed, raising potential privacy and aesthetic issues. Furthermore, the request to decrease the minimum frontage from 19 meters to 14.2 meters for a six -unit dwelling raises additional concerns about adequate space and infrastructure. With each unit potentially requiring parking for at least one or two vehicles, the current plan might not provide sufficient parking space, forcing overflow parking onto the already crowded city street. This is particularly troubling given the existing parking challenges with the two units on the property. The proposed changes, which fall below the established minimum standards, could have adverse effects on property values and the quality of life in the neighborhood. For these reasons, I strongly object to the proposed variances and urge careful reconsideration of these plans to ensure they align with community standards and expectations. Thank you for considering my concerns. I look forward to your response and am willing to discuss this matter further. Sincerely, Tammy Loree Page 19 of 187 From: To: Committee of Adiustment (SM) Cc: Subject: RE: Committee of Adjustment Meeting Date: Friday, February 13, 2026 10:42:55 AM Attachments: imaae001.ona imaae002.ona Form left at front door.odf Hello Committee, I'm unable to attend the meeting due to a prior commitment; however, I am actively working to have it rescheduled so that I can be present. In the meantime, I want to address several concerns that require immediate clarification. Two pieces of paper were left at my front door—presumably by the vacant property owner—without any prior communication, explanation, or discussion. There was no justification provided for the request, only an expectation that I complete the documents. This approach is unacceptable and does not allow for proper consultation with an adjacent property owner directly impacted by these actions. Upon reviewing the situation, I examined the placement of my tree relative to the fence and noted that it contains an active bird's nest. The sudden demand regarding my tree appears directly related to the modifications submitted by the property owner, and it is clear that my tree affects their ability to meet the recommended standards. It should be noted that mature trees in our city are increasingly rare, and they serve a critical role in providing habitat, environmental benefits, and maintaining the character of the neighborhood. As the property owner most immediately affected by these proposed changes, I am strongly opposed to any reduction in the required standards. Lowering these requirements would have a direct negative impact on my property, the environment, and the overall quality of the neighborhood. These concerns must be considered before any approval is granted. This is what I originally submitted regarding the notice received: Dear Committee, I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed minor variances for the property located at 37 Heiman Street, particularly as an adjacent property owner. I believe these changes could potentially affect not only my property but also the broader neighborhood. One of my primary concerns is related to the reduction in the setback for the parking lot, which is proposed to decrease from the minimum requirement of 1.5 meters to just 0.5 meters. This reduction places the parking lot significantly closer to the property line than what is typically allowed, raising potential privacy and aesthetic issues. Page 20 of 187 Furthermore, the request to decrease the minimum frontage from 19 meters to 14.2 meters for a six - unit dwelling raises additional concerns about adequate space and infrastructure. With each unit potentially requiting parking for at least one or two vehicles, the current plan might not provide sufficient parking space, forcing overflow parking onto the already crowded city street. This is particularly troubling given the existing parking challenges with the two units on the property. The proposed changes, which fall below the established minimum standards, could have adverse effects on property values and the quality of life in the neighborhood. For these reasons, I strongly object to the proposed variances and urge careful reconsideration of these plans to ensure they align with community standards and expectations. Thank you for considering my concerns. I look forward to your response and am willuig to discuss this matter fitrther. Best regards, ,Tanury Page 21 of 187 From: Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2026 11:06 AM To:'cofa@kitchener.ca' <cofa@kitchener.ca> Cc: Subject: Committee of Adjustment Meeting Subject: Concerns Regarding Proposed Variances for 37 Heiman Street Dear Committee, I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed minor variances for the property located at 37 Heiman Street, particularly as an adjacent property owner. I believe these changes could potentially affect not only my property but also the broader neighborhood. One of my primary concerns is related to the reduction in the setback for the parking lot, which is proposed to decrease from the minimum requirement of 1.5 meters to just 0.5 meters. This reduction places the parking lot significantly closer to the property line than what is typically allowed, raising potential privacy and aesthetic issues. Furthermore, the request to decrease the minimum frontage from 19 meters to 14.2 Page 22 of 187 meters for a six -unit dwelling raises additional concerns about adequate space and infrastructure. With each unit potentially requiring parking for at least one or two vehicles, the current plan might not provide sufficient parking space, forcing overflow parking onto the already crowded city street. This is particularly troubling given the existing parking challenges with the two units on the property. The proposed changes, which fall below the established minimum standards, could have adverse effects on property values and the quality of life in the neighborhood. For these reasons, I strongly object to the proposed variances and urge careful reconsideration of these plans to ensure they align with community standards and expectations. Thank you for considering my concerns. I look forward to your response and am willing to discuss this matter further. Sincerely, Tammy Loree Page 23 of 187 � v 3 fZS W. � .t �_ • � •f mme [ r di y r kC P ! y t ¢�3lR�R Cg m RIYA I -tet r r � i I r , if 08 i _ 1 k1 { l k k , f , 1 i 1 1 r 1 f 1 r r I T �k � v 3 fZS W. � .t �_ • � •f mme [ r di y r kC P ! y t ¢�3lR�R Cg m RIYA Declaration of Adjacent Property Owner This declaration is required when the trunk of the tree(s) at ground level straddles or is bisected by the property line of the lot, known as a "boundary tree". residing at (print name) (print address) certify that: I/We have read and understand the required procedures under the provisions of the City of Kitchener's Private Tree Protection 6y -Law. I/we hereby certify that the information and plans provided are correct and truly indicate my/our intentions respecting the proposed work. In submitting this application form, I/we consent and agree to allow City of Kitchener employees to enter onto the property for the purpose of conducting any inspections required. Signature of Adjacent Property owner Date Page 25 of 187 Page 26 of 187 4;7Y M- 1* Page 27 of 1 P a Staff 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 30 of 187 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 31 of 187 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 32 of 187 JL Al P ,�. f•. �' 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 34 of 187 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'1 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 35 of 187 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 35 of 187 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 36 of 187 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 37 of 187 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 38 of 187 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 39 of 187 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 40 of 187 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: D20-20/26 KIT January 7, 2026 Re: Comments on Consent Applications — B 2025-032 to B2025-035 (inclusive) Committee of Adjustment Meeting — January 20, 2026 City of Kitchener Page 41 of 187 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 per 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 42 of 187 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 43 of 187 The Region is in the process of updating its Water Supply Strategy. Through this work, concerns have been identified regarding water servicing capacity within the Mannheim Service Area. Regional staff are working expeditiously to evaluate the situation and understand the magnitude of the concerns to be able to provide comments relating to water servicing capacity. As such, the Region is not in a position to support approval of applications, B 2025-032 and B2025-033, at this time, and the following comments are provided for information purposes. Page 44 of 187 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. Page 45 of 187 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. Page 46 of 187 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 47 of 187 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 48 of 187 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 49 of 187 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 50 of 187 From: Nembhard. O"Neil (MTO) To: Committee of Adiustment (SM) Subject: RE: Agenda - Committee of Adjustment - Tuesday, February 17, 2026 Date: Friday, January 30, 2026 2:26:23 PM Attachments: imaoe001.ono Good day, The Ministry of Transportation (MTO) has no requirements for the following applications. The subject properties are located beyond MTO's Permit Control Area (PCA) and as such no MTO review, approval and permits will be required. 1. A 2026-004 - 37 Heiman Street, DSD -2026-027 2. B 2025-033 - 104 Brentwood Avenue, DSD -2025-486 The subject property at 776 Rockway Drive (B 2025-032- 776 Rockway Drive -DSD- 2025-485), is located within MTO PCA, however MTO has no objection to the proposed severance. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment Regards, O'Neil Nembhard Corridor Management Planner I Operation West I Operations Division Ministry of Transportation Ontario I Ontario Public Service 548-388-25711 o'neiL.nembhard Qontario.ca Ontario Taking pride in strengthening Ontario, its places and its people Please note the Ministry no longer accepts Land Development review requests though its email system. All Land Development Review requests to the Ministry must be submitted to the Ministry of Transportation through the Highway Corridor Management Online portal at: https://www.hcros.mto.gov.on.ca/landdev/en/land-development The Land Development Review module is designed to better serve stakeholders through streamlining all land development planning approvals by the Ministry. From: Committee of Adjustment (SM) <CommitteeofAdjustment@kitchen er.ca> Sent: Friday, January 30, 2026 11:36 AM To: Committee of Adjustment (SM) <CommitteeofAdjustment@kitchen er.ca> Subject: Agenda - Committee of Adjustment - Tuesday, February 17, 2026 CAUTION -- EXTERNAL E-MAIL - Do not click links or open attachments unless you Page 51 of 187 recognize the sender. Good morning, The agenda for the February 17, 2026 Committee of Adjustment meeting is now available on our Council/Committee calendar. The combined agenda with reports will be posted to the meeting calendar by noon on Friday, February 13, 2026. Connie Owen Administrative Clerk I Legislated Services I City of Kitchener 519-741-2203 1 TTY 1-866-969-99941 cofa(cbkitchener.ca Page 52 of 187 From: Joseph, Shadae To: Committee of Adiustment (SM) Subject: 519-25-115 - Consent Application 82025-032 - 776 Rockway Drive Date: Monday, December 8, 2025 12:20:26 PM IYou don't often get email from shadae.duhaney@bell.ca. Learn why this is important Good afternoon, Bell Canada has no concerns with respect to Application for Consent B2025-032, regarding 776 Rockway Drive. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you, ShadaeJoseph Page 53 of 187 From: To: Subject: Date: Hello, LANDUSEPLANNING Committee of Adiustment (SM) KITCHENER - 776 Rockway- 82025-032 Monday, December 15, 2025 10:47:36 AM We are in receipt of your Application for Consent, B2025-032 dated 2025-11-14. 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 subdivision@Hydroone.com or 1-866-272-3330. To confirm if Hydro One is your local distributor please follow the following link: Stonncentre (hydroone.com) Please select "Search" and locate the address in question by entering the address or by zooming in and out of the leap ? a MENU HELP SEARCH I hyd tune Customers Affected:0 15000 501-5000 0 51-500 0 21-50 V e=20 0 Multiple ® Crew —Service Area u sir Q0ttaw Montreal �� V. ® r Hunt:5veli2 417 417 40Q 17 � o 5 C, rd� � O 4ifi A 0Orlin Kawartha aoa � Lakes vis ° & P2t2rh ,Ugi 0 Kin 9ell�ville � s 115 nflCeo dWaf Watertown '4° ' a 5 Lzranlpltono Toronto o o Kitchei r � ar,o o o Mississauga a , Hamilton Rochester 4031 Mao data 92019 GDcale 50 km 6____J Terms of Use If you have any further questions or inquiries, please contact Customer Service at 1-888-664-9376 or e-mail CustomerCommunicationsgHydroOne.com to be connected to your Local Operations Centre If you have any questions please feel free to contact Land Use Planning. Thank you, Land Use Planning Department Hydro One Networks Inc. Email: LandUsePlanninggHydroOne_com Burlir Page 54 of 187 From: To: Committee of Adiustment (SM) Subject: Proposed Severance of lot at 776 ROCKWAY Dr KITCHENER Date: Sunday, January 18, 2026 11:53:07 PM [You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LeamAboutSenderldentification ] Andrew Prokopowycz For ATTENTION of the COMMITTEE of ADJUSTMENT I have lived on Rockway Dr for over 40 years and do not support or agree with the proposed severance and build at 776 Rockway Dr. Kitchener. There is already so much traffic on this street and at times there's speeding up to 80kph! Cars are always parking on the street making it difficult for pedestrians to navigate (there are no sidewalks) and for residents to get in and out of driveways. A new build with 8 units and their visitors would only add to the existing traffic and parking on the street, causing chaos! It is difficult now for the city to effectively plow snow due to the number of cars that still park on the street in the winter. Would it not make sense for the owner of 776 Rockway to rent the home instead of demolishing it? An 8 unit complex is not a good fit for this older neighborhood and would affect the privacy of all the surrounding neighbours. Please consider denying this proposal for the severance and build on the lot at 776 Rockway Dr. Kitchener. Thank you, Andrew Prokopowycz Sent from my iPhone Page 55 of 187 From: To: Committee of Rdiustment (SM) Subject. Re: 776 Rockway - b20254032 Date: Monday, December B, 2025 10:30:43 PM IYou don't often get email from . Learn why this is important I am writing to formally object to the proposed demolition of the existing home at 776 Rockway Drive, Kitchener and the construction of a semi-detached home consisting of S units. As a long standing resident of this neighbourhood - 37 years to be exact I am deeply concerned about the negative impact this will have on the surrounding area in particular I would like to highlight the following concerns. First, the proposed development will significantly increase traffic and parking congestion on a street that was not designed to accommodate that voltune of vehicles. This creates safety risks for pedestrians and residents and will make everyday access to driveways and homes more difficult. Second the existing infrastructure in this area including water, sewer and storm water systems was designed for low density residential use. A project of this scale risks overloading these systems and increases including the likelihood of flooding, sewer backups and service disruptions. Third an S unit building would be out of character with the established streetscape. The neighbourhood is primarily made up of single-family homes and this development would drastically alter the scale, design and visual harmony of the street. Fourth, the increased density will result in more noise, light pollution and reduced privacy for adjacent properties. The height and massing of the proposed building will create overlook and shadowing impacts that directly affect neighbouring homeowners. Finally, this type of intensified development will negatively affect nearby property values by changing the character and livability of the neighbourhood. For these reasons I respectfully request that the City of Kitchener deny or substantially reconsider this application. Sincerely, Denise & Ian Kerr Page 56 of 187 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 57 of 187 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 58 of 187 November 27, 2025 This letter addresses my concerns/opposition regarding the Application B 2025-032-776 Rockway Drive, where by the applicant is requesting to sever a parcel of land into 2 parcels or units? which will result in a 7.6m x 36.6m semi build on each parcel; with 3ADU's attached to be dealt with independently, and the existing dwelling demolished. Having been in this, (as real estate agents often list it as) "well sought after" neighbourhood for more than 3 decades, my family born and raised in this neighbourhood, and continue to live, my greatest concern is the potential for how this property will change the desired appeal and landscape of Rockway and its value as a future "well sought after" neighbourhood. While I am not opposed to changing the existing homes by maintaining, improving and also if necessary building new additions to homes, I am concerned with the introduction of allowing "any type of building, any number of buildings and any style of building" approach to change the properties on this street. Presently the bungalow, 1 '/2 stories, etc., on the street give a continuity to the neighbourhood. Larger buildings are on corner lots. More recently the allowance of basement rentals, (duplexing and 3 rentals allowances), 2 story semis in the neighbourhood, like on Plymouth, Doon, Rockway/boon, have begun to impact our streets with overflow parking, privacy issues due to height differences, and space issues. As well, the "rental unit" often tends to be under -maintained, or becomes an airbnb situation, raising other concerns, noise, transients, damage to property etc. Historically, and for the future rebuilding of the neighbourhood and amenities, there should be a clear and consistent look, size of property, intended functionality, and rebuilding plan that resembles the continuity and landscape that is present and expected today for any new build neighbourhoods—unified in appearance, respecting the environment, similar architecture etc. The newer built semi on the corner of Rockway and Doon is two storey and seems to blend with area: brick, landscaped and fenced properly, etc., although it does infringe on privacy for the neighbours via backyards. Again it is a corner lot, it does not have 5+ surrounding neighbours as this build would. My question as well is what does "dealt with independently" mean, in the case of 3 ADU's? And, why is there no basement? Garage (storage???) What will it look like??? Rockway Drive should maintain its original purpose, housing families with long term intentions, who own and care for property with pride and long term intentions, and who can enjoy a decent space for decades. Studio apartments, etc. does not ensure or guarantee permanency in living arrangements in this neighbourhood (transiency, rentals, airbnb) instead it usually invites the opposite in the aftermath of its build; by-law infractions, safety issues, and an undesirable area to live. What does this do to property value? It is my hope that this application is denied unless the landscape remains the same, respects house type, landscape, lot size and house design -the standard like that which was ensured when the neighbourhood began. Keeping its historical value, character of the area, environment, and landscape integrity is essential. At minimum, I would support a semi property, not higher than the present stories nearby, with 2 units in each. Joanne Cahill Page 59 of 187 From: To: Committee of Adjustment (SM) Subject: PROPOSED SEVERANCE of LOT at 776 ROCKWAY Dr KITCHENER Date: Wednesday, ]anuary 14, 2026 11:28:51 AM IYou don't often get email from . Learn why this is Important Judy Prokopowycz, To the MEMBERS of the C[7MMITT'EE of ADJUSTMENT Please consider this letter expressing concerns regarding the proposed severance of the property at 776 Rock -way Dr Kitchener. I cannot support this severance into 2 lots for the following reasons: This build would degrade the integrity of our neighborhood and invade the privacy of surrounding neighbors. The demolition of a perfectly good home and replacing much of the greenspace with concrete could be an issue for future flooding on the street. There is an existing safety issue already with the amount of traffic and speeding taking place on Rockway Dr. It's dangerous at times trying to get in and out of our driveways. Cars are always parked on the street and there are no sidewalks for pedestrians to safely use. With eight more units and their visitors bringing more traffic and parking on the street, the safety of pedestrians and residents would be exponentially worse. The water issue the City of Kitchener is facing with not enough water for future builds is concerning. Would the aging infrastructure in our neighborhood even support the extra water usage and sewage this build would bring? The new curbside collection that will be starting in March gives rise to another question. Where will all the waste containers for eight units fit for pickup? Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Judy Prokopowycz Page 60 of 187 Frons: To: Committee of Adiustment (5M) Subject: 776 Rockway Drive, Kitchener, on - Consent Application Date: Friday, December 5, 2025 4:02:06 RM You don't often get email from . Learn why this isim op rtant Kirk Greenwood Re: 776 Rockway Drive. Kitchener, On – Consent Application Members of the Committee of Adjustment, This letter has been prepared to express non-support for the application to sever the property at 776 Rockway Drive Into two separate lots. While it is understood that, according to current zoning bylaws, the property is considered oversized and aligns with federal and provincial housing goals under Bill 23, the proposed severance and construction of two 2 -storey, semi-detached duplex developments does not respect the integrity or character of this older, well- established neighbourhood in Kitchener's East Ward. This area is uniquely situated near Rockway Gardens and the Rockway Golf Course, and the proposed development does not adequately consider the impact on the long-term residents— many of whom have lived here for over 30 years—or on the already aging infrastructure. After canvassing the neighbourhood, the consensus is that this proposal does not represent positive redevelopment or an appropriate use of the land, given the location and character of the surrounding community. The proposal includes two semi-detached buildings, each containing four units—two units per floor—with five bedrooms in each building, for a total of eight rental units and ten bedrooms_ Each lot would provide only two tandem parking spaces for a building containing four units. This leaves four rental units with no onsite parking, which raises several concerns: • Overflow street parking on a road with no sidewalks, creating safety issues for pedestrians and children who must navigate around parked vehicles. ■ Winter parking challenges due to municipal no -street -parking bylaws_ • Limited options for snow removal, as the development is proposed to span from property line to property line, leaving no buffer or storage space for snow. Additionally, zoning bylaws require only a minimum of 20% landscaped space in the front yard. With eight units, questions arise regarding where garbage and recycling will be placed for curbside collection, especially with the Region's new waste Page 61 of 187 management program beginning in the new year. It is also unclear where garbage and recycling containers will be stored on non -collection days. For these reasons, I respectfully ask the Committee to consider the neighbourhood's concerns and deny the application for severance of 776 Rockway Drive. Thank you for your consideration. Kirk Greenwood Regards, Kirk Greenwood Page 62 of 187 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 63 of 187 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 64 of 187 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 65 of 187 From: To: Committee of Adiustment (SM) Subject: Application No B 2[125-032 Date: Sunday, December T, 2025 8:11:04 PM IYou don't often get email from . Learn why this is im on rtant Lindsay Shantz December 7, 2025 Committee of Adjustment City of Kitchener 200 King Street West Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Re: Opposition to Proposed Severance at 776 Rockway Drive Dear Members of the Committee, I am writing as the owner and resident of , across from 776 Rockway Drive, to express my opposition to the proposed severance and redevelopment that would replace the existing single detached home with two four-plex buildings containing eight units. I have lived on Rockway Drive for five years, and I walk my dog through this neighbourhood two to three times daily. This gives me a close, everyday understanding of how the street functions and how people use it. Rockway Drive is a friendly and cooperative community, and its quiet residential character is an important part of what makes it such a pleasant place to live. Parking is already a sensitive issue on our street. Since there are no sidewalks, all pedestrians including myself when walking my dog—use the roadway. To maintain safety, the neighbourhood has worked together to keep cars off the street as much as possible. My neighbour on one side often parks at the end of my driveway with my permission, and my neighbour on the other side regularly makes room for additional vehicles in their driveway for other households. This informal system helps preserve safety and visibility, but it functions only because our street consists of low-density homes. Adding eight units will introduce a number of new vehicles that simply cannot be accommodated without significant on -street Parking - This is especially concerning because our street curves, and visibility when backing out of my driveway is already limited. Any additional cars parked on or near the curve would further obstruct sightlines. As someone who exits my driveway multiple times each day—and who walks my dog along that same curveI am very worried about the increased risk of collisions or near misses. The combination of no sidewalks, a bend in the road, and more vehicles is unsafe, both for drivers and for pedestrians who must use the roadway. Winter conditions are likely to make this even more hazardous. The road narrows with snowbanks, and there is limited room on the proposed property for snow storage. Snow often Page 66 of 187 ends up pushed onto the street when lots are overbuilt, which would further constrict visibility and road space. I am also concerned about the loss of greenspace on the lot. Replacing the existing home with two multi -unit buildings and expanded parking areas will significantly reduce permeable surfaces. Our neighbourhood already experiences water pooling during heavy rainfall, and additional hardscaping will increase runoff and the potential for localized flooding, including onto neighbouring properties. Waste management is another issue. We already have raccoons, skunks, and even rats in the area. With eight units producing much larger volumes of garbage, any improper storage or overflowing bins will attract more wildlife, create odour and mess, and spill into the street. This will be especially concerning when recycling and garbage pick up is reduced to every 2 weeks come March 2026. Overall, the scale and intensity of the two four-plex buildings do not fit the established character of Rockway Drive, which is a neighbourhood of mostly single and semi-detached homes. The proposed density is too high for the lot and would negatively affect the safety, appearance, and daily functioning of our community. As someone who walks the street multiple times each day and interacts closely with neighbours, I am deeply concerned about the permanent changes this development would introduce. For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Committee deny the severance application for 776 Rockway Drive, or require a significantly lower density more appropriate to the physical conditions, safety considerations, and overall character of the neighbourhood. Thank you for your time and consideration. I would appreciate being notified of any future steps or decisions related to this application. Sincerely, Lindsay Shantz Page 67 of 187 Frons: To: Committee of Adiustment (SM) Subject: 776 Rockway Drive, Kitchener, On - Consent Application Date: Sunday, January 11, 2026 9:20:54 PM You don't often get email from . Learn whX this is im on rtant From Linda Winsor This letter has been prepared to express opposition to the application to sever the property at 776 Rockway Drive into two separate lots, for the purpose of building apartments. This proposal disrespects the current residents of this area many of whom have lived here for over thirty years. We have raised children and grandchildren in this neighbourhood and helped each other, thus building a network of familylfrlends. We have paid the property taxes and utilities kept our homes well tended and even cleaned up garbage that walkers drop carelessly. This area is a heritage area and should be kept so, I personally remember back to the 1950's when every special occasion called for photographs in Rockway Gardens_ We, as kids, tobogganed down the hills at the golf course, in the winter. My home was built in 1954. During that time period quality was still very important. The original plaster walls and moldings, along with the oak hardwood floors have stood the test of time. In short, the area is not only heritage but is f Iled with love and family values that wi11 carry on for generations to come. Qualities which are so much more important than dollars in the bank account of a Limited Liability Corporation. Then there is the matter of snow- I already have a major problem with snow- With windrows stretching at least 14 inches out into the street from the end of my walkway. I have asked the city for help to no avail. If this proposal goes through will I end up with the excess snow from these buildings fully blocking my driveway and walkway and half the street??? There is no place to put all the excess snow and I have a difficult time keeping the walkway clean enough for deliveries. Heaven forbid, if I should ever need an ambulance. I believe other neighbours have expressed several more concerns. which I agree with so I will not add them I respectfully request that the committee deny this application. Yours truly Linda Winsor Page 68 of 187 Molly Grogan, Sean Grogan Re: 776 Rockway Drive. Kitchener, On - Consent Application Members of the Committee of Adjustment, This letter has been prepared to express non-support for the application to sever the property at 776 Rockway Drive into two separate lots. While it is understood that, according to current zoning bylaws, the property is considered oversized and aligns with federal and provincial housing goals under Bill 23, the proposed severance and construction of two 2 -storey, semi-detached duplex developments does not respect the integrity or character of this older, well-established neighbourhood in Kitchener's East Ward. This area is uniquely situated near Rockway Gardens and the Rockway Golf Course, and the proposed development does not adequately consider the impact on the long-term residents—many of whom have lived here for over 30 years—or on the already aging infrastructure. After canvassing the neighbourhood, the consensus is that this proposal does not represent positive redevelopment or an appropriate use of the land, given the location and character of the surrounding community. The proposal includes two semi-detached buildings, each containing four units—two units per floor—with five bedrooms in each building, for a total of eight rental units and ten bedrooms. Each lot would provide only two tandem parking spaces for a building containing four units. This leaves four rental units with no onsite parking, which raises several concerns: • Overflow street parking on a road with no sidewalks, creating safety issues for pedestrians and children who must navigate around parked vehicles. • Winter parking challenges due to municipal no -street -parking bylaws. • Limited options for snow removal, as the development is proposed to span from property line to property line, leaving no buffer or storage space for snow. Additionally, zoning bylaws require only a minimum of 20% landscaped space in the front yard. With eight units, questions arise regarding where garbage and recycling Page 69 of 187 will be placed for curbside collection, especially with the Region's new waste management program beginning in the new year. It is also unclear where garbage and recycling containers will be stored on non -collection days. For these reasons, I respectfully ask the Committee to consider the neighbourhood's concerns and deny the application for severance of 776 Rockway Drive. Thank you for your consideration. Regards, Molly Grogan Sean Grogan Page 70 of 187 Response to 776 Rockway Drive Zoning Certification (25 110976) and building permit (25-119483). The proposed build of 8 rental units and 10 bedrooms on this existing lot is referred to as a "gentle intensification". Although there isn't an argument for more accessible and affordable housing one wonders if this is the case, or if this gentle intensification is a more of an aggressive intensification for the existing neighborhood. I can't' help but see this proposal and wonder outside of the building specs and whether or not they meet code and planning acts, if there was any thought given to the impact on the environment, namely street parking. It's a nice "green" touch to have a bike shed on each property but many of us still rely on cars for transportation. With eight units available, one might consider the likelihood of having more than eight cars. This plan calls for 4 parking spaces, leaving the possibility of 4 plus, plus parking spaces needed on the street. With a street where parking is permitted on both sides and there currently isn't an existing sidewalk has there been any consideration on pedestrian safety? As recent published water capacity issues for proposed builds has come to light there is a growing concern that there is a lack of environmental considerations/coordination. Given the backyards on this site looks closer to a postage stamp where do the families/kids/dogs play. Are builders like this required to contribute to a green zone fund? There are multiple approved and impending new builds on Weber and King Street but no new green sites to accommodate this increase of population. When might that happen. As just a "Joe Citizen" the concern is developers maximize profit, city planner's role over to accommodate and get bonus monies from Queen's Park, at the expense of existing communities' members who have been here and paid taxes for decades. Roads and green spaces and now water are given secondary consideration or not any consideration at all. All actions have consequences on our environment, many times unforeseen. My next-door neighbour several years ago cut down an 80 -year-old oak tree on his property because the roots had started to raise into his driveway. A beautiful stately tree that was in perfect condition, but what could I say it wasn't my tree or my property. The tree had provided shade for my beautiful Japanese maple. The Japanese maple couldn't tolerate the afternoon sun that now hit if full force and subsequently died. The oak tree provided shade to my front door, the ensuing coupled with my screen door created a green house effect and warped my great wood door — the original on a 1939 home that then needed to be replaced. My neighbors' actions cost me hundreds of dollars to say the least — who knew. As you can see my concerns are that there is a lack of consideration for existing communities when builders and planners get together and the ultimate cost is borne by the community not the builders and planners. Phil and Sharon Hartigan Page 71 of 187 RE: development at 776 Rockway Drive, Kitchener I wish to submit my opposition to the proposed construction changes for 776 Rockway Drive. While the proposal may satisfy an arbitrary set of guidelines, I believe that there is a profound difference between that, and how it will play out in real life. I can see that there is possibly room for a single semi-detached dwelling that could house 2 families, but the submitted proposal is a gross over -intensification of any city housing plan, that raises a number of concerns: 1) The possibility of 18 - 20 people crammed on to one housing lot - compatibility issues are sure to arise 2) Parking - driveways supposedly to accommodate 4 cars. It is ludicrous to think that this will suffice forever. Case in point: a basement apartment was approved at 780 Rockway that now houses 3 adults with 3 vehicles 3) Garbage collection: we are soon to have extra large bins for use. If they are to be part of the usual residential pickup for our street how will this be maintained? I have work experience with multi -unit buildings and can say that critter infestation of some sort will be attracted once people become lackadaisical about bin capacities and lid closures, and more critters than usual will spread through the neighbourhood. Will the person(s) in the accessible units be able to slug these bins around? - especially in the winter? 4) In regard to these accessible units - I have seen a report that these units do not have any wheelchair ramps for entry which begs the question of true accessibility. Where on this site plan is there even room for the required length of such ramps? 5) The filed submission form in Section 8 indicated that it was unknown if there was any fuel containers on the property. Having lived doors away for over 40 years I can say that there was a 200 gallon fuel oil tank at the outside of the house from the day it was built until the house was converted to gas. Has there been any kind of environmental study done for the property? 6) This has been a quiet family neighbourhood since houses started being built on this street about 1950. Families look for a chance to move here, but over -intensification will take away from that attraction, and, I fear, our property values along with it. I urge the panel to reconsider this request for development, and to scale it back to a single semi-detached for the use of 2 families. Respectfully submitted, Ron Couch Page 72 of 187 From: Marilyn Mills To: Committee of Adiustment (SM) Subject: FW: Meeting: Feb 17, 2026, 776 Rockway Drive Severance Application Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2026 9:14:22 AM Attachments: imaoe001.pno imaae002.i)na imaoe001ono imaae004.i)na imaoe005.pno imaae006.i)na imaoe007.ono imaae008.pna Written Submission Marilyn Mills Committee Coordinator I Legislated Services I City of Kitchener 519-904-1408 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 Marilyn. Mills(a)l<itchener.ca dilm Adhk From: Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2026 6:55 PM To: Marilyn Mills <Marilyn.Mills@kitchener.ca> Cc: Subject: Meeting: Feb 17, 2026, 776 Rockway Drive Severance Application iYou don't often get email from r . Learn why this is important City of Kitchener Zoning Committee Re: Severance application776 Rockway Drive, Kitchener, Feb 17, 2026 Meeting: Please log this letter as official opposition to the proposal to severe property and build two 4 plex building in location of the existing single detached house located at 776 Rockway Drive Kitchener. As a member of this community I can confirm this is totally inappropriate application for this lot. Aside from technical issues, commonsense should prevail here. I assume as an oversight group you have knowledge of living in a house and lot similar to this application. How would you like 20 people moving into the house next to you with inadequate parking? How would you like the additional 16 cars plus visitors parked in front of your house? This is not a high density neighbourhood. Ten people living in half a house is too much. There would not even be adaquete road space to put the garbage containers out as required in our recently distributed Waste Collection Information Kit coming into effect in March of this year. Sounds small but how would it be contended with it? You have unobstructed walk ways on the side of the building. Where are you going to put the snow? The plans I see show no information regarding gas meters and electric meters or chargers. I Page 73 of 187 see no unobstructed areas to place these apparatuses. This proposal is simply too many people living in too small an area for this street. If you choose this to approve this application it will be used a template to screw up the rest of the city. It is a common sense decision. This is not proper use of this land. I own the exact same size lot down the street exactly the same as the house as directly across the street. I can't imagine how my 2 bathroom 3 bedroom house with 5 parking spaces could be replaced with an 8 bathroom 20 bedroom house with 2 car and 2 bike parking spots and no possibility of expansion. Please give us a break. Common sense should prevail here. Please use common sense and reject the application. Thanks. Randall Kennedy Page 74 of 187 January 20, 2026 To: City of Kitchener Planning Staff and Committee of Adjustment urban Cc: Tina Malone Wrigth, Garett Stevenson, Rod Regier, Alyssa insights Bridge, Reema Masri, Client From: Urban Insights Inc. Re: 776 Rockway Drive and 104 Brentwood Avenue CofA Applications (January 20 2026) Request for Decision Next Committee Meeting I represent the property owners for the Committee of Adjustment severance applications at 776 Rockway Drive and 104 Brentwood Avenue, which were recently deferred based on comments received from the Region of Waterloo relating to water capacity constraints. These applications represent a very modest and localized form of intensification—two small infill severances within fully serviced, established neighbourhoods. The scale of development proposed is minuscule in the context of the regional water system, and will result in a negligible increase in demand. These are not large-scale developments which are subject to complex agreements and approvals, but rather, small scale gentle density projects that fit within existing neighborhoods. They are precisely the type of gentle density infill that both municipal and provincial policy frameworks continue to encourage. As a small scale infill project, continued delays will have a detrimental impact on project viability and ability to get needed attainable housing to market. Importantly, the City of Kitchener and this Committee remain the statutory decision-making authorities for these severance applications. While the Region of Waterloo is a commenting agency, it is not the approval authority for these planning decisions. The Region's recent correspondence provides a general caution regarding system capacity, but it does not identify these specific applications as creating an unacceptable or unserviceable impact. In fact, the Region has acknowledged that approvals may continue on a case-by-case basis, particularly for small infill projects with limited or neutral impact on overall demand. In this context, it would be neither proportionate nor consistent with good planning to apply a broad, system -wide constraint to micro -scale severance applications without site-specific analysis, clear servicing refusal, or defined interim rules. These applications can be approved today providing applicable law for a direct building permit approval and issuance process. At this stage, there are two procedural paths available. Either the Committee may approve these applications based on its own planning merits and jurisdiction, allowing the Region to exercise its rights at the servicing stage if necessary, or a continued deferral risks creating an unnecessary lack of decision, which would force the applicants to consider an appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal. Neither outcome serves the public interest where the planning impacts are minor and manageable. 