HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSD-2026-027 - A 2026-004 - 37 Heiman Street (2)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
L04_
O N 0
> M D .Tcw 11
�a m U re <"g
ai U d i7 °
U Y U Is
NCL m U °`0' a r e v M,
t.
p co E Q a C3 m eo V 4 p c n s a Q v - M
L Q p v tis � a � a 2 CC o L � o 1 c �= T=_
E_ c C� a 47 (D LL Sn o w v °vLoa`� o Q
Q C7 G w d a n m ar a� a m m 2< 10 _ 3 � v a � z
= s a s 'ca d��i a} ami m m Q W W cu W W a v -
co W W 0 L U U7 O G7 O N Y Y Y Y o -
of ofJ J J J W {? U
LL U7 G7 I o
ET U r ,'n B 8 E 0
4 0
r �
i
�o )(_e
..
CD
v
a
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