Transcript: Housing Variances Approved Amid Water Woes - 2026-04-21 - Committee of Adjustment | Summary 111

Housing Variances Approved Amid Water Woes - 2026-04-21 - Committee of Adjustment

Good morning everyone. It's uh 10:00 a.m. and we'll get this meeting started. This meeting of the committee of adjustment is being called to hear applications under the planning act for minor variance uh andor consent. This is a statuto public meeting and anyone having interest in any of these applications may make oral or written submission for the committee's consideration. The committee will render a verbal decision this date and the agent or applicant will receive a copy of the committee's decision in writing via email 10 days after the meeting. Uh meeting procedure. Please note each application will be addressed in the following manner. The planning coordinator will introduce the application and staff re recommendation outlined in the report which was posted on the city of Kitchener website the Friday prior to today's meeting. The chair will remind the committee of late written submissions circulated prior to the meeting that should be taken into consideration. The chair will confirm with the agent or applicant if they have reviewed the staff report and whether they support of the staff recommendation. The chair will invite parties in opposition to make an oral submission. Parties providing oral submissions should endeavor to keep their comments succinct and avoid repeating comments already stated by other parties. The committee members may ask questions of the parties in opposition if there are any and the chair will invite the agent/applicant to make any comments if they do have any. The agent/applicant can ask questions regarding the staff recommendation. The committee members may ask questions of the agent/applicant. The committee members may ask questions of city staff. Afterwards, the committee will pass a motion to either approve, reject, or defer the application. Uh minutes. Uh can I call for someone to move a recommendation to approve the minutes from our last meeting? Member Amanda. I made that motion. A seconder. Member Bob. So all those in favor of approving our minutes from our last meeting. Uh 1 2 3 4 5. All in favor? That is carried. So that the uh regular minutes of the committee adjustment meeting held March 17 2026 as circulated to the members be accepted which it was. Thank you. Moving along. Uh asking for any conflicts of interest. Anyone's got any pecuni interest or general nature thereof? Um I think we have a few people today. So go first. Member Marco. Yep. I will sit out for agenda item 6.1 and 6.6. So a 2026 1618 Peter Street and A 2026 uh 2120 uh Wel Street. Uh due to proximity to familial interests. Wonderful. Thank you, Member Marco. Member Amanda. I'd like to declare a conflict of interest for matter B 2026002003. That's 75 Otterbine Road just related to my employment. Thank you, uh, member Amanda. So, I'll just kindly exit the meeting during the consideration of the application that you've declared a conflict. So when we get to those agenda items, just ask you to to step out. Okay. Thank you for uh for doing so. And uh next we move along into our agenda. Unfinished business. None. So we can go right to new business. So uh just please note that the agent for item 6.11 uh B2026-002 to 00375 Otterbine Road has requested for this matter to be considered first uh to allow them to attend to an urgent matter. So, we're just going to change the order of the agenda and we'll review 6.11 first, which is otter, which is what you had a conflict for, member Amanda. So, I'll just ask you to step out and while that's happening, if the uh Asian apple can come over to the microphone there uh to your left on my right and looks like member Amanda has left the room. So if I can please ask the planning coordinator to introduce the application and staff recommendation please. Yes. Thank you chair. This is an application for consent and easements uh severed the lot into two with reciprocating easements for access and servicing. Uh the site it was the subject of a site plan application and has received conditional approval. Um the site is proposed to be developed with two different uh built forms. uh three-story stacked tones on one property and a six-story apartment building on the other. The site in total has a total of 153 dwelling units and 169 parking spaces. Um the owner of the lands previously obtained approval of consent and mandavarian applications in 2023. Uh the unfortunate part is that the um time frame for uh satisfying the conditions has lapsed. So, the applicant has had to reapply to the committee of adjustment for the exact same proposal that they received approval for in 2023. Um, and in 2024, there was some u minor amendments to the um consent for the easement locations. Staff have reviewed the applications in light of provincial, regional, and city policies and find that they meet all of those and is recommending approval subject to a number of conditions. Wonderful. Thank you for that. If I can ask the Asian applicant to uh introduce themselves, please. if you review the staff report and whether you're in support of the staff recommendation. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, committee members, and staff. My name is Andrew Head from Dryen Smith and Head Planning Consultants. I'm here on behalf of Crescent Homes, owner of the property. Thank you for allowing this uh uh moving my my application forward. I truly appreciate it. Dragon Smith and Head has been retained by Crescent Homes to refile this severance and ease of an application at 75 Otterbine Road. I have read the staff report. I don't have any uh objections. It seems pretty straightforward and I'm in happy to uh sorry and I'm happy to uh receive the the the staff report as well as accept the conditions of approval. Thank you. Wonderful. Thank you for that. Um are there any parties in the gallery that are in opposition to this application? Uh seeing uh none. Um, committee members, do you have any questions for the uh, agent that's here? Uh, no questions. Any questions? City staff? No questions. So, there's no questions. We just need a motion. Member Marco, I will move the staff recommendation to approve. Wonderful. Thank you. So, member Marco made that motion to approve. Seconder. Um, member Maria. It's a first and a second. Uh, floor's open for debate. Any debate or comments? Member Bob. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, this has been before the committee before and unfortunately the application uh has lapsed. So, this is just a renewal. Sometimes the paperwork just gets caught up in the system and things don't go as planned. So, I'm in full support of this. Wonderful. Thank you. Thank you for those comments. Any more uh comments or debate? If seeing none, I'll just uh call for the vote. So all those in favor which is for the approval. Uh one two three four. So all four voted in favor. Uh that's carried approved. Good luck. Okay. Um moving on our agenda. I think we have to call back member Amanda and then uh do the old switch. I think member Marco is going to step out. So yeah. Yeah. So, next in our agenda, we have item 6.1A 20226-016 18 Peter Street. So, we'll just wait. Uh was we Marco steps out and remember Mana comes back. Wonderful. Thank you. member Amanda is back and member Marco stepped out. Uh if I can invite the agent uh or applicant to uh come forward please for 18 Peter Street. And while that's happening if I can kindly ask the plan coordinator to introduce the uh application please. Yes. Thank you chair. This is a minor variance application for 18 Peter Street. It is a variance to permit a new front porch to be set back 2 meters from the street line instead of the minimum required 3 m. And this is to uh permit the reconstruction of the existing front steps on the existing dwelling. Staff have reviewed the variance in light of the four tests of the planning act, find that they meet all four and is recommending approval. Wonderful. Thank you for that. If I can uh please ask the agent or applicant to introduce themselves, please whether you've read the staff report and if you're in support of the staff recommendation. Thank you. Yes, I'm Susan Anderson and I have read the report and um I don't have any questions. Thanks. Thanks, Susan. Are you the owner or the uh agent? I'm the owner. Wonderful. Thank you. Uh anyone in the gallery in opposition of this application? Uh seeing none. Um committee members, do you have any questions for the owner that's here or for city staff? No questions. If there are no questions, then we'll just um need a motion. Member Bob. Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a fairly straightforward one. Uh I have no problems with it. So I move that it be approved as per the staff report and good luck with stairs. Thank you. So member Bob made the motion to approve. Need a seconder. Member Amanda second. Uh floor is open for uh for debate and discussion. If seeing no debate discussion, it looks pretty straightforward to me. We will just call for the vote. So all those in favor uh raise your hand. One, two, three, four. All four are in favor. Carried. Good luck. Okay, we'll wait for uh getting the steps in today. We'll wait for member Marco to come back. All right. So, member Marco was back. Uh, we have next up 6.2 A2026-017. It's 9 Bler Street. If I can invite the agent/owner to come forward, please that microphone. And while that's happening, if I can please ask the planning coordinator to introduce the application and staff recommendation, please. Thank you. Yes, thank you chair. This is a minor variance application for nine blue street. There are two minor variances before you this morning. The first one to permit a setback from the lot line of an active railway rideaway of for a tertiary branch line of 12 m instead of the minimum required 15 m. And the second variance is to permit a sideyard setback of 1 meter instead of the minimum required 1.2 m. These variances are to facilitate the construction of an addition at the rear of the existing uh building which is currently being used as a duplex. The addition will facilitate an additional dwelling unit to allow for a triplex use of the property. Staff have reviewed the variances in light of the four tests of the planning act. Find that they meet all four and is recommending approval. Thank you for that. If I can uh ask the uh agent or owner to introduce themselves, please whether you've read the staff report and uh if you're in support of it. Thank you. Sorry, if you just like start again and just with the There you go with the mic on. Thank you. There we go. You're good now. Yeah. Ben, the uh owner of Nine Bluer Streets. I have read the report and I uh compliance with the recommendations. Thank you, Ben. If I can uh see if there's any people in opposition this application in the gallery here. Uh no one in opposition. Um, committee members, any questions for the owner? Any questions for uh, city staff? No questions. And we'll just need a motion. Mayor Mark, I will move the staff recommendation to approve. Council member Marco made that motion. Seconder, member Amanda. So, first and second, we have uh, floor is open for uh, comments or debate. All right. No comments or debate. Uh call for the vote. Uh all those in favor. Uh 1 2 3 4 5. All five are uh in support. In favor carried. Good luck. All right. Moving right along. We've got item 6.3A 20226-01841 