011 Page 75 of 187 For these reasons, we respectfully request that the Committee proceed to hear and decide these applications at the next available meeting, with full circulation to neighbours and agencies. We will provide additional technical information in advance of that hearing to demonstrate that these proposals represent gentle density infill with no material impact on the Region's broader water capacity challenges. Approving these severances would strike the appropriate balance between responsible infrastructure management and the continued delivery of small-scale housing in established neighbourhoods. Respectfully submitted, URBAN INSIGHTS INC. Urban Planning • Economic Development • Urban Design Ryan O. Mounsey. CEO. BES.MUDS.MCIP,RPP 519-591-6076 www.urbaninsights.ca 40 King Street South, Suite 301 Waterloo, ON N2J1 N8 4 Page 76 of 187 From: To: Committee of Adiustment (5M) Subject: S 2025-032 - 776 Rockway Drive Date: Monday, January 12, 2026 1.0:48.22 AM IYou don't often get email from - Learn why this is important I am writing regarding the building proposal at 776 Rockway Drive where the proposal is to severance the property into two lots, allowing a 4 plex on each property. This proposal is too dense for the land it is being built on and for the surrounding neighborhood. We have a street slope from Rockway Golf Course to Dixon St., as you come down the street there are 6+ properties with existing retaining walls with heights of 2 feet to b plus feet, in addition there is an approximate 3 feet drop from 41 Floral Cres to this property. Storm water and spring meltdown can be very problematic. The plans for this property will leave very little land to absorb the water. What will be port in place to mitigate flooding to this property and existing properties:' This building along with outside buildings for bicycles and garbage will cover the majority of the land. To enclose 1 green bin and 1 black garbage can will require an enclosure with dimensions of 4.5 Ft by 28 Ft, not including blue boxes. There is currently no sidewalk beyond the entrance in the plans however my assumption is that it will be extended to the garbage building(s) for ease of rolling them to the curb. I do not see how this property will meet 30% landscaping requirements without compromising green space or garbage. Can the planning department confirm this? I am clearly not in agreement of a building of this size at 776 Rockway. Thank you, Ron Neill Page 77 of 187 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 78 of 187 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 79 of 187 From: To: Committee of Adiustment (SM) Subject: Re: Committee of Adjustment Meeting - Tuesday, January 20, 2026 Date: Saturday, January 3, 2026 9:56:10 AM Tracy Livingstone Hello After attending the first Notice of Hearing regarding 776 Rockway Drive DSD -2025- 485 on December 9th, we provided information regarding the new curb side collection that will take place March 2026 and how this proposed new plan would create chaos on our street with all the new garbage, waste and recycling bins as well as creating a massive safety hazard for traffic and pedestrians because we have no sidewalks. Rockway Drive received our brand new garbage & yard waste bins in December 2025 that were dropped off on our driveways. The surrounding neighbours came together and lined up 776 Rockway Drive with the new garbage and yard waste bins (minus all the recycling bins that would also be put to the road) to show the Committee of Adjustments and all the planners what this property would look like and to prove a point that this new proposed build would not have enough property to line up all these bins (in between the two proposed driveways) it's impossible. A separate email was sent to all the planners on December 19th showing the same pictures and explaining the same major issues with no reply from any planner. As you review these pictures, please take into consideration that all these bins in these pictures only show a total of 10 bins (5 garbage bins and 5 yard waste bins) AND NO RECYCLING BINS. This photo shows what it would look like if this proposed build was only a 5 unit rental ....... this new proposal would be 8 rental units. If the severance of this property is approved, this property simply does not have enough space for 8 large garbage bins, 8 large yard waste bins and a total of 16 recycling bins (2 recycling bins per unit) if the severance was approved. You will also see from these pictures that the garbage & yard waste bins (with no recycling bins) are lined up so far down the street that they go all the way down to the neighbours property, how would a total of 32 bins be lined up on this street in between the two proposed driveways without it being hazard ? If this property was severed and a semi detached home was built with 4 units on each side (8 units in total) this property at 776 Rockway Drive would have a total of 32 bins put to the road; - 8 Large garbage bins Page 80 of 187 - 8 Large yard wast bins - 16 recycling bins (2 bins per unit) This property also has 2 very large trees, the plan only shows one city tree that would be saved, what is happening to the second tree on this property? Please consider this major garbage, yard waste and recycling issue and the safety of pedestrians walking on the road (with no sidewalks) and deny the severance of 776 Rockway Drive. Regards, Tracy Livingstone On Friday, January 2, 2026 at 11:35:44 a.m. EST, Committee of Adjustment (SM) <committeeofadjustment@kitchener.ca> wrote: Good morning, Attached is the Notice of Hearing for the Tuesday, January 20, 2026, Committee of Adjustment meeting, taking place in Council Chambers, 2nd floor, Kitchener City Hall, 200 King Street West, commencing at 10 a.m. APPLICANTS/AGENTS All applications must be represented by an applicant or agent to be considered by the Committee. Staff reports for the meeting will be posted no later than noon on Friday, January 16, 2026, and can be found on the online calendar. Please ensure you review your report in advance of the meeting, as the Committee uses these reports to render their decision. INTERESTED PARTIES Please note this is a statutory public meeting. Anyone having an interest in any of these applications may make an oral submission at the meeting and/or provide a written submission for Committee consideration. This public meeting will be livestreamed and archived on the City's website at www.kitchener.ca/watchnow. You can participate in a meeting as follows: To provide an oral submission, please attend the Council Chambers. The meeting starts promptly at 10 a.m., however you can begin registering anytime after 9:30 a.m. You will be required to register with the Administrative Clerk by providing your contact information including email address and/or mailing address, phone number and the application you would like to comment on; or, You can provide a written submission to CofAr@kitchener.ca no later than 8:30 a.m. on Tuesday, January 20, 2026, which will be circulated to the Committee for consideration. All written submissions Page 81 of 187 MUST include your full name, email address and/or mailing address and phone number. Failure to include your contact information will prevent it from being circulated to the Committee. If you register for this meeting, you will be noted as an interested party to the application(s) and you will receive email notice of the Committee's decision. Please be advised, as this is a public meeting, your contact information may be disclosed if the list of interested parties is requested related to a specific application. As noted above, staff reports for the meeting will be posted no later than noon on Friday, January 16, 2026, and can be found on the online calendar. Please let us know if you have any questions. Connie Owen Administrative Clerk I Legislated Services I City of Kitchener 519-741-2203 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 cofa&kitchener.ca Page 82 of 187 '190 pol ow, AS Oilr- Nv' all, bq LL TI— LN O'�►�an Harten LAND SURVEYORS -ENGINEERS February 12, 2026 34491-25 Ryan Mounsey, MCIP, RPP Urban Insights Inc. sent via email Re: Proposed Severance 776 Rockway Drive, City of Kitchener Sanitary and Water Servicing Review Dear Sir, Van Harten Surveying Inc. was retained by the owner of the subject property to prepare an estimate of the servicing demand in support of the proposed severance application for the subject property. BACKGROUND The property is located on the north side of Rockway Drive between Doon Road and Dixon Street within the City of Kitchener. The property is currently developed with a residential home. The proposed development consists of severing the property into two building lots and constructing a semi-detached unit on each lot. Building plans and a servicing and grading plan have been prepared and submitted to the City for review. Based on a review of the building plans, each side of the semi is proposed to contain two bachelor units, one 1 -bedroom unit, and one 2 -bedroom unit, for 8 units proposed in total. SANITARY There is an existing 200mm sanitary sewer on Rockway Drive in front of the subject property. It is proposed to connect each of the severed properties to this sewer with a 1 00m PVC SDR28 lateral at minimum 2%. The existing lateral for the former dwelling is to be removed and capped at the main. 572 Weber Street North, Unit 7 2106 Gordon Street 660 Riddell Road, Unit 1 Waterloo, ON, N21_ 5C6 Guelph, ON, N1 L 1 G6 Orangeville, ON, L9W 5G5 519-742-8371 519-821-2763 519-940-4110 www.vanharten.com '.O- : • Van Harten LAND SU LAND WATER There is an existing 150mm Cl watermain on Rockway Drive in front of the subject property. It is proposed to connect each of the lots to this watermain with a single domestic service. Each service would consist of a 50mm polyethylene service in the street which would be reduced to a 38mm polyethylene service just inside the street -line. A 38 mm pipe is proposed in the right-of- way as current City standards do not permit the use of 38 mm diameter pipe on the public side. The existing water service is to be decommissioned in accordance with DGSSMS and City standards. Water Demand The estimated water demand was calculated for the property under the proposed condition. Considering a population of 1.78 ppu (Hemson, 2022) and a per capita water usage of 225 L/day (DGSSMS 2026) the expected average daily water demand for this development would be 3,375 L/day or 3.4 cu.m/day. Average day, maximum day and peak hour estimates are provided in the table below inclusive of peak factors and detailed calculations are provided in the attachment. In December 2025, the Region of Waterloo identified a potential water supply constraint issue within the Mannheim Service Area. The Agile Report (January 13, 2026), identified that the Mannheim Service Area is projected to experience an average daily water demand of approximately 117,441 cu.m/day during 2025. The water demand associated with this www.vanharten.com age 86 O Description PPU Population Average Maximum Peak Hour Day Day (L/s) (L/s) (L/s) Proposed 2 semi- 1.78 14.24 0.04 0.37 0.56 detached dwellings (8 apartments) In December 2025, the Region of Waterloo identified a potential water supply constraint issue within the Mannheim Service Area. The Agile Report (January 13, 2026), identified that the Mannheim Service Area is projected to experience an average daily water demand of approximately 117,441 cu.m/day during 2025. The water demand associated with this www.vanharten.com age 86 O Van Harten LAND SU LAND development (3.4 cu.m./day) represents approximately 0.003% of the overall projected average daily demand for the Mannheim service area. Sincerely, VAN HARTEN SURVEYING INC. a� Kristine Campbell, P.Eng. Encl. Water Design Flow Calculation Sheet Encl. Servicing and Grading Plan H:125-344134491-251Letters12026.02.12 Servicing. Docx www.vanharten.com age 87 O Project No: 34491-25 Project Name: Proposed Severance Project Location: 776 Rockway Avenue, Kitchener Date: 2/11/2026 Update: 2/11/2026 Site Characteristics Uari Harten LAND SURVEYORS — ENGINEERS Water Design Flow Calculation Site Area = 0.05572 Number of Units = 8 Population per Unit = 1.78 Site Population = 15 Residential Design Flow Average Daily Demand = 225 Site Population = 15 Average Daily Demand = 3375 Site Average Daily Flow = 0.04 MOE Max. Day Peak Factor = 9.50 MOE Peak Hour Factor = 14.30 Peak Max. Day Design Flow = 0.37 Peak Hour Design Flow = 0.56 Notes: ha *Per Site Plan units ppu 2022 Kitchener Development Charges Study people L/cap/day DGSSMS 2026 people L/day L/s *MOE Design Guidelines, Table 3-3 *MOE Design Guidelines, Table 3-3 L/s =Average Daily Flow * Max Day PF L/s =Average Daily Flow * Max Hour PF *Water design flow calculations complete with reference to the Region of Waterloo and Area Municipalities DGSSMS (2026) and the Ministry of Environment Design Guidelines for Drinking -Water Systems (2008) H:\25-344\34491-25\Letters\Water and SAN Demand (PPU).xlsx Page 88 of 187 Average Daily Flow Max. Day Flow Peak Hour Design Design Guideline (L/s) (L/s) Flow (L/s) DGSSMS/MOE 0.04 0.37 0.56 *Water design flow calculations complete with reference to the Region of Waterloo and Area Municipalities DGSSMS (2026) and the Ministry of Environment Design Guidelines for Drinking -Water Systems (2008) H:\25-344\34491-25\Letters\Water and SAN Demand (PPU).xlsx Page 88 of 187 H gware. rea ,, -fie" k y ££ ocl .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . =E > .o_. O w 4 s U of in U uw (9 N Qo gy=m - a > F w°N F �^ Z w of p Q 0 0• a o�oQ � u� W Z O ro U o _ - D d 3 o N € s O °3 W W a o 0 n z F (O a Y O 0o agtmoa a W 3�=a a r ° m a �o > - m ffi O bob _ as Hill I 3 _ aQ " x ~oz I - d PQ A a E w ^2 x � c€o€a - w 6 x o� _ _ soo - �3 � 9 LS 9 �oe x 0 3l0 z< 3��„aeoe tl«°ux ;R = ., 90obLN ID x p'9£eF - S zo� Cz zoeR �zzz x p� w_ se he raz- - r I uz 9L5 -- Ya m °Asz - d _ _ - —�a �� x� x • a I - . oa pw o o � - w > o w I a a ti= o x s w aw �o 4 - �sizszo - g u Fh o --s3idrnw--- d 13 gU ^�Z� Sox ag - - "su� 's c.q obs =b - ob obam85"o gib£ €Q azoUM __ - aG°os=s - - - - - bra°€=3 - - - - - z g3a rw�LL -b a5��8< �z b ��•, Fpm zbw33 o,zo _ - - M- - - 'aa��ogo -a a8omwo'a ow°o`>wF V 3° sG - - s�°a�b 8�oms�_. - MH z - gz -" 6b3' sg o °go�� og° - a8o3� oYn- - _ ob=w°° - - - - - - bE wB�Go°ba„z�3=-3€s°s -sYa 3 - - was oga s= < - ��s3€ gasmd;6��oa' wb. _o_ >�.,�$so£$3$�as3$sa�$o�o a - ss s z s m_om x zu zx.usu mz £�o=� �.w a a as 0 ewers a g�3P� a a qa y4�Ji'- - W HIM s� °N- PIP �N�.. 2 NhSSi a W a W _V W �f1 W Z Z a :-1 ti co 4- 0 0 rn (1) 0) ^(U LL 4r V) r -I O s. 0 0 � c m L m � r d) o) f6 � U _ •a A I • . / ' '' r , :4 0 ' 0 �' • 0 N LA N W }r L N Z .r o ' J G0 ' elk GC � • I ' o . LZ � V v o Q Z r_ jr C) w Q) �, u' °co O a �. . 0In 0 ro ro `� a x �n o a ' paLn Ln CS 4-j v O s v a Ocn a a p a c,, v 4O �O o O— a v a v o o o a a a v v o U U � � LL � O Ln a v v— c a v v a � Ov � 'cm � a v acc 4-1 a •+-' � a kn 4-1 � O �E ID LL "O Uc •� � " ° � O.i � O.i v 4- Cl> - 00 *'� � "' ry S � 'iii /�` 'i�i� •�' p �_ /� atecc -' •,..� a O O •� � � a U ti co 4- 0 (Y) rn O 0) cU a ClA L (1)C: N 4- O +-+ N cx ^ _0 E o N L O N - l0 Q M +�-+ L NN E O O O N 0 N O ca N 4J U > O-0 O N M N E U O O -0 L ' v }, N O +�-+ E -0 E � OU O -0 N E J Q O -0-0 N N-0 J Lli N 3) Q CO N W Q O 0 = ate) � M a N Q Ln N M 'O w Q cn _0o N > N ca 'a) L Q 00 0 Q � Q) r-, N — N U U -0 N O '� +Ln �-+ > }, -0 -0 N N }, o ca > (3j (3) Q U �j U 0 m W O Q Q > N f6 Q --- Q CO U X (3) N -0 -CN M ate- • • • 49 E A~ ti co 4- 0 (Y) rn O 0) cU a ca � ^ •� N L �Co U C:b. � 'N L N N +-+ N N � o ateJ •� � U N �f6 'U L c6 O ca C •L„ U � 0_ v� N Oa ClA O -0•> .'_' ate., c/') 0 L O a--+ U O -C ON O N +-+ -0O w ro 0 N OUl 4.1 L }, U 5 ca ?� O O 4-JQ cn O -0 ca O N l�A N cn ca N a--+ •� +-+ > U_ •> N i — N � 4-J O •v (f) N }' f6 — 4- � N � >j •i � Q� O f6 N N N 0 N U ate-+ •U � � � � — }, Q N N ClA .y = c U a--+ N Q � LL N N a--+ -0N N N O L N v 0 O O O•> }' U cO Q N O N N O N N > i+ }' Ul -0 f 6 — a -J 4- U N N > •O U •N L N N iJ O > c6 O N N N ca o U O O O � N p i E U N ca p txo� N .� }, N , N N U � r -I .� bn O U C6 N C6 N C6 C6 LL m ate..+ 0 (n 0 M _0 N U C O Q ti co . i +-+ r Q N � O N N U i.� U U '> N N LO C: L Q N 0 0 zj- N 'X E N Q D_ N •— •— N •— N ca 4-J O N a--' W +-j O S N cn f6 p \O N cn N O cn c6 O M 00 ON O N m , E .N O 2 \ •U i OR L N > N >' E N ClA N O +-+ Q 4* U . U N U .>Q U— `~ i C6 N UO Q O O � N U (3) i = C6 U ; \ _0 C6 C O ca E ca N L N ; 00 — m M O Q cn U�A f6 L > a--+ N O +-j E O N N .N N cn cn O N Q E .N N Q N `n m Q ca O ti co 4- 0 m rn N 0) c6 0- LQ •— E N O bD O C: C6 4-J O > 0 0 a -J O > ClA 4-J O > ^ 0 Q N Q 0 .(f) Q O N _U � L • _ ca � cn Q Q ClA � — C6 C: O � N bD N U N cn O .N •> O O ca bD > -0 � � • �--+ U � X > ClA Q N � � _0 � O Q — O Q U 0_-o ateJ U Q N O O � N N U 4-J cn N cn N 0 Q Lr) +� Q O > N E Q 4 -J cn N N L N C6 (n b.0 4- � — cn ti co 4- 0 m rn N 0) c6 0- LQ •— N O C: C6 4-J > 0 a -J 4-J O N Q 0 .(f) Q O N _U � L • _ ('6 cn Q 0 Q C: O N N U N cn 0O O bD > -0 U • �--+ U � L ClA Q N � � _0 � O Q — O E O O W +� U N E U cn L C6 C6 4- � — cn •> Q L � — U > N O ate -J ti co 4- 0 m rn N 0) c6 0- _ Ln N vii •� J ti � C6 ca >� U O O &O C6 0 4-J_U N N =3 p uO U �' U Q }' ro 01 +-'U •> L p c6 -0 U ate--+ _0 _O E 4- • O N p Q O O '� O N O U Q p a-+ U •> Q >U N N +-+ ca _0O Q o _ Ea% •ca •� o C6 •N N QJ >j — O4-1 N O +-+ U `'�— C: �O cn 41 Ln ca +-+ ca U N N CU a--+ f6 i/� N c6 N E f6 l�A N — O +-+ N E Q D O j j• N a--+ •CSA •� N • N 0 � a--+ U Q Q < — C6 U L N _ •�_� O N � c�6 �j _0ate-+ ca -0 � ate--+ C: C: N ClA N > +�-+ � L N – L � N ca L L O .N }' U _0 N +-+ N Q �_ N E `� O O •N ca N O v N +�-+ 4-JU ca O O >, L N" U •?> O C cn N� O> -F O E N u •tiA � -0 +-+ U Q Co -0a) Q -0 U ClA Cl � cn � C3A ND +j cn O • cn > - L-0 U L O ca U caCT Oca pU N a��+ ca O U O �' •— N cn ro 4mJca o N O +-+ Q •— N Q O L L Q cn Q O +-+ 2 cn > O O U }' Q " +-, '— L L w DC c:p m U N DC QJ ClA m qa y4�Ji'- - W HIM s� °N- PIP �N�.. 