HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSD-2025-485 - B 2025-032 - 776 Rockway Drive (2)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 3o
sG
_ _
s=9aso
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
^.b= oga
s= <
o
-
=aha
��s3€
gasmd;6��oa'
wb.
_o_ >�.,�$so£$3$�as3$sa�$o�o
a -
-
'o.
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