Michael Street. If I can invite the agent/applicant to be seated, please. And uh while you're making your way out of the microphone, if I can please invite the planning coordinator to introduce the application and staff recommendation, please. Yes. Thank you, chair. There are two minor variances before you this morning for 41 Michael Street. The first is to permit an accessory building with a gross floor area of greater than 15 square meters to be located 0 meters from the easterly side lot line instead of the minimum required 0.6 m. And the second variance is to permit an accessory building to have a height of 3.8 8 m to the underside of the fascia instead of the maximum permitted 3 mters. Uh both of these variances are to facilitate the replacement and enlargement of the accessory exist existing accessory structure. I would note that the existing accessory structure is zero meters and that sideyard is legal non-complying. However, the garage is going to be a little bit larger than the existing footprint and so that's why the variance is required for the sideyard. Staff have reviewed the variances in light of the four tests of the planning act. Find that they meet all four and is recommending approval. Um subject to the condition that the owner obtain a permit from the Grand River Conservation Authority. Wonderful. Thank you. If I can ask uh to introduce yourself, please whether you've read the staff report and whether you're in support of it. Thank you. Uh good morning. Matthew Partridge. I'm the agent for the owners and I've read the staff report and um am in support of it. Wonderful. Thank you, Matthew. Uh, anyone in opposition? Uh, seeing no one here in opposition. Uh, members of the committee, any questions for the agent that's here or for city staff? Wow. Smooth sailing. Okay. So far, smooth sailing. Uh, we'll need a a motion, please. Then a member Maria. I will move motion to approve as per the staff report. Wonderful. Council member Maria made that motion to approve. A seconder member Marco. Um, yeah. Any comments or debate on this? Uh, no, nothing. So, if no one has anything to say, we'll call for the vote. Uh, all those in favor, uh, 1, two, three, four, five. All five are in support. Uh, carried. Good luck. Okay. Item uh 6.4 A2026-019. That's a 30 Palis Street. If I can invite uh already on the way. Perfect. Um if I can ask the planning coordinator to please introduce the application and staff recommendation, please. Yes. Thank you, chair. This is a minor variance application for 30 Palace Street. It is a minor variance to permit a minimum building height of 5 mters instead of the minimum required 7.5 m. Um these variance this variance sorry is is to allow the development of a one-story commercial pla plaza with varying heights. It has been reviewed in accordance with the site plan application and received conditional approval. Staff have reviewed the variance in light of the forecast the planning act find that it meets all four and is recommending approval. Thank you for that. Uh if I can ask you to introduce yourself please whether you've read the staff report and if you are in support of it. Thank you. Yes. Good morning, uh, chair and members of the committee. My name is Julianne von Westerhold. I am, uh, an agent on behalf of the the owners from MHPC Planning. I've read the staff report and I'm supportive of the recommendation. Thank you so much. Uh, anyone in opposition? Uh, seeing none. Uh, members, you have any questions for the agent that's here or then for for city staff? Member Marco? Yeah, I have a question for the applicant. Um I noticed in the uh in the report you provided that you cited the concern of hunting um second story commercial space. Um has during the project drafting uh process have you um were there any considerations for perhaps residential space uh through the chair? No consideration for residential has not been uh contemplated for this development. this is the commercial component of the of the broader mixeduse area uh that is already um seen a lot of residential development and so the the intent here is is just to keep it commercial. Excellent. Thank you. Uh any questions? Any more? Any more questions? Just uh I'll wait for your uh a motion Bob to keep things moving along. Uh, I have no problems with this application. So, I will move that it be approved as per the staff report. Excellent. Thank you. As member Bob made that motion to approve. Uh, seconded by member Amanda. A first and a second. Uh, any more comments or debate on this item? Member Marco. Um, yeah, I have I have some thoughts uh on this one. Um, I would make the argument that the 7.5 meter minimum height um is intended to encourage multi multiple floor development, multi-story development um and is not necessarily purely about the aesthetics. Um, the articulation is is nice to have. Um, but I would propose and make the argument that the um the intent of zoning would be to encourage multiple stories. Um, and the site might be constructed this way for 20, 30, maybe even 50 years. Um, and I think, you know, it would be an opportunity to get a little bit more out of the site. Um, and I think that zoning would um encourage getting a little bit more out of the site. Um, even if those upper floors are not uh commercial, I recognize that that that might not be feasible. Um, I also recognize that perhaps upper floor residential might not be feasible. Um, but I think an argument could be made that that's what uh zoning is trying to encourage. Um, because that 7.5 meters is the minimum, not the maximum. Um, so they could build more uh if it were feasible project. That's my two cents. Cool. Thank you, Morco, for those comments. Uh, anyone else have anything more to say? Yeah, I I know I don't