2 NhSSi a W a W _V W �f1 W Z Z a :-1 ti co 4- 0 co rn (1) 0) ^(U LL oil y� T - - ` �� •" ``- QUIFER-r_-_--m— il i �Y r - C&A Letter urban+ Date: February 12, 2026 Insights From: Ryan 0. Mounsey. CEO.BES.MUDS.MCIP.RPP. Urban Insights Inc. To: City of Kitchener CofA and Planning Staff Re: 774 & 776 Rockway Drive, CofA Application No. B 2025-032 Proposed New Residential (Consent) Lot — Marginal Water Demand Impact Dear Committee of Adjustment ("CofA") and City Staff, A.The Request and New Information The property is located at 774 & 776 Rockway Drive shown in Appendix 1, with the severance plan shown in Appendix 2, for reference. I am writing in support of the proposed consent application to create one new residential lot to accommodate a form of gentle -density housing consisting of a semi-detached dwelling with accessory residential units. Based on Regional agency review deferral comments, The Committee of Adjustment received this severance application in December 2025 and the City and Committee chose to defer this Committee of Adjustment application decision to February 17, 2026 CofA meeting. Three months has now passed with limited progress related to development approval protocols. This proposal represents a minor, incremental intensification opportunity within the existing built-up area and is consistent with the Province's direction to optimize infrastructure, support housing supply, and plan efficiently for current and future population growth. This proposal is also supported by the City of Kitchener Official Plan for residential intensification. At the outset, I acknowledge the Region's ongoing concerns regarding water supply constraints within the Integrated Urban System ("IUS"), and in particular the Mannheim Service Area, which has now been evaluated as a distinct service area within the broader system. However, we respectfully submit that this consent application represents a marginal, low -impact servicing scenario and should not be equated with major growth allocations or infrastructure -intensive development approvals. This is a City of Kitchener planning decision, with the Region of Waterloo acting as a commenting agency who has issued a blanket deferral position with respect to development applications across the Mannheim Service Area. 4 Page 100 of 187 Given the demonstrated lag between development approvals and the gradual realization of actual water demand through construction and occupancy, together with ongoing operational adjustments within the Mannheim Service Area, we respectfully request that the Committee of Adjustment approve this minor application. The evidence indicates that this modest scale of development represents a marginal and incremental demand that has no material impact within the system's current capacity context, and that an indefinite deferral of small-scale gentle density applications is neither proportionate nor sustainable. The primary source of available information on the Regional Water Capacity condition is provided in a Peer Review Engineering Study prepared by Agile presented at the January 13 Region of Waterloo Sustainability, Infrastructure and Development (SID) Committee with the website and report links provided below: • Meeting Link: https://pub- regionofwaterloo.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=94e4b6a1-1817-42d5-9974- b56fbaf2c3b6&Agenda=Merged&fang=English • Agile Report Link: https://pub- regionofwaterloo.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?Documentld=15483 In addition to the Agile Report, please see this technical information prepared by Kristine Campbell P.Eng. from Van Harten Land Surveyors Engineers (Provided in Appendix 3). • A Sanitary and Water Servicing Review was prepared by Van Harten Surveying Inc. (February 12, 2026) to quantify the servicing demand associated with the proposed severance and gentle -density development at 774 & 776 Rockway Drive. • The review confirms that the site is located on an existing serviced urban street with a 150 mm municipal watermain and a 300 mm sanitary sewer, and that the proposed development can be accommodated through standard domestic connections in accordance with City servicing standards. • A 38 mm pipe is proposed in the right of -way as current City standards do not permit the use of 38 mm diameter pipe on the public side. • Based on accepted population and per -capita usage assumptions, the study estimates an average daily water demand of approximately 3.4 M3 /day for the full 8 -unit proposal. • Importantly, the memo concludes that this incremental demand represents only —0.003% of the Mannheim Service Area's projected 2025 average daily demand of 117,441 m3/day. Based on this information, the proposed severance, and development, constitutes a marginal, low -impact servicing scenario that would not have any measurable effect on the overall Mannheim water supply system. IJ Page 101 of 187 B. The "Agile Report" - January 13 2026 (refer to link above) In 2025, the Mannheim Service Area is projected to experience an average daily water demand of approximately 117,441 m'/day, compared to a total sustainable supply capacity of 125,712 m'/day, resulting in a modest theoretical surplus of roughly 8,271 m'/day before any operational resiliency buffer or maintenance outages are applied. This assessment, which shows that the Mannheim Service Area system, is effectively operating at about —89% availability on average (because —11% is offline). This system is in the process of being improved'. This same 'system' is also informed by measured real-world SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) demand and production data, together with updated sustainable capacity estimates, rather than a purely hypothetical model. The Agile Report further notes that actual available capacity may differ from theoretical margins due to facilities being periodically offline for renewal or unplanned shutdowns, and because approved development applications do not translate into immediate water demand, as growth is realized gradually through construction and occupancy over time. B.1.What this Agile Report Means The Region's peer-reviewed evidence (The Agile Report) shows that Mannheim's system constraint is a macro -level infrastructure and operational resiliency issue, driven by overall service -area demand, offline maintenance requirements, and long-term growth realization, rather than the marginal impact of individual low -demand infill projects. In practical terms, a small number of minor lot severances—particularly for modest, low -flow residential connections—do not materially change the system -wide capacity balance in the near term, because water demand is realized gradually through phased construction and occupancy, not immediately upon planning approval. With this information, it is our project team belief that our proposed development believes that the Committee of Adjustment is in a reasonable position consider that a limited number of small-scale severances represent an incremental demand, and should be evaluated proportionately within the broader regional capacity framework, rather than treated as equivalent to major new servicing commitments. ' https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-region/waterloo-region-spends-l5-million-to-add-more-water- supply/article Oa4f6f5d-bfO9-5dcb-b4ae-bac62b9baele.html IAI Page 102 of 187 C. Additional Supporting Information to advance the Consent Application C.1. This Consent Application Does Not Constitute a Form 1 Approval or Servicing Expansion The proposed severance is a 'land division' (severance) approval under Section 53 of the Planning Act. It is not: • an application for a new municipal watermain extension, • a servicing agreement, • a registered plan of subdivision, or • a Form 1 authorization for new regulated drinking water infrastructure. In fact, this severance (subdivision of land) meets the intent of the official plan, it is: • The proposed consent represents an orderly and appropriate subdivision of land under Section 53, maintaining the existing residential lotting pattern and neighbourhood character. • The severance supports Provincial Planning Statement (2024 PPS) objectives by enabling gentle density and efficient use of serviced urban land within the settlement area. • The new lot is suitable and desirable for low-rise residential use, providing a compatible form of incremental intensification. • Municipal servicing impacts are modest, relying on a standard residential connection, with detailed confirmation appropriately addressed through the building permit process. • Overall, the proposal reflects good planning, advances housing supply objectives, and is in the public interest as a small-scale, low -impact consent application. As confirmed in the Region's own water supply framework, Form 1 is associated with the authorization of new or modified municipal waterworks, not the creation of a single low-rise residential lot. Based on this, this consent should be evaluated as a planning -level, marginal impact development approval, rather than as a major servicing trigger. C.2. The Proposal Represents a Minor Residential Demand User (15-38 mm Service Connection) The proposed development would be serviced by a standard 38 mm (1.5" residential water service connection, which is typical of low-rise housing forms and fundamentally different from larger connections required for mid -rise or high -demand development. This is not a: • 50 mm connection, • 100 mm connection, • 150 mm connection, or • nor a development requiring new municipal system expansion. The water demand associated with a semi-detached and accessory units is modest in scale and represents gentle intensification consistent with established servicing patterns. Page 103 of 187 C.3. PPS 2024 Supports Optimizing Existing Infrastructure and Timely Growth Accommodation As part of The 2024 Provincial Planning Statement, there are several policy objectives to balance including: • 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: promoting densities for new housing which efficiently use land, resources, infrastructure and public service facilities, and support the use of active transportation (2.2.1.c, Housing). • infrastructure and public service facilities shall be provided in an efficient manner while accommodating projected needs (3.1.1. General Policies for Infrastructure and Public Service Facilities). • Before consideration is given to developing new infrastructure and public service facilities: the use of existing infrastructure and public service facilities should be optimized (3.1.2.a, General Policies for Infrastructure and Facilities). • to accommodate forecasted growth in a timely manner (3.6.1.a, Sewage, Water and Stormwater). • to integrate servicing and land use considerations at all stages of the planning process (3.6.1.d, Sewage, Water and Stormwater). • Planning authorities may allow lot creation where there is confirmation of sufficient reserve sewage system and reserve water system capacity (3.6.7 Sewage, Water and Stormwater). The proposed consent aligns with this specific policy intent by: • Advancing a small-scale, infrastructure -efficient form of housing within the existing serviced area and in a timely manner as new service improvements are on the way to improve the Mannheim Service Area operational capacity. • Optimizing existing infrastructure for the efficient use of land for residential intensification. • The existing Mannheim System average daily usage is below the sustainable supply capacity of 125,712 m3 / day with 8,271 M3 /day. • The proposed incremental demand represents only —0.003% of the Mannheim Service Area's projected 2025 average daily demand of 117,441 m3/day, confirming that the proposed development constitutes a marginal, low -impact servicing scenario that would not have any measurable effect on the overall Mannheim water supply system. C.4. A Marginal Consent Approval Does Not Materially Alter Regional System Risk The Agile assessment, in review, confirms that the Mannheim capacity constraints are driven by: • sustainable supply downrating, • operational maintenance outages, and • long-term infrastructure renewal requirements. 1.1 Page 104 of 187 It is also noted in the Agile Report that offline capacity averages approximately 11% annually due to planned maintenance requirements, with short-term outages exceeding 25% in isolated weeks, reflecting broader system -wide operational constraints rather than project -specific demand impacts. These operational challenges are now being actively addressed through near- term Regional investments and treatment capacity restoration initiatives at the Mannheim Water Treatment Plant, which are intended to improve overall system resiliency over time including this spring. Regional Council decisions and actions show that water system constraints are being improved with the first round of improvements available this springz. C.S. Short Term Improvements are Under Way from Region of Waterloo Special Council Meeting — February 6 Special Council Meeting Regional Council held a Special Meeting on February 6, 2026 to address the emerging water capacity constraint in the Mannheim Service Area and to consider an urgent operational response at the Mannheim Water Treatment Plant. At this meeting, Council approved a new capital project titled the Pilot — Mannheim Temporary Side Stream Treatment, also referred to as the Mannheim Containerized Filtration Solution, with a total authorized budget of $15,162,200, funded from the Water Capital Reserve Fund'. This decision included procurement approvals for specialized filtration equipment, construction services, and associated electrical and engineering work, reflecting the Region's active and immediate investment in restoring lost treatment capacity within the Mannheim system. "This project is a promising innovative solution to add additional capacity in the Mannheim Service Area, until such time that the long-term solution being implemented at the Mannheim Water Treatment Plant (WTP) is complete. Early contractor involvement and advance procurement were required to mitigate schedule risk." (COR - TRY -26-004, February 6 2026 Regional Council). As part of this investment, the Region is committed to install three temporary ultrafiltration container units at the Mannheim Water Treatment Plant, each providing an estimated 50 L/s of flow capacity, to address existing sedimentation and treatment constraints. The first pilot container is anticipated to be installed by June 2026, with the remaining units expected to be operational by July 2027, subject to MECP approvals and implementation requirements. "Staff therefore recommend that Council approve the additional capital expenditure and contract awards as outlined in this report. Subject to Council approval, the work of this contract will begin immediately upon approval. The first container is anticipated to be installed by June 2026, pending confirmation of a number of variables. Based on the result of the pilot, receipt of MECP approvals, confirmation of electrical needs, and other z https://pub-regionofwaterioo.escribemeetings.com/FileStream.ashx?Documentid=15801 3 https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-region/waterloo-region-spends-l5-million-to-add-more-water- supply/article Oa4f6f5d-bf09-5dcb-b4ae-bac62b9baele.html II Page 105 of 187 factors to be worked through, it is anticipated that the remaining containers will be installed and operational by July 2027. If successful, the pilot project is expected to add approximately 50 L/s, while the full implementation is expected to add up to 300 L/s of restored capacity." (COR -TRY -26-004, February 6 2026 Regional Council). If successful, the pilot phase is expected to restore approximately 50 L/s of capacity, while full anticipated implementation could restore up to 300 L/s of additional capacity in the Mannheim Service Area. This Regional Council -approved initiative confirms that the Region is actively advancing near-term operational improvements to address the water capacity shortfall. C.6. The Engineering Submission by Van Harten Land Surveyors Engineers An Engineering Technical Memo has been prepared (see Appendix 3) to evaluate the water service connection requirements for the proposed development. This letter, prepared by Van Harten Land Surveyors Engineers confirms that: • A 38 mm pipe is proposed in the right of -way as current City standards do not permit the use of 38 mm diameter pipe on the public side. • The estimated water demand was calculated for the property under the proposed condition. Considering a population of 1.78 ppu (Hemson, 2022) and a per capita water usage of 225 L/day (DGSSMS 2026) the expected average daily water demand for this development would be 3375 L/day or 3.4 cu.m/day. • The water demand associated with this development (3.4 cu.m./day) represents approximately 0.003% of the overall projected average daily demand for the Mannheim service area. Based on this information, the proposed water service connections represent a minor water connection to the water system and will not have any detrimental impact to the Mannheim Service Area water capacity. D. Closing In closing, on behalf of our full project and ownership teams, we respectfully submit that the proposed consent represents a modest, low risk (no tangible impact) and incremental form of gentle -density intensification that will generate only a marginal water demand impact within the broader Mannheim Service Area. The proposed development represents approximately 0.003% of the overall projected average daily demand for the Mannheim service area. The proposal relies on a standard 38 mm (a 1.5 inch service) residential service connection, does not require any trunk infrastructure expansion, and does not constitute a Form 1 approval or major servicing commitment. E:3 Page 106 of 187 Importantly, the available evidence also demonstrates that water demand associated with approved development is realized gradually through phased construction and occupancy (there is a time lag or gap between approval and occupancy), rather than immediately upon planning approval. At the same time, the Region has now initiated active operational improvements to restore treatment capacity, including the recently approved $15.16 million Mannheim Containerized Filtration Solution, which is expected to add meaningful short-term capacity beginning in 2026. In this context, and with a continued indefinite deferral of minor consent applications, risk creating a disproportionate barrier to modest housing delivery, despite their limited servicing footprint. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the Committee of Adjustment approve this consent application as an appropriate, low -impact form of residential intensification that can proceed under constrained conditions, subject to detailed servicing confirmation through the building permit process. This represents a reasonable, proportionate and coordinated planning response that supports gentle density housing delivery while broader regional water supply solutions continue to advance. Sincerely, Ryan Mounsey, CEO.BES.MUDS.MCIP.RPP 40 King St. South, Suite 301 Waterloo, N2J 1N8 CC. Client, Project Team (incl. Masri 0. Architect and Van Harten Land Surveyors Engineers) Tina Malone -Wright, Garett Stevenson 01 Page 107 of 187 Fil a a :10 IN ILVS a telfril IM 0 ILYA Fil N W -FT -11. k� -0 0111 Page 108 of 187 APPENDIX 2: SITE PLAN (Severance Plan) 41 +.1 I .: _ my a.7sro-oozr cu�ia:.w•Goec Pi2L -. .,. . . 11i O'ti�C',' pIGF6S .tlF Lt![9 r,SpESpGy .^.1- Ld]T n F CCF0GC3Z STCIILY •ffJ11�T�4=e1[O ZrATLLW, FlN 7 5L X0717 SEVERANCE SKETCH ALL OF LOT 22, REGISTERED PLAN 649 CITY OF KITCHENER REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO 5CAE 1 1:.] VAN HAWMNSLAVVANG MC. t•J49f �3•�'•. ••-•••• PLEY WAP IN.T,91 22 / NOTES: ' FA=P03 C]3 SFGI,LY SlTF7$TACs`L.Q L T16MINYTAFLMh CR iLIMYAN07LGULDNDIr R[ CM1Y Ol lIG - ' til�l'kli.h:l] 0®} PORK LRd CST YIP. TRYaSREAS C01 L0RILG40ES. � PAk GE1. _ S06.[C-L.1p05:+1: JHLL-L[YA nu FLUOLX'IM LQJ- :112kA-27!4..3+]ltr j '+LL-a� LEM Xlr --l_0 ]. L`.•Qpl�!_-F.dN !J!!SX[i4XIX Ml1XCS htl]CF1V 1{ _ SEVERANCE SKETCH ALL OF LOT 22, REGISTERED PLAN 649 CITY OF KITCHENER REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO 5CAE 1 1:.] VAN HAWMNSLAVVANG MC. t•J49f �3•�'•. ••-•••• PLEY WAP IN.T,91 22 / NOTES: ' FA=P03 C]3 SFGI,LY SlTF7$TACs`L.Q L T16MINYTAFLMh CR iLIMYAN07LGULDNDIr R[ CM1Y Ol lIG - ' 3" xa r.R•srx a..,' SLI RMDR'S CERTIF ICATE : vas s[[rcll wY pulF o QN Tp[ }]rtl On Ci C[1CJL!•Ole C2 }}]S iii ._.v J�JJg M. LAVE 1 + h Q4T.VIG J.=J}LIRLYfOX PfN J]Si0.5Y][] I ffi O1 I. I I F S $ RETAIMED PARCEL ARLA-277.9iml + 4At 11 Page 109 of 187 / NOTES: L T16MINYTAFLMh CR iLIMYAN07LGULDNDIr R[ X 0®} PORK LRd CST YIP. TRYaSREAS C01 L0RILG40ES. '�� _ S06.[C-L.1p05:+1: JHLL-L[YA nu FLUOLX'IM LQJ- '+LL-a� LEM Xlr --l_0 ]. L`.•Qpl�!_-F.dN !J!!SX[i4XIX Ml1XCS htl]CF1V 1{ _ FILL E01'r.111 L LO 10 FLLI6Y }!! C14C LTY 070U. F� �+ r ��p i y DRIVE ROCK [S 6J 5.r Lk it A T Y I T E i. }Y.L4 "T'. -h " 1 L1411 FMDMMlll Ah"KW! ?I]_. OL Lh 1TLILILL 0• °,L FYTY Im1171l TRCST410[I pw.32sm-wriG 9. 