mind it. Leorian people asking for for more more. It's nice when they ask for for less and know that area quite well and it's uh a lot of mixed use there in terms of stacked towns and more commercial down the roads. I think it uh it fits well and could work really well here. So, I have no issues with this application and willing to vote in in support of it. Uh, if there's no more comments or debate, I will call for the vote and uh it's for uh support. So, in favor, all those in favor? One, two, three, four, five. So, uh all five in favor carried. Good luck. Thank you. Uh, next up, 6.5 A2026-0201388 Highland Road West. Uh, you're already on the way to the microphone. Thank you. Uh, if I can please ask the planning coordinator to introduce the application and staff recommendation, please. Yes. Thank you, chair. This is a minor variance application for 1388 Highland Road West. one v variance before you this morning and to this is to permit a maximum gross floor area of 850 square meters for an individual non-residential use instead of the maximum permitted 600 square meters. This variance is to facilitate the development of a daycare facility within ex within a new mixeduse building in accordance with a site plan application that has been uh reviewed by staff and has received conditional approval. staff have reviewed the variance in light of the four tests the planning act finds that it meets all four and is recommending approval. Cool. Thank you for that. And uh I should have mentioned before I didn't but uh waiting on our desk today we had u late submissions excuse me pardon me uh for this application. So uh we did see that and did review that. So thank you so much. Uh if I can uh ask to introduce yourself please uh whether you've read the staff report and if you're in support of it. Thank you. Certainly. Hello. My name is David Godan and I'm with the planning partnership and we're acting on behalf as the agent on behalf of the applicant and I'm also joined uh by Marco from Savic Homes Limited who's the project Arctic architect. We have read the staff report and we appreciate it and support it. Wonderful. Thank you for that. Uh anyone in the gallery in opposition to this application? Uh seeing none. Um committee members, any questions for the agent or city staff? Seeing no questions. So let me just wait for a motion if you have no questions. Member Marco, I will move uh I'll move the staff recommendation to approve. So member Mark made that motion to approve uh seconded by me Maria. So first and second. Uh any comments or debate on this uh application? Committee members? Mor Marco. Um, it's nice to see more daycare space. I think we need it. Thank you. Okay, Mia, I just um I was looking at the floor plan for the daycare and it's really well thought out and like member Marco said, it's really good to see that because there is a shortage of daycarees in the region. So, yeah, good luck. Don't appreciate those comments. Uh if there are no further comments or debate, we'll uh call for the vote. Uh all those in favor. 1 2 3 4 5. All those are members are in favor. So carried. Good luck. Uh next up, uh 6.6 A226 uh-021 20 W Street. Mayor Marco has a conflict. He's uh on his way out. He is gone. So uh if I can invite the agent applicant to come forward please and uh if I can also ask the planning coordinator to please introduce the application and staff recommendation please. Yes. Thank you chair. There are three minor variances before you this morning. Uh the first one is to permit a minimum parking requirement of 17 parking spaces instead of the minimum required 19 parking spaces. The second variance is to permit uh a class A bicycle parking requirement of zero spaces instead of the minimum required eight class A bicycle parking spaces. And the third variance is to permit uh a electric vehicle parking requirement of zero spaces as well instead of the minimum required four electric vehicle parking spaces. These variances will facilitate the addition of one new dwelling unit within the existing building. And this variance uh the variances are being reviewed in in accordance with the site plan application. Staff have reviewed these three variances in light of the three sorry four tests of the planning act find that they meet all four and is recommending approval. Yeah, thank you for that. If I can uh ask you to please introduce yourself if you've read the staff report and whether you're in support of it. Thank you. Good morning chair and members. My name is Josh Bard. I'm with Neo Architecture. I'm the agent representing the applicant who is forward living group. I'm joined with Ryan Mounty from Urban Insights who's done the planning uh letter on the project. Uh we have both read the recommendations are in support of uh the committee's outcome. Wonderful. Thank you for that. Uh anyone here in opposition to this application? Seeing no one, uh any questions, committee members, for uh this the agent that's here or for city staff? Seeing no questions, we'll just need then uh a motion. Member Bob. Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. This is classy example of something that is minor. Uh I'm in complete support of it. Uh so I move that this be approved as per the staff report and um a lot of work for just one unit. But there's my motion. Thank you. Member bought me that motion then to uh to approve uh seconded by uh member Amanda. So yeah, floor is open for debate if anyone wants to make any comments. Seeing none, but yeah, this is truly like as minor as can be. Seems like that way. So um yeah, we'll call for the vote. All those in favor? One, two, three, four. So all four voted in favor carried. Uh good luck. All right. So, uh, member Marco is back. We'll get to, uh, item number 6.8. That's A2026-023 368 Mil Park Drive. If I can invite the agent applicant to come forward, please. And while you're uh walking up to the microphone, if the planning coordinator can please introduce the application and staff recommendation, please. Thank you. Chair, I believe we're on item 6.7 now, which is 67 Rose Garden Street. Oh, no. Did I make a mistake here? My apologies. I got ahead. Oh, you're right. I'm sorry about that. So, I stand corrected. We are at item number 6.7. That's a226-02267 Rose Garden Street. So at Rose Garden, if I can invite the agent to come forward or applicant and uh yeah, if the plan coordinator can please introduce the application for Rose Garden and staff recommissionation, please. Thank you. Thank you, chair. Uh minor variance application for 67 Rose Garden Street. It is one minor variance before you this morning to permit steps in the sideyard greater than 0.6 6 m in height to be located 0.1 m from the northerly side lot line instead of the minimum required 0.75 m. These uh this variance is to accommodate a new set of stairs um leading uh into that sideyard from a deck. Uh the recommendation says an existing deck. I understand that staff were corrected yesterday in that it is a new deck that they would like to construct with the stairs into the sideyard. So um that recommendation should be amended slightly to accommodate a new exterior uh side of set of step stairs from a new deck and this is to facilitate access to the rear yard. Staff have reviewed the variance in light of the four tests of the planning act find that they meet all four and is recommending approval. Cool. Thank you for that. If uh I can ask you to introduce yourself please if you've read the staff report and if you're in support of it. Thank you. Good morning. Uh, I'm Matt Hooker. I'm representing the homeowners at 67 Rose Garden. I've read the staff report and in support of all the comments made. Wonderful. Thank you. Uh, committee members. Oh, wait. Sorry. Anyone in opposition? Uh, seeing none. Uh, so any questions for the, uh, agent or for city staff from committee members? No questions. And we'll just need a motion then. Mayor Marco, I will move the staff recommendation to approve I think as amended. Excellent. Thank you for that. So, Morco made the motion to approve as amended which is just uh highlights that it's a new structure. Uh seconder member Maria first and seconded and now floor is open for a debate. Member Bob. Uh thank you Mr. Chair. uh just because of the uh modifications to the uh question or the application here. Question for either staff or the applicant. Is a building permit required for this uh new deck? Uh yes, there will be a building permit required and there will be some other backyard work will be included in that permit application as well. So my question for staff is should that not be mentioned in the staff report that that building permit is required because I don't see it there. Yes, the comments of building services have no objection to the variance provided the building permit is obtained prior to construction. Um staff uh no longer put as a condition in variances that you obtain a building permit because it's difficult to obtain the building permit without the variance coming into effect. So uh that is no longer a condition that we include with minor variance applications. Good question. Uh any more questions or debate? If seeing none, then we'll just call for the vote, which is uh yeah, who who's in favor of this application? So, in favor uh 1, two, three, four, five. So, all five are in favor, carried. Uh good luck. Thank you. All right. Now, we're on 6.8. uh A226-023 368 Mill Park. Uh I see you're already at the microphone. Thank you. And if the planning coordinator can introduce the application and staff recommendation, please. Yes, thank you uh chair. This is an application for permission under section 452AI of II of the planning act. Um it is to permit the use of the land which is similar to the purpose of the use which it was used the day the bylaw was passed. This is to facilitate a new office building in conjunction with the existing Kitchener wastewater treatment plant. Staff have reviewed the variance in light of the two tests for uh permission. Find that they meet both of these and is recommending approval. Wonderful. Uh thank you. If I can ask the Asian applicant to introduce themselves, please whether you've read the staff report and if you're in support of it. Thank you. Yep. Good morning. I'm Stephanie Rossi. I work with the region of Waterlue and I am representing um the agent or I am the agent representing the owner sorry and I have read the staff report and I am in support of it. Wonderful. Thank you. Uh anyone in the gallery in opposition to this uh application? Seeing no one opposed. Uh any questions for the agent or for city staff? No. I'll just wait for a motion then. Member Marco. I will move again the staff report uh for approval. Thank you. Member Marco made the motion seconded by me Maria. So we have first and a second. Uh any uh comments or debate? No. Okay. So I'll call for the vote. Uh all those in favor? One, two, three, four, five. So all five in favor. Uh carried. Good luck. Thank you. Okay. Uh moving along. Uh item number 6.9. That's A226- uh 024 to 028-820 822 832 834 and 844 Blair Creek Drive. If I can uh invite the agent applicant to come forward, please. While it's happening, the planning coordinator, can they please introduce the application and staff recommendation? Thank you. Yes. Thank you, chair. Uh these are my variance applications for five uh properties on Blair Creek Drive, 820, 822, 832, 834, and 844 proposed municipal addresses. The variances are to permit a lot width of 7 m instead of the minimum