511A1TALMD1.31 QI. NAWn+JJ}JL1CF1[SS[S Cr OWNERS. ZONING !RES41L34NIMSERESId�NTIlLFaIIRLOkI�•SEIYdETACIIla ..a4S 1[41.0 fiG :10.195[}'A" 170F05C}-S" n Haen MXMLM LQT 11 I., :.2w :27.111 •7.Wm ?R"3 •7.61m I_4tilhtill!!,-I - MXk}_MF70XTYiR}][PLI• 3. •L]Sm •L4]m k.oj L6M F70X"YM:- •L0]7'm •L76m •LI]m Yl'QYxx,MLa+l,o rirpY Qrryp�. Pe MX kM lk-[F 5C[TA10•NjF •Njh •NK AI SL4 i4�J0rfL eAI:SL9dSL;xa6i F1r 615F 1110 MMk}_M M[k10RUX 1r •L]m •LSm •LSm YMh n`,Ijfiryhl Flphi475 If�4�Y30hiY�0A:OfYI MXk}_M �hRYAlO •7.sm •7.76m •7.50m h9hl LF..lA IQT [C4S Rrs[ •5694 -M&M •JS m 8lavx in n iK:sitrir- a XriCtil w. i®'ii .'L hYb Lr_FA IIL GII r •A0m •3l+}m •LOm 22,3DY 9x291 FAi k9!!F MMA X UM J[k Q: S5Q1[S •J •2 •2 jOa 41j]TQ•[h[NjrLNJl MJ$h°LD rxx]L"Ll8 Q4rAAGIXC.ILI[91]SI dy D py5 TAY, SIRT0, 15 PRL,I[[T[0NC10WIUJ�T 11 Page 109 of 187 /e\»:10INMON%\►tae\:iI:►■ Wil ►1M1111IBM Wel :N:WEel 1►1:Ia:NIisaI:IIIA I:IM I:IUslOUP :1 See separate Attachment. RI) Page 110 of 187 Staff 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 10 DATE OF REPORT: November 24, 2025 REPORT NO.: DSD -2025-486 SUBJECT: Consent Application B2025-033 — 104 Brentwood Avenue RECOMMENDATION: That Consent Application B2025-033 for 104 Brentwood Avenue requesting Consent to create a lot and retain a lot each having a lot width of 7.6 metres on Brentwood Avenue, 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) to be dealt with independently, BE APPROVED subject to the following conditions: 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 Approvals. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 111 of 187 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 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 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 from the property line to the street to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering Services. Page 112 of 187 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. Semi - Detached Dwellings are a permitted use in the zone category applicable to the subject property and there are no variances required to facilitate the proposed lotting fabric nor the use of a Semi -Detached Dwelling with ADUs. Staff is therefore recommending approval of the Consent Application 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 Brentwood Drive near the intersection of Jackson Avene close to Eastwood Collegiate Institute. 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 with 3 Additional Dwelling Units (ADUs) (Attached). The subject property is identified as `Community Areas' on Map 2 — Urban Structure and is designated `Low Rise Residential' on Map 3 — Land Use in the City's 2014 Official Plan. The property is zoned `Low Rise Residential Four Zone (RES -4)' in Zoning By-law 2019- 051. This zone permits the use of a Semi -Detached Dwelling with up to 3 ADUs 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 ADUs (Attached) in each side, to be dealt with independently (see Figure 3). Page 113 of 187 r �J �itiY ®d m® b s® © S f V 7x3J tiY. ti WD E n of °. r y , IA Ll pp h^ TM - a _ ,.�1 '�. .• "R Thi• i _ F' R T R - .. z< iJrt .CT 15& L T I PNt if48} E A• AREA.1ft11FW ygEb,-i071r' SEVERELi PARCFI. AREA -277.91 rn] n .H YT E -Et ' t ------------- Lii Y E -L BRENTWOOD AVENUE �MIL7 MII*J MG4 n =,'I -.k] 3jJ:. ZONING: RESIDENTIAL IRES-41 SElIIII-DErACHI D RE@NIRED PREIPUMED-A- PROPIOEED "6' 4°I114JV .i� 1X1lR�LN1 -'l,S+� -I77.Vhn° -'l.Fr.11 �' JMi -7Sm -t!E&. N4 f.IN:JV Fli 4'Y141 L' +7Jk3n -Lt—-al— MNIMJV .k.N1 .'FIUll +7:iM -}SU P-S- -75tH-I]Atm NNIMJV klkr: Ji1U[TJFB +].LH -LN9n -1Jm/M1 NW.1+d'lJM lli' 1F.Y:lAf]E +ii% -CA .i>i 1[�IN: Ysi.Ns.:rre] I'RUNi'e>aYb. i:'ran SEVERANCE SKETCH ,ALL OF LOT 156• REGISTERED PLAN 651 CITY OF KITCHENER REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO a YAN RNRT043 RVEMO MC. KEY MAP kT � ._A SUBJECT PROPER7f l�1.... PAN 9a5 JSCGId4 Eln nj 'I E PAROL AREA -277-%m' X SURVEYCH." CE* T'f'v'k"_. �.Nss Nl Laws Uklaer.. Vli}sLReEttii NOTES: 1. 7NM m IL7R ArLLAM Qf NIIItE1<AIdlItlLlD MW ME LAM Fdlt REAL E&WE TRAIIX FE On MOPHOPMEL 2 W NI ECT LW 19 NE WMEn RE9 D&MLK 541 SENkO AOf 3 DETAN9 IONTHE PIAN ARE iJ-IL`+A1'N iN NRR+ AN Dem aE eDwE rm TO F FEr dY n wnrrs. B°r a-XA& l d N EhCsX*d0 N THr NETCH AEE Afff"WTE ANDRAW NOT NEEN 4FAIFIED W 9.]Rd".. i SEE ATTYLFE➢ k15TQFNANFSAKEADDFJ aF QAMWR i{Nall Harten V ..arrarten— -in aa—nherbcn_mkn ..— NQI GCa68YY. WL FhJa-1 Na. Nell.ffi d TJ, lCJ>':]YI.901 m :yLICXkpEM}i liAGhl1{!fl� I$71SiPjN9I-]31YSYYk9ANIb�E 8 �i Tka�RGX d ilYiT4[Tlb de Idol-,YaolA Figure 3 — Proposed Severance Sketch A Zoning Occupancy Permit (see Figure 4) has been issued to validate the use and compliance with the zoning regulations. Note that 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 115 of 187 Certificate Number: 25 110975 Date Issued: October 15, 2025 Address: 104 BRENTWOOD A%'E Permitted L. se: Selrn-detached D",tilling with 3 Additional Ihvelling huts (attached) Total # of Units: 4 Zoning: RES4 Zoning By -lair: 2019-051 Footlirint GFA Muci al Building per Side: 117.46 mr 227-68 in- Required Prm ided Total Parking Spaces per Side: 2 ? Bicvcle Stalls: ' 4 Comments.?Conditions: Iu accordance %with approved Zoning P1urT attached. In accordance with Building Permit 25-119473 — _0L zomainr Oficial for Director of flaw g and Heu=g Policy, DSD Departmmt 1111RO l't:i Ut tiOdCe With authority of the PI na uing Act a certificate of zomn2 occupancy .'enfies that the use is permitted by the Cit; of Kitchener's Zonine By -Law. A certificate of zoning occupancy does not exempt the recipient from obtaining a Vnilding perm:- and ensuring compliance with Building and Fire Cade Regulations, ir:ch,ditlQ eccupanc:* req-airen_ents under the Bm'dinr Code. Figure 4 — Zoning Occupancy Certificate It is noted that the foundation for the future building/dwelling has not yet been poured and surveyed and a Reference Plan and Building Location Survey were 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 aroaosed lot dimensions and setbacks. no maintenance easements are necessary and is proceeding with the application at this time Page 116 of 187 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF IITCHENER ZONING CER TIFIC�ATE �j,�,�.� �5 RFQL�:FIi 8i SECTION 3x{51 OF THE FLLSIZIG_4CI A -ND iC y.7C 4 1 1. •1 lL it � 1', 7.4\iS6 PS-LKM OF ME= OF I.QTCIEENF-t Certificate Number: 25 110975 Date Issued: October 15, 2025 Address: 104 BRENTWOOD A%'E Permitted L. se: Selrn-detached D",tilling with 3 Additional Ihvelling huts (attached) Total # of Units: 4 Zoning: RES4 Zoning By -lair: 2019-051 Footlirint GFA Muci al Building per Side: 117.46 mr 227-68 in- Required Prm ided Total Parking Spaces per Side: 2 ? Bicvcle Stalls: ' 4 Comments.?Conditions: Iu accordance %with approved Zoning P1urT attached. In accordance with Building Permit 25-119473 — _0L zomainr Oficial for Director of flaw g and Heu=g Policy, DSD Departmmt 1111RO l't:i Ut tiOdCe With authority of the PI na uing Act a certificate of zomn2 occupancy .'enfies that the use is permitted by the Cit; of Kitchener's Zonine By -Law. A certificate of zoning occupancy does not exempt the recipient from obtaining a Vnilding perm:- and ensuring compliance with Building and Fire Cade Regulations, ir:ch,ditlQ eccupanc:* req-airen_ents under the Bm'dinr Code. Figure 4 — Zoning Occupancy Certificate It is noted that the foundation for the future building/dwelling has not yet been poured and surveyed and a Reference Plan and Building Location Survey were 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 aroaosed lot dimensions and setbacks. no maintenance easements are necessary and is proceeding with the application at this time Page 116 of 187 `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. 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 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. Page 117 of 187 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, 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 regulation can be met. A Zoning Occupancy Certificate has been issued confirming the zoning regulations are being met. 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. Page 118 of 187 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 comments or concerns. Building Division Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed consent. Region of Waterloo and Area Municipalities' Design Guidelines and Supplemental Specifications for Municipal Services (DGSSMS) allows only one service per lot. Separate building permit(s) will be required for the demolition of the existing building, as well as construction of the new residential buildings. Engineering Division Comments: • 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. Page 119 of 187 Parks and Cemeteries/Forestry Division Comments: Cash -in -lieu of parkland 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. Transportation Planning Comments: No concerns. Region of Waterloo Comments: 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 $350.00 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 120 of 187 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: D20-20/26 KIT January 7, 2026 Re: Comments on Consent Applications — B 2025-032 to B2025-035 (inclusive) Committee of Adjustment Meeting — January 20, 2026 City of Kitchener Page 121 of 187 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 per 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 122 of 187 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 123 of 187 The Region is in the process of updating its Water Supply Strategy. Through this work, concerns have been identified regarding water servicing capacity within the Mannheim Service Area. Regional staff are working expeditiously to evaluate the situation and understand the magnitude of the concerns to be able to provide comments relating to water servicing capacity. As such, the Region is not in a position to support approval of applications, B 2025-032 and B2025-033, at this time, and the following comments are provided for information purposes. Page 124 of 187 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. Page 125 of 187 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. Page 126 of 187 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 127 of 187 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 128 of 187 From: Landuse Planning To: Marilyn Mills Subject: KITCHENER - 104 BRENTWOOD AVENUE - B 2025-033 Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 10:39:53 AM IYou don't often get email from landuseplanning@hydroone.com. Learn why this is important Hello, We are in receipt of your Application for Consent, B 2025-033 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 subdivision@Hydroone.com or 1-866-272-3330. To confirm if Hydro One is your local distributor please follow the following link: Stormeentre (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 hydro�f one Customers Affected:0 >5000 V 501-5000 0 51-500 a 21-50 ( =20 0 Multiple () Crew —Service Area ❑J u si Q Ottaw Montreal �. fluntsedfe 411 40Q 11 � c 5 0Qrlia Kawarha aoa Lakes 0/� § ° & P2i2rIl}b UO . {� Kin. 6ellville V 4 a� O • p 115 inceodwar Watepown a qQ 4 r � n,n-. n Tnrnnfn � V K14Che .r• ° 4 Rochester Mau data 92019 Google 50 km L -----j Terms of Use 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 If you have any questions please feel free to contact Land Use Planning. Thank you, Land Use Planning Department Hydro One Networks Inc. Email: LandUsePlanningAHydroOne.com Z Burlir Li Page 129 of 187 From: Joseph. Shadae on behalf of circulations To: Committee of Adiustment (SM) Subject: 519-25-116 - Consent Application B2025-033 - 104 Brentwood Avenue Date: Monday, December 8, 2025 12:09:27 PM Good afternoon, Bell Canada has no concerns with respect to Application for Consent B2025-033, regarding 104 Brentwood Avenue. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you, ShadaeJoseph Page 130 of 187 From: To: Subject: Date: Hello, LANDUSEPLANNING Committee of Adiustment (SM) KITCHENER - 104 Brentwood - B2025-033 Monday, December 15, 2025 10:56:01 AM We are in receipt of your Application for Consent, B2025-033 dated 2025-11-14. 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 subdivision@Hydroone.com or 1-866-272-3330. To confirm if Hydro One is your local distributor please follow the following link: Stonncentre (hydroone.com) Please select "Search" and locate the address in question by entering the address or by zooming in and out of the leap ? a MENU HELP SEARCH I hyd tune Customers Affected:0 15000 501-5000 0 51-500 0 21-50 V e=20 0 Multiple ® Crew —Service Area u sir Q0ttaw Montreal �� V. ® r Hunt:5veli2 417 417 40Q 17 � o 5 C, rd� � O 4ifi A 0Orlin Kawartha aoa � Lakes vis ° & P2t2rh ,Ugi 0 Kin 9ell�ville � s 115 nflCeo dWaf Watertown '4° ' a 5 Lzramplono Toronto o o Kitchei r � ar,o o o Mississauga a , Hamilton Rochester 4031 Mao data 92019 GDcale 50 km 6____J Terms of Use If you have any further questions or inquiries, please contact Customer Service at 1-888-664-9376 or e-mail CustomerCommunicationsgHydroOne.com to be connected to your Local Operations Centre If you have any questions please feel free to contact Land Use Planning. Thank you, Land Use Planning Department Hydro One Networks Inc. Email: LandUsePlanninggHydroOne_com Burlir Page 131 of 187 January 20, 2026 To: City of Kitchener Planning Staff and Committee of Adjustment urban Cc: Tina Malone Wrigth, Garett Stevenson, Rod Regier, Alyssa insights Bridge, Reema Masri, Client From: Urban Insights Inc. Re: 776 Rockway Drive and 104 Brentwood Avenue CofA Applications (January 20 2026) Request for Decision Next Committee Meeting I represent the property owners for the Committee of Adjustment severance applications at 776 Rockway Drive and 104 Brentwood Avenue, which were recently deferred based on comments received from the Region of Waterloo relating to water capacity constraints. These applications represent a very modest and localized form of intensification—two small infill severances within fully serviced, established neighbourhoods. The scale of development proposed is minuscule in the context of the regional water system, and will result in a negligible increase in demand. These are not large-scale developments which are subject to complex agreements and approvals, but rather, small scale gentle density projects that fit within existing neighborhoods. They are precisely the type of gentle density infill that both municipal and provincial policy frameworks continue to encourage. As a small scale infill project, continued delays will have a detrimental impact on project viability and ability to get needed attainable housing to market. Importantly, the City of Kitchener and this Committee remain the statutory decision-making authorities for these severance applications. While the Region of Waterloo is a commenting agency, it is not the approval authority for these planning decisions. The Region's recent correspondence provides a general caution regarding system capacity, but it does not identify these specific applications as creating an unacceptable or unserviceable impact. In fact, the Region has acknowledged that approvals may continue on a case-by-case basis, particularly for small infill projects with limited or neutral impact on overall demand. In this context, it would be neither proportionate nor consistent with good planning to apply a broad, system -wide constraint to micro -scale severance applications without site-specific analysis, clear servicing refusal, or defined interim rules. These applications can be approved today providing applicable law for a direct building permit approval and issuance process. At this stage, there are two procedural paths available. Either the Committee may approve these applications based on its own planning merits and jurisdiction, allowing the Region to exercise its rights at the servicing stage if necessary, or a continued deferral risks creating an unnecessary lack of decision, which would force the applicants to consider an appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal. Neither outcome serves the public interest where the planning impacts are minor and manageable. 011 Page 132 of 187 For these reasons, we respectfully request that the Committee proceed to hear and decide these applications at the next available meeting, with full circulation to neighbours and agencies. We will provide additional technical information in advance of that hearing to demonstrate that these proposals represent gentle density infill with no material impact on the Region's broader water capacity challenges. Approving these severances would strike the appropriate balance between responsible infrastructure management and the continued delivery of small-scale housing in established neighbourhoods. Respectfully submitted, URBAN INSIGHTS INC. Urban Planning • Economic Development • Urban Design Ryan O. Mounsey. CEO. BES.MUDS.MCIP,RPP 519-591-6076 www.urbaninsights.ca 40 King Street South, Suite 301 Waterloo, ON N2J1 N8 4 Page 133 of 187 0 Uan Harten LAND SURVEYORS -ENGINEERS February 12, 2026 34492-25 Ryan Mounsey, MCIP, RPP Urban Insights Inc. sent via email Re: Proposed Severance 104-106 Brentwood Avenue, City of Kitchener Sanitary and Water Servicing Review Dear Sir, Van Harten Surveying Inc. was retained by the owner of the subject property to prepare an estimate of the servicing demand in support of the proposed severance application for the subject property. BACKGROUND The property is located on the north side of Brentwood Avenue between Montgomery Road and Jackson Avenue within the City of Kitchener. The property is currently developed with a residential home. The proposed development consists of severing the property into two building lots and constructing a semi-detached unit on each lot. Building plans and a servicing and grading plan have been prepared and submitted to the City for review. Based on a review of the building plans, each side of the semi is proposed to contain two bachelor units, one 1 -bedroom unit, and one 2 -bedroom unit, for 8 units proposed in total. SANITARY There is an existing 300mm sanitary sewer on Brentwood Avenue in front of the subject property. It is proposed to connect each of the severed properties to this sewer with a 1 00m PVC SDR28 572 Weber Street North, Unit 7 2106 Gordon Street 660 Riddell Road, Unit 1 Waterloo, ON, N2L 5C6 Guelph, ON, N1 L 1 G6 Orangeville, ON, L9W 5G5 519-742-8371 519-821-2763 519-940-4110 www.vanharten.com LU • Oy4qHarten RVEYORS - ENGINEERS lateral at minimum 2%. The existing lateral for the former dwelling is to be removed and capped at the main. WATER There is an existing 150mm PVC DR18 watermain on Brentwood Avenue in front of the subject property. It is proposed to connect each of the lot to this watermain with a single domestic service. Each service would consist of a 50mm polyethylene service in the street which would be reduced to a 38mm polyethylene service just inside the street -line. A 38 mm pipe is proposed in the right- of-way as current City standards do not permit the use of 38 mm diameter pipe on the public side. The existing water service is to be decommissioned in accordance with DGSSMS and City standards. Water Demand The estimated water demand was calculated for the property under the proposed condition. Considering a population of 1.78 ppu (Hemson, 2022) and a per capita water usage of 225 L/day (DGSSMS 2026) the expected average daily water demand for this development would be 3,375 L/day or 3.4 cu.m/day. Average day, maximum day and peak hour estimates are provided in the table below inclusive of peak factors and detailed calculations are provided in the attachment. In December 2025, the Region of Waterloo identified a potential water supply constraint issue within the Mannheim Service Area. The Agile Report (January 13, 2026), identified that the Mannheim Service Area is projected to experience an average daily water demand of www.vanharten.com Page 135 of 187 Description PPU Population Average Maximum Peak Hour Day Day (L/s) (L/s) (L/s) Proposed 2 semi- 1.78 14.24 0.04 0.37 0.56 detached dwellings (8 apartments) In December 2025, the Region of Waterloo identified a potential water supply constraint issue within the Mannheim Service Area. The Agile Report (January 13, 2026), identified that the Mannheim Service Area is projected to experience an average daily water demand of www.vanharten.com Page 135 of 187 Oy4qHarten RVEYORS - ENGINEERS approximately 117,441 cu.m/day during 2025. The water demand associated with this development (3.4 cu.m./day) represents approximately 0.003% of the overall projected average daily demand for the Mannheim service area. Sincerely, VAN HARTEN SURVEYING INC. Kristine Campbell, P.Eng. Encl. Water Design Flow Calculation Sheet Encl. Approved Servicing and Grading Plan H:125-344134492-251Letters12026.02.12 Servicing. Docx www.vanharten.com age 136 O Project No: 34492-25 Project Name: Proposed Severance Harten Project Location: 104 Brentwood Avenue, Kitchener Date: 2/11/2026 LAND SURVEYORS — ENGINEERS Update: 2/11/2026 Site Characteristics Site Area = Number of Units = Population per Unit = Site Population = Residential Design Flow Average Daily Demand = Site Population = Average Daily Demand = Site Average Daily Flow = MOE Max. Day Peak Factor = MOE Peak Hour Factor = Peak Max. Day Design Flow = Peak Hour Design Flow = Water Design Flow Calculation 0.055594 ha 8 units 1.78 ppu 15 people Notes: *Per Site Plan 2022 Kitchener Development Charges Study 225 L/cap/day DGSSMS 2026 15 people 3375 L/day 0.04 L/s Flow (L/s) 9.50 0.04 *MOE Design Guidelines, Table 3-3 14.30 *MOE Design Guidelines, Table 3-3 0.37 L/s =Average Daily Flow * Max Day PF 0.56 L/s =Average Daily Flow * Max Hour PF *Water design flow calculations complete with reference to the Region of Waterloo and Area Municipalities DGSSMS (2026) and the Ministry of Environment Design Guidelines for Drinking -Water Systems (2008) H:\25-344\34492-25\Letters\Water and SAN Demand (PPU)_.xlsx Page 137 of 187 Average Daily Flow Max. Day Flow Peak Hour Design Design Guideline (L/s) (L/s) Flow (L/s) DGSSMS/MOE 0.04 0.37 0.56 *Water design flow calculations complete with reference to the Region of Waterloo and Area Municipalities DGSSMS (2026) and the Ministry of Environment Design Guidelines for Drinking -Water Systems (2008) H:\25-344\34492-25\Letters\Water and SAN Demand (PPU)_.xlsx Page 137 of 187 t z 0 art MH . . . . . . . . . ------ 2 n.