required lot width of 9.4 for 9.5 meters for the external end unit of a townhouse dwelling. Uh this variances will facilitate the construction of five street town homes uh in the through the future creation of lots through a part lock control exemption bylaw. Staff have reviewed the five variances in light of the four tests of the planning act find that they meet all four and is recommending approval. Fantastic. Thank you for that. if I can ask uh you to introduce yourself please while you've read the staff report and if you're in support of it. Thank you. My name is Robin McIntyre. I'm a senior planner with MHPC Planning and we're the agent on behalf of the registered owner at Tiva Holdings. I do have Jessica here with me today as well. We have reviewed the staff report and are in support of the staff recommendation. Uh fantastic. Uh thank you. Uh anyone in opposition in the gallery? Uh seeing no one. Any questions for uh the agent that's here or for city staff? Um I just have a quick one I guess for city staff though too with town homes maybe is with the water restrictions we've had though too. I guess this is uh already in the works I suppose. Yes, that is correct. Cool. Just wanted to clarify that. Thank you. Uh any other uh questions? Seeing no other questions, we'll wait for a motion, please. Mayor Marco, I will move the staff recommendation to approve. Wonderful. So, member Marco made that motion. I need a seconder. Meia first and seconded. Uh yeah, any comments or debate? None. Okay, we'll call for the vote. Uh all those in favor? One, two, three, four, five. All five are in favor. Uh, carried. Good luck. Okie dokie. Next up, uh, item 6.10, that's A2026-029, 326 Wellington Street, uh, North. If I can invite the agent, uh, to come forward, please. And while you're walking up to the microphone, if I can please invite the planning coordinator to introduce the application and staff recommendation, please. Thank you, chair. This is a minor variance application for 326 Wellington Street North. There are two minor variances before you this morning. The first one is to permit a setback of 0.3 m from the northwesterly interior sideyard abuing Louisa Street and 0.3 meters from the sideyard abuing Wellington Street North. This is instead of the minimum required 14 meters abuting a residential zone. And the second variance before you this morning is to permit 15 parking spaces instead of the minimum required 21 parking spaces. These variances are to facilitate the use of one of the units in the building for an automotive detailing and repair operation use. Um staff have noted um in consultation with transportation services that uh there needs to be an updated um parking plan and an updating party parking calculation to reflect the current uses of the site. Um so if necessary a parking utilization study uh should be prepared by a qualified um traffic engineer transportation consultant to the satisfaction of planning and transportation services. So until we receive that um staff is recommending deferral of the application this morning until July 21st 2026 or sooner. So if the plans studies are prepared sooner um these can come back uh sooner to the committee than July 21st. Okay. Excellent. Thank you for that. If I can ask you to introduce yourself please whether you've read the staff report and uh if you're in support of it. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Ryan Mounzy, CEO of Urban Insights Incorporated. I represent the owner of the property. I have read the staff report and uh we're actively reviewing the uh transportation study requirements and we'll be moving ahead. My only comment in the uh recommendation is it says July 21st, 2026. Um I'm hoping that we can add a little bit more time on that just in case the parking utilization study takes a little bit more time. Um so maybe six months timeline would be appreciated. Wonderful. Thank you for that and for those additional uh comments. Um anyone here in opposition to this uh application? Uh seeing none. Uh any questions for the agent or for city staff? Um I've got a question. So this property has been there for a long time. Is it just a new tenant that triggered this uh variance then? Okay. That's it. Okay. Excellent. So, if there's no other uh questions, see a motion. And Marco, um I will move the this application be deferred to I think six months would be October. So, October 2026 or sooner. Excellent. So, member Marco made the motion then to defer to October uh or sooner seconded by any second member Bob. Uh floor is open for um yeah for debate. Any comments, questions? Mayor Bob. Uh, seeing we're moving ahead quite nicely, I'll just make a comment that it's strange that a new tenant can trigger a minor variance, but it is what it is. And so I think this should go ahead. I think the applicant u understands what is needed and we will get the necessary uh stuff before the six months has expired. I think it'll probably be sooner, but I think the six months in in the motion is a good idea. Wonderful. Thank you for those comments. And just for like my clarity though, too, so during this time that tenants there and they're just operating until we get this variance in, just for that for my clarification. Uh Ryan, um to you, chair. Great question. the tenant has already signed a lease and so the space is vacant and they are waiting for this parking reduction as a new use that triggers uh the minor variances and so uh they are waiting for this approval and so um I just say there's urgency behind this application and we're attempting to solve an existing condition that has been there for 75 years so uh we'll be back as soon as we can hopefully that provides uh some information. Wonderful. Thank you for that clarification