� wz t z w u < wow0 2n om mu z v �2 UP 0 0 < < > 05 <0 0 d) C6 ooz u >w 0 2 n—H > < 0 u nn d'< w z z W 0- Q �O 2 0, W 0 u) z z z z 0 M -H-H M- o em -EE Ezael< �4 ee 4 H - W, "Eli E 21= oo H -b;! pEz� 2t- Z-! b. W 01 -'t8 Er Hunii pu� J.. • D z oar z 0, HE M z < 6 N Z Z NM� 0 0 0 0 z .1 z 0 0 0 0 3 H 0 o A� 2 10 oe H, J, _sego -a< N nA 8 20 E20 - . -'. -, "M u -H owoaw e - nwGsst p N n Epp -------N t EOE P - 2 �2 i NUN W og NIIHM RoA o - M 2 Man MOE�2 'o E �5 I < H NUNNzo M�q -8 ON H 26 dl Fg N- Un -6 H Edo sY z mg to to ggw�zMPH H eb HH 0� 0 z°sG 6 -Sot --- ----- O�gof Z 0 z 6t Z --- 0 ME Uq Ill i v, I I C, - 1 OU Lj Now — A Jill e. i00 IN him, QCs Mid! ro, PEI C) w Q) �, u' °co O a �. . i ° 0 ro s oao a _ v v U Ln Npw Ln CS 4-j v O s v a `'' O cn a pLn O— a v a v o CU o o a a a v v o U U � 0 S O 01 –0— � Ln a v v— c a v v i a j s a Ov Q 4-' v °' a v acc CN u •� 0-j i N 4-1 a •+-' � a kn 4-1� O W a CN O i V IDN 0 -LL Oi " O .216 •� " ° Oi Oi v S� 1 O CU >- Cl 00 *'� � "' ry S � 'iii /�` 'i�i� •�' p �_ /� ate-' •,� 3 a �, �, a i v ac � •,..� � � � a � O O •� � � O X11 �. � a U ClA L (1)C: N 4— O +-+ N cx ^ _0 E o N L O N - l0 Q M +�-+ L NN E O O O N 0 N O ca N 4J U > O-0 O N M N E U O O -0 L ' v }, N O +�-+ E -0 E � OU O -0 N E J Q N J Q 0 = ate-+ rl� m a--+ N D- Ln N cn 'O Q cn � o Q N �' N N > ca 'a) L Q 00 0 '� _0 m �J Q � Q) r-, N — Q.ate--+ C6 ClA 0 C: f6 N U U ' _ j —0 N 4—> O '� +Ln �-+ > }, —0 —0 N N (3j N Q U >j U 0 m W O Q Q > N f6 Q --- Q CO U X (3) N —0 -CN M te- a • • • 49 E A~ ca � 0 •� N L �Co a--+ 4-J U 'N L N +_+ N N � o ateJ •� � U = r -I N L C6 (y) N O ca C •�„ U C U N ClA Q C:-0 •> .N 4-J L/) 0 L O a -J U O ON O N 4--+ -0O w ro N 0+-j -C L ul =3 CL ?� X O 0 4-JQ cj O -0 a) ca O N l�A N cn ca 0 N a--+ U U }, M ateJ N (/ •O LN N U a--+ — L (31 }' '� f6 L .� — ca L `— a -J M 4-0 4— O Q O U N Q N i cn O ca N N N p N CL ate-+ •U � � � � — }, Q N N N ClA U — — N c U N Q � u 0- O O Q •U j U U N N f� 0 NN N N v 0 O O cO Q N N N O N N > }' 4-J Ul f 6 — a -J 4- U N N > •O U •N Lu N N iJ O > N N N ca O �J +'' •X N N Ln ,v ate--+ Qa✓ U O Otxo (n > N p i E U N ca p N (f)O — O O `p ca N > c `~ U C6 N C6 N -0C6 C6 LL CO ate..+ 0 (n 0 M _0 N U C O Q ti co N N U U U •� N Q 'IT Cl: O 0 N 0 .X E N .— •— N •— N N •N a.., W +-j � O S N Q • cn L f6 � a"' p \O N N O cn c6 Q M 00 ON C O N m , E .N O 2 \ •U i OR L N > N >' E N ClA N O a--+ 4* U . U •� N U •>Q U N vii `~ — i C6 4-J N UO Q O O � N U (3) i = C6 U ; \ _0 C6 C O ca E ca N L N ; Q cn N U �A f6 L > a--+ N O 4-J E•� a--+ O N N •N •� N cn O N Q E Q ca O ti co 4- 0 LO a� c6 LQ •— E N O bD C: O C6 a-+ U uj > 00 L O U _ O U O U > N ClA .N O > 4-J O O N N � O N N _U � � L • ca cn Q 0 � Q Q ClA � — N N U N cn 0 bD O .N > O bD > -0 U W �--+ U � � L .> ClA Q X � �O _0-a a--' tw E Q 0 U 0_-o O O U QLn N W N ) U a -J ,N N Q Lr) N E O O > cn Q 4 -J L C6 N N N � .— (n � b.0 N N •> L ti co 4- 0 LO a� c6 LQ •— N C: O C6 a-+ U uj > O U U N O 4-J N Q � O N _U � L • ca cn Q 0 Q C: O N N U N cn 0 O bD > -0 U • �--+ U � L ClA Q N � �O _0-a O E 0 O O W U N E U cn L C6 C6 � .— •U 0 N N •> L a-1 � — U > N o cerin O ate -J ti co 4- 0 LO a� c6 N cn N N Q70 ca U O O aro b.0 Q (J •— +-JL c- � +-' O f6 Ul — cn �N O� N 0 v �' U Q� +J Q(U •> _0 _O E •� ca i` aN.+ •� W u N O Ln Q Q �_ 0 Q O — ' N —0ca > O O U cn O +-+ U C:Q> M N � 0 N f6 � Q O f6 Q O E •N a% _ •ca QJ — •� 0 C C6 N >j O N O 4- U C: cn N Ln ca ca +•+ N c6 l�A • — O N a--+ N Q Q O > N a--+ •l�A L •� Q > O .— O N a—�+ • 0a-+ Q 0 C6 U L N N _ U Q a--+ 0N -0N m 0te N � O L —0 aa"-+ N 0 _0•a� •� •`n NC: � E � O O � � � ca N � i O v N 4-JU ca O >` L N" Q U +�-+ •?> >. 0 C N O O> = O E N • :F3 a) -0 }' U Q— -0 Q -0 Co +-j U ClA = cn ClA N Cl D +-+ Q ON " N -0 N > N C6 N +-+ Q D U L N O E Q CT. C O mc >, _ U _0N o N Q +� L Q N_ Q O L L cn Q O .E E O O}' U Q a••+ U- DC m Q U N DC N ClA f6 ME Uq Ill i v, I I C, - 1 OU Lj Now — A Jill e. i00 IN him, QCs Mid! ro, PEI C&A Letter urban+ Date: February 12, 2026 Insights From: Ryan 0. Mounsey. CEO.BES.MUDS.MCIP.RPP. Urban Insights Inc. To: City of Kitchener CofA and Planning Staff Re: 104 and 106 Brentwood Avenue, CofA Application No. B 2025-033 Proposed New Residential (Consent) Lot — Marginal Water Demand Impact Dear Committee of Adjustment ("CofA") and City Staff, A.The Request and New Information The property is located at 104 and 106 Brentwood Avenue shown in Appendix 1, with the severance plan shown in Appendix 2, for reference. I am writing in support of the proposed consent application to create one new residential lot to accommodate a form of gentle -density housing consisting of a semi-detached dwelling with accessory residential units. Based on Regional agency review deferral comments, The Committee of Adjustment received this severance application in December 2025 and the City and Committee chose to defer this Committee of Adjustment application decision to February 17, 2026 CofA meeting. Three months has now passed with limited progress related to development approval protocols. This proposal represents a minor, incremental intensification opportunity within the existing built-up area and is consistent with the Province's direction to optimize infrastructure, support housing supply, and plan efficiently for current and future population growth. This proposal is also supported by the City of Kitchener Official Plan for residential intensification. At the outset, I acknowledge the Region's ongoing concerns regarding water supply constraints within the Integrated Urban System ("IUS"), and in particular the Mannheim Service Area, which has now been evaluated as a distinct service area within the broader system. However, we respectfully submit that this consent application represents a marginal, low -impact servicing scenario and should not be equated with major growth allocations or infrastructure -intensive development approvals. This is a City of Kitchener planning decision, with the Region of Waterloo acting as a commenting agency who has issued a blanket deferral position with respect to development applications across the Mannheim Service Area. 4 Page 148 of 187 Given the demonstrated lag between development approvals and the gradual realization of actual water demand through construction and occupancy, together with ongoing operational adjustments within the Mannheim Service Area, we respectfully request that the Committee of Adjustment approve this minor application. The evidence indicates that this modest scale of development represents a marginal and incremental demand that has no material impact within the system's current capacity context, and that an indefinite deferral of small-scale gentle density applications is neither proportionate nor sustainable. The primary source of available information on the Regional Water Capacity condition is provided in a Peer Review Engineering Study prepared by Agile presented at the January 13 Region of Waterloo Sustainability, Infrastructure and Development (SID) Committee with the website and report links provided below: • Meeting Link: https://pub- regionofwaterloo.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=94e4b6a1-1817-42d5-9974- b56fbaf2c3b6&Agenda=Merged&fang=English • Agile Report Link: https://pub- regionofwaterloo.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?Documentld=15483 In addition to the Agile Report, please see this technical information prepared by Kristine Campbell P.Eng. from Van Harten Land Surveyors Engineers (Provided in Appendix 3). • A Sanitary and Water Servicing Review was prepared by Van Harten Surveying Inc. (February 12, 2026) to quantify the servicing demand associated with the proposed severance and gentle -density development at 104-106 Brentwood Avenue. • The review confirms that the site is located on an existing serviced urban street with a 150 mm municipal watermain and a 300 mm sanitary sewer, and that the proposed development can be accommodated through standard domestic connections in accordance with City servicing standards. • A 38 mm pipe is proposed in the right of -way as current City standards do not permit the use of 38 mm diameter pipe on the public side. • Based on accepted population and per -capita usage assumptions, the study estimates an average daily water demand of approximately 3.4 M3 /day for the full 8 -unit proposal. • Importantly, the memo concludes that this incremental demand represents only —0.003% of the Mannheim Service Area's projected 2025 average daily demand of 117,441 m3/day. Based on this information, the proposed severance, and development, constitutes a marginal, low -impact servicing scenario that would not have any measurable effect on the overall Mannheim water supply system. IJ Page 149 of 187 B. The "Agile Report" - January 13 2026 (refer to link above) In 2025, the Mannheim Service Area is projected to experience an average daily water demand of approximately 117,441 m'/day, compared to a total sustainable supply capacity of 125,712 m'/day, resulting in a modest theoretical surplus of roughly 8,271 m'/day before any operational resiliency buffer or maintenance outages are applied. This assessment, which shows that the Mannheim Service Area system, is effectively operating at about —89% availability on average (because —11% is offline). This system is in the process of being improved'. This same 'system' is also informed by measured real-world SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) demand and production data, together with updated sustainable capacity estimates, rather than a purely hypothetical model. The Agile Report further notes that actual available capacity may differ from theoretical margins due to facilities being periodically offline for renewal or unplanned shutdowns, and because approved development applications do not translate into immediate water demand, as growth is realized gradually through construction and occupancy over time. B.1.What this Agile Report Means The Region's peer-reviewed evidence (The Agile Report) shows that Mannheim's system constraint is a macro -level infrastructure and operational resiliency issue, driven by overall service -area demand, offline maintenance requirements, and long-term growth realization, rather than the marginal impact of individual low -demand infill projects. In practical terms, a small number of minor lot severances—particularly for modest, low -flow residential connections—do not materially change the system -wide capacity balance in the near term, because water demand is realized gradually through phased construction and occupancy, not immediately upon planning approval. With this information, it is our project team belief that our proposed development believes that the Committee of Adjustment is in a reasonable position consider that a limited number of small-scale severances represent an incremental demand, and should be evaluated proportionately within the broader regional capacity framework, rather than treated as equivalent to major new servicing commitments. ' https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-region/waterloo-region-spends-l5-million-to-add-more-water- supply/article Oa4f6f5d-bfO9-5dcb-b4ae-bac62b9baele.html IAI Page 150 of 187 C. Additional Supporting Information to advance the Consent Application C.1. This Consent Application Does Not Constitute a Form 1 Approval or Servicing Expansion The proposed severance is a 'land division' (severance) approval under Section 53 of the Planning Act. It is not: • an application for a new municipal watermain extension, • a servicing agreement, • a registered plan of subdivision, or • a Form 1 authorization for new regulated drinking water infrastructure. In fact, this severance (subdivision of land) meets the intent of the official plan, it is: • The proposed consent represents an orderly and appropriate subdivision of land under Section 53, maintaining the existing residential lotting pattern and neighbourhood character. • The severance supports Provincial Planning Statement (2024 PPS) objectives by enabling gentle density and efficient use of serviced urban land within the settlement area. • The new lot is suitable and desirable for low-rise residential use, providing a compatible form of incremental intensification. • Municipal servicing impacts are modest, relying on a standard residential connection, with detailed confirmation appropriately addressed through the building permit process. • Overall, the proposal reflects good planning, advances housing supply objectives, and is in the public interest as a small-scale, low -impact consent application. As confirmed in the Region's own water supply framework, Form 1 is associated with the authorization of new or modified municipal waterworks, not the creation of a single low-rise residential lot. Based on this, this consent should be evaluated as a planning -level, marginal impact development approval, rather than as a major servicing trigger. C.2. The Proposal Represents a Minor Residential Demand User (15-38 mm Service Connection) The proposed development would be serviced by a standard 38 mm (1.5" residential water service connection, which is typical of low-rise housing forms and fundamentally different from larger connections required for mid -rise or high -demand development. This is not a: • 50 mm connection, • 100 mm connection, • 150 mm connection, or • nor a development requiring new municipal system expansion. The water demand associated with a semi-detached and accessory units is modest in scale and represents gentle intensification consistent with established servicing patterns. Page 151 of 187 C.3. PPS 2024 Supports Optimizing Existing Infrastructure and Timely Growth Accommodation As part of The 2024 Provincial Planning Statement, there are several policy objectives to balance including: • 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: promoting densities for new housing which efficiently use land, resources, infrastructure and public service facilities, and support the use of active transportation (2.2.1.c, Housing). • infrastructure and public service facilities shall be provided in an efficient manner while accommodating projected needs (3.1.1. General Policies for Infrastructure and Public Service Facilities). • Before consideration is given to developing new infrastructure and public service facilities: the use of existing infrastructure and public service facilities should be optimized (3.1.2.a, General Policies for Infrastructure and Facilities). • to accommodate forecasted growth in a timely manner (3.6.1.a, Sewage, Water and Stormwater). • to integrate servicing and land use considerations at all stages of the planning process (3.6.1.d, Sewage, Water and Stormwater). • Planning authorities may allow lot creation where there is confirmation of sufficient reserve sewage system and reserve water system capacity (3.6.7 Sewage, Water and Stormwater). The proposed consent aligns with this specific policy intent by: • Advancing a small-scale, infrastructure -efficient form of housing within the existing serviced area and in a timely manner as new service improvements are on the way to improve the Mannheim Service Area operational capacity. • Optimizing existing infrastructure for the efficient use of land for residential intensification. • The existing Mannheim System average daily usage is below the sustainable supply capacity of 125,712 m3 / day with 8,271 M3 /day. • The proposed incremental demand represents only —0.003% of the Mannheim Service Area's projected 2025 average daily demand of 117,441 m3/day, confirming that the proposed development constitutes a marginal, low -impact servicing scenario that would not have any measurable effect on the overall Mannheim water supply system. C.4. A Marginal Consent Approval Does Not Materially Alter Regional System Risk The Agile assessment, in review, confirms that the Mannheim capacity constraints are driven by: • sustainable supply downrating, • operational maintenance outages, and • long-term infrastructure renewal requirements. 1.1 Page 152 of 187 It is also noted in the Agile Report that offline capacity averages approximately 11% annually due to planned maintenance requirements, with short-term outages exceeding 25% in isolated weeks, reflecting broader system -wide operational constraints rather than project -specific demand impacts. These operational challenges are now being actively addressed through near- term Regional investments and treatment capacity restoration initiatives at the Mannheim Water Treatment Plant, which are intended to improve overall system resiliency over time including this spring. Regional Council decisions and actions show that water system constraints are being improved with the first round of improvements available this springz. C.S. Short Term Improvements are Under Way from Region of Waterloo Special Council Meeting — February 6 Special Council Meeting Regional Council held a Special Meeting on February 6, 2026 to address the emerging water capacity constraint in the Mannheim Service Area and to consider an urgent operational response at the Mannheim Water Treatment Plant. At this meeting, Council approved a new capital project titled the Pilot — Mannheim Temporary Side Stream Treatment, also referred to as the Mannheim Containerized Filtration Solution, with a total authorized budget of $15,162,200, funded from the Water Capital Reserve Fund'. This decision included procurement approvals for specialized filtration equipment, construction services, and associated electrical and engineering work, reflecting the Region's active and immediate investment in restoring lost treatment capacity within the Mannheim system. "This project is a promising innovative solution to add additional capacity in the Mannheim Service Area, until such time that the long-term solution being implemented at the Mannheim Water Treatment Plant (WTP) is complete. Early contractor involvement and advance procurement were required to mitigate schedule risk." (COR - TRY -26-004, February 6 2026 Regional Council). As part of this investment, the Region is committed to install three temporary ultrafiltration container units at the Mannheim Water Treatment Plant, each providing an estimated 50 L/s of flow capacity, to address existing sedimentation and treatment constraints. The first pilot container is anticipated to be installed by June 2026, with the remaining units expected to be operational by July 2027, subject to MECP approvals and implementation requirements. "Staff therefore recommend that Council approve the additional capital expenditure and contract awards as outlined in this report. Subject to Council approval, the work of this contract will begin immediately upon approval. The first container is anticipated to be installed by June 2026, pending confirmation of a number of variables. Based on the result of the pilot, receipt of MECP approvals, confirmation of electrical needs, and other z https://pub-regionofwaterioo.escribemeetings.com/FileStream.ashx?Documentid=15801 3 https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-region/waterloo-region-spends-l5-million-to-add-more-water- supply/article Oa4f6f5d-bf09-5dcb-b4ae-bac62b9baele.html II Page 153 of 187 factors to be worked through, it is anticipated that the remaining containers will be installed and operational by July 2027. If successful, the pilot project is expected to add approximately 50 L/s, while the full implementation is expected to add up to 300 L/s of restored capacity." (COR -TRY -26-004, February 6 2026 Regional Council). If successful, the pilot phase is expected to restore approximately 50 L/s of capacity, while full anticipated implementation could restore up to 300 L/s of additional capacity in the Mannheim Service Area. This Regional Council -approved initiative confirms that the Region is actively advancing near-term operational improvements to address the water capacity shortfall. C.6. The Engineering Submission by Van Harten Land Surveyors Engineers An Engineering Technical Memo has been prepared (see Appendix 3) to evaluate the water service connection requirements for the proposed development. This letter, prepared by Van Harten Land Surveyors Engineers confirms that: • A 38 mm pipe is proposed in the right of -way as current City standards do not permit the use of 38 mm diameter pipe on the public side. • The estimated water demand was calculated for the property under the proposed condition. Considering a population of 1.78 ppu (Hemson, 2022) and a per capita water usage of 225 L/day (DGSSMS 2026) the expected average daily water demand for this development would be 3375 L/day or 3.4 cu.m/day. • The water demand associated with this development (3.4 cu.m./day) represents approximately 0.003% of the overall projected average daily demand for the Mannheim service area. Based on this information, the proposed water service connections represent a minor water connection to the water system and will not have any detrimental impact to the Mannheim Service Area water capacity. D. Closing In closing, on behalf of our full project and ownership teams, we respectfully submit that the proposed consent represents a modest, low risk (no tangible impact) and incremental form of gentle -density intensification that will generate only a marginal water demand impact within the broader Mannheim Service Area. The proposed development represents approximately 0.003% of the overall projected average daily demand for the Mannheim service area. The proposal relies on a standard 38 mm (a 1.5 inch service) residential service connection, does not require any trunk infrastructure expansion, and does not constitute a Form 1 approval or major servicing commitment. E:3 Page 154 of 187 Importantly, the available evidence also demonstrates that water demand associated with approved development is realized gradually through phased construction and occupancy (there is a time lag or gap between approval and occupancy), rather than immediately upon planning approval. At the same time, the Region has now initiated active operational improvements to restore treatment capacity, including the recently approved $15.16 million Mannheim Containerized Filtration Solution, which is expected to add meaningful short-term capacity beginning in 2026. In this context, and with a continued indefinite deferral of minor consent applications, risk creating a disproportionate barrier to modest housing delivery, despite their limited servicing footprint. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the Committee of Adjustment approve this consent application as an appropriate, low -impact form of residential intensification that can proceed under constrained conditions, subject to detailed servicing confirmation through the building permit process. This represents a reasonable, proportionate and coordinated planning response that supports gentle density housing delivery while broader regional water supply solutions continue to advance. Sincerely, Ryan Mounsey, CEO.BES.MUDS.MCIP.RPP 40 King St. South, Suite 301 Waterloo, N2J 1N8 CC. Client, Project Team (incl. Masri 0. Architect and Van Harten Land Surveyors Engineers) Tina Malone -Wright, Garett Stevenson 01 Page 155 of 187 .•,,.r '� ��; � � � e "pad R: ' e - '� - .�'' _, � j^ t V • s ,' i a�s� 1 °4.Vu Brenhvood Ave a fR 4r t :< �f!, A APPENDIX 2: SITE PLAN (Severance Plan) r r 2 :1 PW 22,,575 sus RR i 1S?s IAREA-277!)-h T1 w I � aY5[ SUBaEC- I PRLSPER-, '. '. UA Lar+ALR U10 •210rrr :mmnr LOT158 „ k1,,' T.1 . SACS. rw 77,5:•,5-L: . -:!-tA rRm-YAR D •797. .L” .[Nn •',iJM rr iYARo •F91n ;.4i I .... rccRLlSEsi cacsrs® •S.Sn PAM Z2373 'annr '[YLtt'T'kx}�6 S[Y-0[TALFl6 CWKLLm 6RKWNL .mm ON V' .1r oKLIG[ APL'i•ILB1� ksA Gi.I�.]ny IAREA-277!)-h T1 w I �I SEVERANCE SKETCH ALL OF LAT 1511, REGISTERED PLAN 551 CITY OF KITCHENER REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO KALE 1 IS] VAN HARMN SURVEYING MC. •••� 11E�° YAP � � SUBaEC- I PRLSPER-, '. '. UA Lar+ALR U10 •210rrr :mmnr +277.iPkr '.i JTA Lar kNDA•1 uxR T.1 . SACS. .7m}. . -:!-tA rRm-YAR D •797. .L” .[Nn •',iJM rr iYARo •F91n •iilF •[Dan �!AA YAR YARD •S.Sn +r.S]n F3'.aCffd6iC•d:'C' �I SEVERANCE SKETCH ALL OF LAT 1511, REGISTERED PLAN 551 CITY OF KITCHENER REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO KALE 1 IS] VAN HARMN SURVEYING MC. •••� 11E�° YAP V AM14'3S9 39.gpE� — Nr:LetLr* EI] L•e�Kc : r:L. law SURYEV011:5 CERTIFICATE: nYs sr¢m, wts resr,AAr3 rAl 1IIL 3 3 M 3 eQ,'4Ra MMY.' k k0 rt JAIA6 kl. lA.WS r oNTANa IhN6SLi.Y: e• NOTES: . .. 1. mmNDTA PL mMaLY AND Si ul .. - • _ xLrrEue®�LxE erskL e[TrATTe TTeruis[ek Q ■nrrr.ILaes SD BRENTWOOD AVENUE 2. H[C1 PADS rL26XlGRLSld[arLullca BILAdL7AC 05 I&IVWTRL.•YAOr,i RW 73375•CW3?i71. 3siAHEL. Cti ris,WNAALsil LFAnI IN LElrn ZOMW.. RMOINTIAILIRM&A SEWORrACHIM SUBaEC- 'fi� PRLSPER-, '. '. UA Lar+ALR U10 •210rrr :mmnr +277.iPkr V AM14'3S9 39.gpE� — Nr:LetLr* EI] L•e�Kc : r:L. law SURYEV011:5 CERTIFICATE: nYs sr¢m, wts resr,AAr3 rAl 1IIL 3 3 M 3 eQ,'4Ra MMY.' k k0 rt JAIA6 kl. lA.WS r oNTANa IhN6SLi.Y: e• NOTES: . .. 1. mmNDTA PL mMaLY AND Si ul .. - • _ xLrrEue®�LxE erskL e[TrATTe TTeruis[ek Q ■nrrr.ILaes SD BRENTWOOD AVENUE 2. H[C1 PADS rL26XlGRLSld[arLullca BILAdL7AC 05 I&IVWTRL.•YAOr,i RW 73375•CW3?i71. 3siAHEL. Cti ris,WNAALsil LFAnI IN LElrn ZOMW.. RMOINTIAILIRM&A SEWORrACHIM REWRE35 FRCPOaE5'A' pv"Om "w '. '. UA Lar+ALR U10 •210rrr :mmnr +277.iPkr '.i JTA Lar kNDA•1 uxR T.1 . SACS. .7m}. . -:!-tA rRm-YAR D •797. .L” .[Nn •',iJM rr iYARo •F91n •iilF •[Dan �!AA YAR YARD •S.Sn +r.S]n +r3Ln •'.R!M Lar om Wls .mm ON •IYA '; Ls-Ao.IvLo rD-dRYAlD .ate 11 AgoG YL -z ria To rE IT kY 31VVx 1 01 RIs i. Ski L'4s a4sL rx'.3uvT f tFRkppT klRl auD hdlS x61HEN VERlr l6 [Y 99RALY s. SEE ATTAL-C3 LRl' ar NkAi3.IN3.-.0MISM DWHEl6 an Ha�rten dIRR'I lo¢.YxkrAYkorbk rikk�Y. drrLk.N Rk:Sl9-Tik iiTl. kF:SH 142'M] rh Sl 22n %-bw.wnhananaun k 0%mhrhanxmn wvma� khe cw.,,ao-Yr. uc ka2scT Yrs. arila[ n 3a, lnr-v;�Is.lA-ta 's,JorG[Mp(fl V•iiC+; MLorLi.[ Ikx�k ]15 4fA5NA sJCf♦Irt� 23]S r+Y, sura, Is FWT[=0 V ooFlPlaiT Page 157 of 187 /e\»:10INMON%\►tae\:iI:►■ Wil ►1M1111IBM Wel :N:WEel 1►1:Ia:NIisaI:IIIA I:IM I:IUslOUP :1 See separate Attachment. RI) Page 158 of 187 Staff Report r J R Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: February 17, 2026 SUBMITTED BY: Tina Malone -Wright, Manager, Development Approvals 519-783-8913 PREPARED BY: Julia Moldenhauer, Student Planner, 519-783-4592 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 2 DATE OF REPORT: February 4, 2026 REPORT NO.: DSD -2026-064 SUBJECT: Minor Variance Application A2026-009 - 451 Old Chicopee Tr. RECOMMENDATION: That Minor Variance Application A2026-009 for 451 Old Chicopee Trail requesting relief from Section 7.3, Table 7-2, Zoning By-law 2019-051 to permit a rear yard setback of 4.9 metres instead of the minimum required 7.5 metres to facilitate the construction of a new sunroom at the rear of the existing detached dwelling, generally in accordance with drawings prepared by Tropical Sunrooms, dated November 10, 2025, BE APPROVED. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to review and make a recommendation with respect to the Minor Variance Application to facilitate the construction of a new sunroom at the rear of the existing single detached dwelling of 451 Old Chicopee Trail. • The key finding of this report is that the requested Minor Variance meets the four tests of the Planning Act. • There are no financial implications. • Community engagement included a notice sign being placed on the property advising that a Committee of Adjustment application has been received, notice of the application was mailed to all 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 Old Chicopee Trail. To the east is a public walkway, to the south is Fairway Road North and to the north and west are more residential uses. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 159 of 187 e ,� C+,�rpA' s IR 1% - _�Jhl R - Figure 1: Location Map The subject property is identified as `Community Areas' on Map 2 - Urban Structure and is designated `Low Rise Residential' on Map 3 - Land Use in the City's 2014 Official Plan. The property is zoned `Low Rise Residential Two Zone (RES -2)' in Zoning By-law 2019- 051. The purpose of this application is to facilitate the construction of a new sunroom at the rear of the existing single detached dwelling addressed as 451 Old Chicopee Trail. A Minor Variance is required to allow a rear yard setback of 4.9 metres where 7.5 metres is required. Page 160 of 187 Figure 2: Street View of Existing Single Detached Dwelling Figure 3: Current Backyard Figure 4: Current Deck/Stairs Page 161 of 187 Figure 5: Proposed Site Plan SUNSPACE PEAR ELEvRATId'Y zk ' viwazRn:. r re acaeaerl �! m� DL Figure 6: Rear Elevation _ 1 SUNSPACE �—"`` i I PwmwwGw LEFT ELEVATION � � �wHvlYo LL �.oYuwer. aRulom. 4u 77 -- vv u 1 Figure 7: Left Elevation Page 162 of 187 TRACT SUNSPACE SITE PLAN DATA -RT of s. L07IB, T SDERWu C01lPANY '°o^�^s suwAoows ceT25M(M2m7Ck ipnVE ROAD 7 TRA I L �� QLI] I CQPEE LOT COVERAGE i FORMERLY OLD CHICOPEE DRIVE I P.I.N. 22TOO - 0248 _ _ _ _ — — — — Yam�sip MM HO 2,022(Njl .1 _— � — ----------- I rilOENED BY BY -LM YI9ai. pGT.— 4aG I0Y Iv PROJECT PROPOSED ,— R 44'21' S0' 4 22.915 sY..YY4.. 192k[11.0 R1� t i.4i 1l YB womarwvcx TOLLL '1205rYYY9 �G - PROIELTRppPE55 OFAI OFAILOTARPARATIO _ i F9 I a� pNlN�N�a �O DRAwrNGnrIF — : X x. � SITE PLAN o S � sll§ r�wwg2rs M 2 Zo i �.Y 'hNtF Fi[ FMoa Tlou '+MY.n � w _ RENSIMi PROJEIT ➢R4HYNG NgOEI TYPE N u co4aN�T MI j e Q PSIP T e T scut GRANN Rr_ p1ESXEDHY: 4'wor`"l.': '°n m RpN;2Mg1 a "VBm '+ew '!0 - wrsttmspwcros —�'�I.� � END4NEERWG rfr�LO - i. � Q 11 Il '944'42-24r 9 0220 s8 I LOT 19 &� Figure 5: Proposed Site Plan SUNSPACE PEAR ELEvRATId'Y zk ' viwazRn:. r re acaeaerl �! m� DL Figure 6: Rear Elevation _ 1 SUNSPACE �—"`` i I PwmwwGw LEFT ELEVATION � � �wHvlYo LL �.oYuwer. aRulom. 4u 77 -- vv u 1 Figure 7: Left Elevation Page 162 of 187 REPORT: Planning Comments: In considering the four tests for the minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O, 1990 Chap. P 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the following comments: General Intent of the Official Plan The subject property is designed as `Low Rise Residential' in the City's Land Use Map 3 of the Official Plan. This designation encourages a variety of housing forms within the low- rise residential area. The proposed sunroom will not exceed the maximum permitted height or encroach into the side yard setback. The sunroom is a natural extension of the existing dwelling. Therefore, Planning staff are of the opinion that the requested variance maintains the general intent of the Official Plan. General Intent of the Zoning By-law The subject property is zoned `RES -2' in Zoning By -Law 2019-051. Section 7.3, Table 7-2, regulations for single detached dwellings in a `RES -2' zone states the minimum rear yead set back is 7.5 metres. The property is asking for a reduction from 7.5 to a 4.9 metre minimum rear yard set back. Due to the proposed sunroom being built onto the existing dwelling, which is on an angle, as seen is Figure 2, the left corner will have a 6.1 metre setback and the right corner will have a 4.9 metre setback. Neither of these reductions will affect the privacy of the area or jut out further than the existing deck and stairs to (Figure 4). Therefore, Planning staff are of the opinion that the requested variance maintains the general intent of the Zoning By -Law. Is/Are the Effects of the Variance(s) Minor? The proposed sunroom addition will be in the location of an existing deck and will generally maintain the same footprint. We do not anticipate any significant effects resulting from the new addition of the proposed sunroom or the rear yard setback. Therefore, Planning staff are of the opinion that the effects of the requested variance will be minor. Is/Are the Variance(s) Desirable For The Appropriate Development or Use of the Land, Building and/or Structure? The proposed sunroom addition will provide additional interior living space for the existing dwelling and not significantly change the current backyard of the property. Therefore, Planning staff are of the opinion that the requested variance is desirable and appropriate for the development and use of the land. Environmental Planning Comments: No comments or concerns. Heritage Planning Comments: No comments or concerns. Parks Planning/Forestry Comments: No concerns and no requirements. Page 163 of 187 Building Services Comments: No objections to the proposed variance. A Building Permit Application has been made for the unheated sunroom addition. Engineering Services Comments: No comments or concerns. Transportation (Planning) Services Comments: No concerns with this application. Region of Waterloo Comments: No comments or concerns. Grand River Conservation Authority Comments: No concerns, no requirements. Six Nations of the Grand River Elected Council (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 Owners within 30 metres of the subject property. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Planning Act • Provincial Planning Statement (PPS 2024) • Regional Official Plan • Official Plan (2014) • Zoning By-law 2019-051 Page 164 of 187 Region of Waterloo February 9, 2026 Connie Owen City of Kitchener 200 King Street West P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 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 File No.: D20-20/ VAR KIT GEN Subject: Committee of Adjustment Meeting February 17, 2026, City of Kitchener Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and have the following comments: 1) A 2026-009 — 451 Old Chicopee Trail — No Concerns Please be advised that any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 19-037 or any successor thereof and may require payment of Regional Development Charges for these developments prior to the issuance of a building permit. The comments contained in this letter pertain to the Application numbers listed. If a site is subject to more than one application, additional comments may apply. Please forward any decisions on the above-mentioned Application numbers to the undersigned. Yours truly, _l eN Tanikia Kinear, C.E.T. Senior Transportation Planner 519-897-5691 Document Number: 5249889 Version: 1 Page 165 of 187 /and Riy 0 0 .�~Lation P% January 26, 2026 Administration Centre: 400 Clyde Road, RO. Box 729 Cambridge, ON N1 R 5W6 Phone: 519-621-2761 Toll free: 1-866-900-4722 Fax: 519-621-4844 www.grandrivenca 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 — February 17, 2026 Application for Minor Variance A 2026-009 451 Old Chicopee Trail Application for Consent B 2026-001 153-155 Fifth Avenue 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 166 of 187 From: Jenna Auger To: Committee of Adiustment (SM) Subject: RE: ACTION REQUIRED - Committee of Adjustment Application Review — February 17, 2026 Meeting Date: Friday, January 23, 2026 3:58:04 PM Attachments: image001.ona Good afternoon, Thankyou for circulating the following COA agenda. Upon review, we note there are no applications subject to Metrolinx review zones. As such, Metrolinx issues no comments 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 =00= METROLINX **Adjacent Construction Review (ACR) was formerly Third -Party Projects Review (IPPR)** From: Committee of Adjustment (SM) <CommitteeofAdjustment@kitchen er.ca> Sent: January 22, 2026 11:49 AM To: Committee of Adjustment (SM) <CommitteeofAdjustment@kitchen er.ca> Subject: ACTION REQUIRED - Committee of Adjustment Application Review— February 17, 2026 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 pi6ce jointe a moins qu'ils ne proviennent d'un expediteur Fiable, ou clue vous ayez I'assurance clue 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, February 17, 2026, 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 167 of 187 Please note: If you have comments, your written report must be sent to CofA(cDkitchener.ca no later than 12 noon on Monday, February 2, 2026. 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 cofaC(:bl<itchener.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 168 of 187 Staff Report r JR Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: February 17, 2026 SUBMITTED BY: Tina Malone -Wright, Manager, Development Approvals 519-783-8913 PREPARED BY: Arwa Alzoor, Planner, 519-783-8903 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 3 DATE OF REPORT: January 28, 2026 REPORT NO.: DSD -2026-057 SUBJECT: Consent Application B2026-001 - 153-155 Fifth Avenue RECOMMENDATION: That Consent Application B2026-001 for 153-155 Fifth Avenue requesting consent to sever a parcel of land, 155 Fifth Avenue, having a lot width of 7.6 metres, a lot depth of 34.4, metres and a lot area of 262.16 square metres, BE APPROVED subject to the following conditions: 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 Reference Plan and a Building Location Survey, prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor, to confirm the boundaries of the new lots and that the location of the foundation and setbacks, with respect to the proposed new lot lines, conforms with the Zoning By-law to the satisfaction of the Manager, Development Approvals. Failure to comply with the Zoning By-law may result in additional Committee of Adjustment Applications at the Owner's expense. *** 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 187 5. That the Owner provides a servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing system to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. That the Owner shall implement a suitable design solution for a sump pump outlet to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering as a storm service is not available to the subject property. 9. 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. 10. That the Owner provides confirmation that the basement elevation can be drained by gravity to the street sewers to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering Services. If this is not the case, then the owner will need to pump the sewage via a pump and forcemain to the property line and have a gravity sewer from the property line to the street to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering Services. 11. That the Owner pay to the City of Kitchener a cash -in -lieu contribution for park land dedication of 11,862.00. 12. That the Owner pay to the Region of Waterloo the Regional Consent Review Fee of $350.00 per application to the satisfaction of the Region of Waterloo. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to review a Consent Application to sever a new Semi - Detached Duplex Dwelling into two lots so that each unit may be dealt with independently • The key finding of this report is that the Consent Application is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, the Region of Waterloo Official Plan, City Official Plan and is good planning and in the public interest. • 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 Owners within 30 metres of the subject property and this report was posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Committee of Adjustment meeting. • This report supports the delivery of core services. Page 170 of 187 BACKGROUND: The subject property is located in the Vanier Neighborhood south of Kingsway Drive near to the intersection of Stirling Avenue South and west of Fairway Road South. Figure 1: Location Map .. U Figure 2: Zoning Map The subject property is identified as `Community Areas' on Map 2 — Urban Structure and is designated `Low Rise Residential' on Map 3 — Land Use in the City's 2014 Official Plan. The property is zoned `Low Rise Residential Four Zone (RES -4)' in Zoning By-law 2019- 051. The subject lot was created through two previous severances: the severance of 151 Fifth Avenue in 2018 and the severance of 285 Connaught Street in 2020. Following these severances, the property remained vacant until 2025, when an application was submitted for the construction of a new Semi -Detached Duplex Dwelling. Page 171 of 187 A Building Permit has been issued for the Semi -Detached Duplex Dwelling and construction is currently underway. The foundation has been poured, the backfilling is completed; and the framing construction is underway. It is noted that although the foundation has been poured, and the proposed setbacks of the Semi -Detached Duplex Dwelling were based on an original survey of the property, a Reference Plan and Building Location Survey were 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 Applicant is submitting this application with confidence that the 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'. The following condition is recommended to be added to as follows: "That the Owner provide a Reference Plan and a Building Location Survey, prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor, to confirm the boundaries of the new lots and that the location of the foundation and setbacks, with respect to the proposed new lot lines, conforms with the Zoning By-law to the satisfaction of the Manager, Development Approvals. Failure to comply with the Zoning By-law may result in additional Committee of Adjustment Applications at the Owner's expense." Should the common wall of the foundation not be located on the common lot line, or the lot widths and/or setbacks of the building/dwelling do not meet zoning requirements, the Applicant will be required to rectify and/or submit Committee of Adjustment Applications to resolve the errors and/or deficiencies at their own expense. The purpose of the current application is to request consent to sever the lot in order to create two separate parcels, allowing each half of the semi-detached duplex dwelling to be on its own lot and to function independently. The proposed severed lot would have a lot width of 7.6 metres, a lot depth of 34.4 metres, and a total area of 262.1 square metres. The retained lot would have the same dimensions and area, as the division is proposed through the centre of the newly constructed Semi -Detached Duplex Dwelling. The entire semi-detached duplex is being constructed on the existing lot, and each dwelling unit has been designed to correspond to one of the newly proposed lots. Page 172 of 187 112'-10YZ (364 M) EX6T Yr F'PLIrPry LTE 4 26'3'Y(8.01 M( — — 25-V4•(715 M) Pe" 77 envy wr n RPLEX ARLAO MV050 MWWAY �' PRGP6xp GIItC�t�` GAR Gweff ;rt I MGPMM Pp"TUTY LTE LW _--F"a_1n' �FpUwfY ' g 6JA'[L 6AR WAS FRLPG�ED 2 ZF21 RC1? M _ i GI,FLEK I § q 26'3'� 7(8.01 M) P<.RGIi �� 25'-V9'(7.85 M) ECMTd✓fi PRGP5¢11' lBE Figure 3: Sketch for Severance - Proposed Lot Fabric The Development and Housing Approvals Staff visited the site on January 29, 2026. -utr rr a yave�s �)Rol f' a Figure 4: Photo of Front View of Semi -Detached Duplex Under Construction 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) The Provincial Planning Statement (PPS) provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. Section 2.2.1 of the PPS promotes Page 173 of 187 providing an appropriate range and mix of housing options and densities to meet projected needs of current and future residents, and sets out a policy framework for sustainable healthy, liveable, and safe communities. The PPS promotes all housing options required to meet the social, health, economic and well being requirements of current and future residents, and all types of residential intensification while promoting densities for new housing which efficiently use land, resources, infrastructure and public service facilities. It also supports the use of active transportation and requiring transit supportive development. Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed application will facilitate a form of gentle intensification of the subject property with the creation of two new lots for the new semi- detached duplex dwelling that are compatible with the surrounding community and will make use of the existing infrastructure. No new public roads would be required for the proposed development. Therefore, Staff are of the opinion that this proposal is consistent with the PPS. Regional Official Plan (ROP): The Region of Waterloo is an upper -tier municipality without planning responsibilities. The More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022, amended the Planning Act by transferring planning responsibilities from upper -tier governments across the Province, including the Region of Waterloo to local municipalities. The Region is responsible for commenting on the infrastructure and service delivery that the Region of Waterloo delivers to the community, such as Public Health and Paramedic Services, Affordable Housing, source water protection, water and wastewater infrastructure, transit and transportation, waste management, and the Region of Waterloo International Airport. As a result, the Region no longer has a ROP as it is now an Official Plan for area municipalities who are responsible for implementation of the ROP until it is repealed through a future Area Municipal planning exercise. Urban Area policies of the ROP identify that the focus of the Region's future growth will be within the Urban Area. The subject lands 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 infrastructure and community infrastructure to support the proposed residential development, including transportation networks, municipal drinking - water supply and wastewater systems, and a broad range of social and public health services. Regional policies require Municipalities to plan for a range of housing in terms of form, tenure, density and affordability to satisfy the various physical, social, economic and personal support needs of current and future residents. Planning staff are of the opinion that the severance application conforms to the Regional Official Plan. City's Official Plan (2014) The subject property is identified as `Community Areas' on Map 2 — Urban Structure and is designated `Low Rise Residential' on Map 3 — Land Use in the City's 2014 Official Plan. Section 17.E.20.5 of the Official Plan implements Section 51 of the Planning Act and contains policies regarding infill development and lot creation (Consent Policies).These policies state the following: "17.E.20.5 Applications for consent to create new lots will only be granted where: Page 174 of 187 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, h) the lot(s) will not restrict the ultimate development of adjacent properties." The proposed lot width and lot area of the proposed severed and retained lots meet the minimum `RES -4' zone lot width and lot area requirements. 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 neighbourhood which is developed with low rise residential uses with lot sizes that vary in width, depth, and area. The subject lands front onto a public street and full services are available. There are no natural heritage features that would be impacted by the proposed Consent Application. Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed consent conforms with the City of Kitchener Official Plan. Zoning By-law 2019-051 The property is zoned `Low Rise Residential Four Zone (RES -4)' in Zoning By-law 2019- 051. The `RES -4' zone permits a range of low-rise residential dwelling types including single detached, semi-detached and multiple dwellings. The whole of the Semi -Detached Duplex Dwelling meets the `RES -4' Zone requirements, and each half of the Semi - Detached Duplex Dwelling will comply as well. Planning Conclusions/Comments: With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, staff is satisfied that the creation of the severed lots are desirable and appropriate. 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. There are existing schools within the neighbourhood. Staff is Page 175 of 187 further of the opinion that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement the Region of Waterloo Official Plan, City Official Plan and is good planning and in the public interest. Environmental Planning Comments: No natural heritage comments or concerns. Heritage Planning Comments: No heritage comments or concerns. Building Services Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed consent. Engineering Services Comments: The Region is currently updating the Water Supply Strategy. Through this work, concerns have been identified regarding water servicing capacity within the Mannheim Service Area. Regional staff are currently undertaking work to better understand the magnitude of the concerns and to be able to provide you with comments relating to the availability of sufficient water capacity to service the development. The Region of Waterloo is responsible for water treatment and supply and provides treated drinking water to the area municipalities, and the City then distributes this water to residents through the City's water distribution system. The City of Kitchener is responsible for, and legally obligated to, accept and review all development applications within prescribed timeframes, as outlined by legislation. The City will continue to receive and evaluate development proposals through normal channels while a plan of action is developed to address the Region's water supply and capacity issue. The City will leverage all the tools available through the Planning Act — like the use of a holding provision — to support reasonable and responsible development in Kitchener. Off-site work permits may be required as a condition of a development approval to facilitate work in the City's right-of-way for future utility connections (water, wastewater). Notwithstanding this approval under the Planning Act, at this time, staff are not entering into any off-site works permits as they relate to water services connections. The Region of Waterloo has committed to updating the community as more information becomes available. You can stay informed on this issue by going to the Region's website at www.regionofwaterloo.ca/watercapacity. Severance of any blocks within the subject lands will require separate, individual service connections for sanitary, storm and water, in accordance with City policies. The owner is required to make satisfactory financial arrangements with the Engineering Division for the installation of new service connections that may be required to service this property, all prior to severance approval. Our records indicate sanitary and water municipal services are currently available to service this property. Any further enquiries in this regard should be directed to PM (katie.wood (a)kitchener.ca). A storm service is not available to the property. The Owner shall implement a suitable design solution for a sump pump outlet to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering. Page 176 of 187 • 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 municipal 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. Parks Planning/Forestry 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 7.62 m and a land value of $36,080 per frontage meter, which equals $13,746.00. In this case, a per dwelling unit cap of $11,862.00 has been applied. Please note that there are multiple existing City -owned street trees within the right-of- way on Fifth Avenue. The trees could be impacted by proposed construction activities. 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. Transportation (Planning) Services Comments: Transportation Services have no concerns with this application. Region of Waterloo Comments: The owner/applicant is proposing consent to sever to create a new residential lot. The severance will facilitate the redevelopment of a currently vacant lot with a semi-detached duplex, each containing an additional dwelling unit for a total of 4 units. The subject lands are currently connected to municipal water and waste services, with access to a local road. Minor variance applications are not required to facilitate the consent. The proposed lot configurations are as follows: Severed — 262.1 square metres (lot area) with 7.6 metre frontage Retained — 262.1 square metres (lot area) with 7.6 metre frontage The subject lands are located in the Urban Area and Built -Up Area in the Regional Official Plan (ROP); designated Low -Rise Residential in the City of Kitchener Official Plan; and zoned `RES -4'. The Region is in the process of updating its Water Supply Strategy. Through this work, concerns have been identified regarding water servicing capacity within the Mannheim Service Area, in which these lands are located. Regional staff are working expeditiously to Page 177 of 187 evaluate the situation and understand the magnitude of the concerns to be able to provide comments relating to water servicing capacity. Notwithstanding the above, Regional staff are aware that this development has obtained a building permit and is currently under construction. As a result, Regional staff understand that the purpose of the consent is to sever the existing lot along the common lot line (shared wall of the new structure) and offer the following comments and condition for the City's consideration. Threats Inventory Database (Adviso 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. The TID identifies no known, high, medium or low on or adjacent to the subject property. Hydrogeology & Source Water Protection Plan (Advisory) The subject lands are located in a Source Protection Plan Area where restrictions or prohibitions apply in accordance with Part IV of the Clean Water Act. As such a Notice of Source Protection Plan Compliance (Section 59 Notice) is required as part of a formal application for consent, which has been provided with the application. Regional staff acknowledge that the Section 59 Notice provided is valid, and have no further concerns related to Clean Water Act requirements. Waste Management (Advisory) The dwelling units to be created by this application would be eligible to receive curbside waste collection provided by the Region as both lots feature a driveway fronting onto a municipal roadway. Service would be initiated once construction has been completed and properties are occupied. Until that time, the homebuilder is responsible for collecting and disposing of all waste generated at these properties. 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. The applicant is advised to contact pwalter(a)regionofwaterloo.ca to complete payment. Regional staff have no objection to application, subject to the following condition(s): 1. That the applicant submit the regional consent review fee of $350.00 per application to the satisfaction of the Region of Waterloo. 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 the consent application noted above. Should you require Regional staff in attendance at the meeting or have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Page 178 of 187 Grand River Conservation Authority Comments: GRCA has no objection to the approval of the above applications. The subject properties do not contain any natural hazards such as watercourses, floodplains, shorelines, wetlands, or valley slopes. The properties are not subject to Ontario Regulation 41/24 and, therefore, permission from GRCA is not required. Six Nations of the Grand River Elected Council (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 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 • B2018-030 • DSD -2020-096 - B2020-025 Page 179 of 187 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 Will Towns, MCIP, RPP File: D20-20/26 KIT January 30, 2026 Re: Comments on Consent Application — B2026-001 Committee of Adjustment Meeting — February 17, 2026 City of Kitchener Please accept the following comments pertaining to the above -noted consent applications for consideration at the upcoming Committee of Adjustment Hearing. Document Number: 5235168 Version: 2 Page 1 of 4 Page 180 of 187 File: B2026-001 Address: 153-155 Fifth Avenue Description: Plan 254, Block F Owner: Prebenza Besnik Applicant: Boban Jokanovic The owner/applicant is proposing consent to sever to create a new residential lot. The severance will facilitate the redevelopment of a currently vacant lot with a semi- detached duplex, each containing an additional dwelling unit for a total of 4 units. The subject lands are currently connected to municipal water and waste services, with access to a local road. Minor variance applications are not required to facilitate the consent. The proposed lot configurations are as follows: - Severed — 262.1 square metres (lot area) with 7.62m frontage - Retained — 262.1 square metres (lot area) with 7.62m frontage The subject lands are located in the Urban Area and Built -Up Area in the Regional Official Plan (ROP); designated Low -Rise Residential in the City of Kitchener Official Plan; and zoned RES -4. The Region is in the process of updating its Water Supply Strategy. Through this work, concerns have been identified regarding water servicing capacity within the Mannheim Service Area, in which these lands are located. Regional staff are working expeditiously to evaluate the situation and understand the magnitude of the concerns to be able to provide comments relating to water servicing capacity. Notwithstanding the above, Regional staff are aware that this development has obtained a building permit and is currently under construction. As a result, Regional staff understand that the purpose of the consent is to sever the existing lot along the common lot line (shared wall of the new structure) and offer the following comments and condition for the City's consideration. 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. The TID identifies no known, high, medium or low on or adjacent to the subject property. Hydrogeology & Source Water Protection Plan (Advisory) The subject lands are located in a Source Protection Plan Area where restrictions or prohibitions apply in accordance with Part IV of the Clean Water Act. As such a Notice of Source Protection Plan Compliance (Section 59 Notice) is required as part of a formal application for consent, which has been provided with the application. Regional staff acknowledge that the Section 59 Notice provided is valid, and have no further concerns related to Clean Water Act requirements. Document Number: 5235168 Version: 2 Page 2 of 4 Page 181 of 187 Waste Management (Advisory) The dwelling units to be created by this application would be eligible to receive curbside waste collection provided by the Region as both lots feature a driveway fronting onto a municipal roadway. Service would be initiated once construction has completed and properties are occupied. Until that time, the homebuilder is responsible for collecting and disposing of all waste generated at these properties. 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. The applicant is advised to contact pwalter(a)regionofwaterloo.ca to complete payment. Regional staff have no objection to 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 Document Number: 5235168 Version: 2 Page 3 of 4 Page 182 of 187 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 the consent application noted above. Should you require Regional staff in attendance at the meeting or have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Thank you, Will Towns, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner Regional Growth, Development and Sustainability Services Regional Municipality of Waterloo wtowns(a)regionofwaterloo.ca Document Number: 5235168 Version: 2 Page 4 of 4 Page 183 of 187 /and Riy 0 0 .�~Lation P% January 26, 2026 Administration Centre: 400 Clyde Road, RO. Box 729 Cambridge, ON N1 R 5W6 Phone: 519-621-2761 Toll free: 1-866-900-4722 Fax: 519-621-4844 www.grandrivenca 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 — February 17, 2026 Application for Minor Variance A 2026-009 451 Old Chicopee Trail Application for Consent B 2026-001 153-155 Fifth Avenue 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 184 of 187 From: Jenna Auger To: Committee of Adiustment (SM) Subject: RE: ACTION REQUIRED - Committee of Adjustment Application Review — February 17, 2026 Meeting Date: Friday, January 23, 2026 3:58:04 PM Attachments: image001.ona Good afternoon, Thankyou for circulating the following COA agenda. Upon review, we note there are no applications subject to Metrolinx review zones. As such, Metrolinx issues no comments 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 =00= METROLINX **Adjacent Construction Review (ACR) was formerly Third -Party Projects Review (IPPR)** From: Committee of Adjustment (SM) <CommitteeofAdjustment@kitchen er.ca> Sent: January 22, 2026 11:49 AM To: Committee of Adjustment (SM) <CommitteeofAdjustment@kitchen er.ca> Subject: ACTION REQUIRED - Committee of Adjustment Application Review— February 17, 2026 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 pi6ce jointe a moins qu'ils ne proviennent d'un expediteur Fiable, ou clue vous ayez I'assurance clue 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, February 17, 2026, 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 185 of 187 Please note: If you have comments, your written report must be sent to CofA(cDkitchener.ca no later than 12 noon on Monday, February 2, 2026. 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 cofaC(:bl<itchener.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 186 of 187 From: To: Subject: Date: Hello, LANDUSEPLANNING Committee of Adiustment (SM) KITCHENER - 153 FIFTH AVE - B-2026-001 Friday, January 30, 2026 3:28:35 PM We are in receipt of your Application for Consent, B-2026-001 dated 2025-12-22. 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 subdivision@Hydroone.com or 1-866-272-3330. To confirm if Hydro One is your local distributor please follow the following link: Stonncentre (hydroone.com) Please select "Search" and locate the address in question by entering the address or by zooming in and out of the leap ? a MENU HELP SEARCH I hyd tune Customers Affected:0 15000 501-5000 0 51-500 0 21-50 V e=20 0 Multiple ® Crew —Service Area u sir QOttaw Montreal �� V. ® r Hunt:5veli2 417 417 40Q 17 � o 5 C, rd� � O 4ifi A 0Orlin Kawartha aoa � Lakes vis ° & P2t2rh ,Ugi 0 Kin 9ell�ville � s 115 nflCeo dWaf Watertown '4° ' a 5 Lzranlpltono Toronto o o Kitchei r � ar,o o o Mississauga a , Hamilton Rochester 4031 Mao data 92019 Google 50 km 6____J Terms of Use If you have any further questions or inquiries, please contact Customer Service at 1-888-664-9376 or e-mail CustomerCommunicationsgHydroOne.com to be connected to your Local Operations Centre If you have any questions please feel free to contact Land Use Planning. Thank you, Land Use Planning Department Hydro One Networks Inc. Email: LandUsePlanninggHydroOne_com Burlir Page 187 of 187