there just for my understanding. Um, any other questions or comments or debate? Seeing none, we'll just call for the vote, which is the deferral to October or sooner. Uh, all those in favor of the deferral 1 2 3 4 5. Uh, carried pass. Good luck and hope we get this done sooner. Cheers. Moving along. Uh item 6.2 uh it's at B2026-00004 7 Wimbledon Crescent. If I can invite the uh agent to come forward to the microphone and uh while it's happening if the planning coordinator can introduce the application and staff recommendation please. Yes. Thank you chair. This is a consent application for seven Wibbleton Crescent. Uh the application is to um sever the lot to allow a semi- detached dwelling and for each semi- detached dwelling half to be dealt with independently. Uh the subject property was um part of a zoning bylaw amendment application in October 2025. Uh it actually went to uh our committee and council in January of this year and of course there was a water um capacity issue constraint identified at that time. Um the plan was to duplex each half of the semi- detached dwelling. Um the uh zoning by amendment application was approved with a holding provision to allow only one unit in each side of the semi- detached dwelling. And the reason for that is that there's an existing duplex dwelling on the subject property. So it was to permit two dwelling units to replace the duplex that is uh currently there but damaged by fire. So, the region had no concerns with uh the approval of the zoning bylaw amendment application to permit the semi- detached dwelling use subject to the holding provision that only one dwelling unit be created on each side of the semi- detached dwelling. In accordance with that zoning bylaw amendment and the holding provision, staff have reviewed the application for consent in light of provincial, regional, and city policies and is recommending approval subject to a number of conditions. Thank you for that. If I can ask you to introduce yourself, please. Well, you've read the staff report and if you're in support of it. Thank you. Hi, good morning. My name is Dave Galbreth. I'm the president of UP Consulting uh and the planner retained by the applicant. Um thank you Tina for the overview. Um pretty recent uh planning approval at city council just a couple of months ago. Uh again, the lot is still subject to a holding provision. So, uh, the permitted two additional ADUs won't move forward until, uh, there's a resolution to the water capacity issue or we're given the green light from the the region on that. Um, so for the time being, it's just to create the two lots, uh, and then the applicant will move forward with the two initial units. Um, and again, procedurally, we'll, uh, file the removal of holding application before moving forward with the ADUs. Uh, but I have reviewed the staff report uh, and I'm supportive of the conditions uh, outlined by staff. Excellent. Thank you for that. Uh anyone here in opposition? Uh any questions for uh the agent or then for city staff? Member Bob, I see uh look very pensive. So go ahead. Well, now just some clarification. Um this uh holding is because of the water connections and we're having a problem in the region throughout. And so my question is if that is resolved, will the applicant have to come back to the committee or is it automatically uh green light to go ahead? That's a good question. No, the applicant will not have to come back to this committee. Um if the application is approved today, it will create the two lots and the applicant will just need to remove the holding provision in order to allow each half to have that additional dwelling unit. So is the removal of the holding provision done at council or with staff or Yes. So the holding provision removal bylaw is a delegated approval to staff. So it is fairly quick and easy and uh it's just a a twoe notice in the newspaper and and our director can approve that bylaw. So here's hoping that uh we will solve our regional water problems sooner than later. Uh, I I think this is a great application, so I'm in support of it. Wonderful. Thank you. Any more uh questions for either the agent or the city staff? Seeing none, I'll wait for uh a motion, please. Marco, I will move the staff recommendation to approve. Wonderful. Member Marco made that motion. Seconder, member Bob seconded. Uh floor is open for comments or debate. Yeah, quite the process here. But, uh, one step at a time and here we are. So, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor? Uh, one, two, three, four, five. Uh, all five are in favor. Uh, it's carried. Good luck. Um, moving along. 6.13B 2026-005 93 and 95 Kinsey Avenue. If I can invite the agentlicant to uh come to microphone, please. And uh now if I can ask the planning coordinator to introduce the application and staff recommendation, please. Yes, thank you chair. Another application for consent for 93 to 95 Kinsey Avenue. Um this is a application to facilitate the um conveyance of each half of a semi- detached dwelling that's currently under construction. There's also consent requesting for an easement on the severed lands um to permit maintenance of the exterior wall of the dwelling on the retained lands. Staff have reviewed the application in light of provincial, regional and city policies and is recommending approval subject to a number of conditions. I would note uh that uh the region did not have any concerns with this application. Um the dwelling is existing uh two units in each side. It's an existing condition. And it's just a matter of a technical consent to recognize each half independently. Wonderful. Thank you for that. If I can ask you introduce yourself, please whether you've read the staff report and if you are in support of it. Thank you. Hey, I am Matt Feeps. I'm the owner of the property. Uh yes, I have read the the staff report and I'm in support of the the severance. Wonderful. Thank you, Matt. Anyone here in uh opposition? Don't have any people left. Uh no one in uh in opposition. Uh any questions here for um the owner or for city staff? Seeing none. Oh, member Bob. Uh yes, Mr. Chair. I think this is fairly straightforward. Seeing I there's no objection to this and no questions from members of the committee. I move that this be approved as per the staff report with all of the conditions that are in there. Thank you for that. So, member Bob made the motion to approve, seconded by member Marco. Floor is uh open for debate or comments. A lot more straightforward. I think you were here before with this address uh not too long ago. It's a bit more complicated, right? So, this one's a bit more straightforward. So, uh uh seeing no more comments or uh or debate, I will call for the vote. Uh all those in favor? One, two, three, four, five. Uh pass carried. Good luck. All right. Uh next up we have 6.14 uh VT uh 2026-001 50 Alpine Court. I I see the uh agent is already at the microphone. Thank you. If I can ask the planning coordinator to introduce the application and staff recommendation, please. Yes, thank you chair. Uh this is our first validation of title application in a few years. Um so new to you as a committee. Um it recently was identified that the property located at 50 Alpine Court was conveyed on September 18th, 2000 in technical contravention of section 50 of the planning act. So this application requests validation of title um in order to correct that um the validation uh title uh inefficiency. Um the properties were originally subject to consent application in 2000. Um at the time they were being severed from 30 and 40 Alpine Court. There was a sale of 60 um Alpine Court and then a conveyance of 50 which um the applicants or owners at the time felt that they convey that uh correctly which they did not have the correct approvals. Um staff have reviewed the minutes and approval documentation of the previous committee of adjustment considerations and are satisfied that the intent of the approvals um was to convey 15 Alpine Court and have no issues with this application. Uh thank you for that. If I can ask you to introduce yourself uh please. Uh we read the staff report and if you're in support of it. Uh my name is David Sunday. I'm the uh lawyer for the applicant at the food bank. Yes, I've read the staff report and am in support of it. Thank you for that. Uh not a single soul left, so I don't think anyone's in opposition. So, we'll uh we'll keep moving here. Any questions for uh the agent or for city staff? Yeah, Mr. Chair, just a a quick comment. Uh housekeeping issue from 26 years ago. That's even before I was on this committee as probably some people in this room were still in high school or earlier. So, uh it's it's the first validation title I have ever seen and that's been a while. So, uh I will move that this be approved as just a housekeeping issue to get this corrected. And it's nice to see you here today. It's too bad you had to take time out of the office to come here and correct a mistake from 26 years ago. So that's my motion, Mr. Chair. So that was uh mo motion to approve. Okay, just a motion to approve seconded by uh member Marco. Uh yeah, floor is open for uh for debate. I'll go a little bit backwards here. So just to understand now we're going such way products want to slow things down but just like 26 years ago there was just an issue when they conveyed title now they're trying to convey again and found the problem. I never seen this before either. So I'm just curious just instead of me asking chat GBT later I'm just uh yeah no I I think Mr. Sunday would be able to provide that background for you. Yeah. So the the basis for the application is uh so as planning staff uh indicated Mr. share that there there were in fact two uh consent applications submitted and at the time the applicant owned what it what today constitutes uh 40 Alpine Court, 50 Alpine Court and 60 Alpine Court. And and what the applicant was intending to do was to create three parcels and could have done it with two consent certificates, but the consent certificates they obtained uh the first one was on 50 and 60 as one property. So they completed that conveyance um through a self-to transfer um and then they got a certificate for 60 uh 60 alpine court and conveyed that property. Um and at that point uh the next transfer was the transfer of the subject lands uh to the food bank being being the property in the middle. The 50 alpine court 50 alpine court did not have a severance certificate on it. And it may be that the parties overlooked or or or forgot that they also owned 40 alpine courts. That's effectively the the property on the uh east side of 50 and and so 50 and 40 were still merged. I think the applications proceeded on the basis as as planning staff have indicated. Everybody understood what was intended to happen. The properties have been treated as um independent properties separately taxed since that period in time um just by way of of A little bit of a digression. Uh the conveyance of 40 alpine court was also just in reviewing title. We noted that okay that that one would have been uh technically a contravention as well but one of the transfers of that property has included the checking of planning act statements which has this validating effect because 50 the subject property the the subject of this pro of this application it hasn't been conveyed since uh 2000 uh it's been owned by the food bank throughout that process. So there's never been anything that has validated it. And the planning act um quite uh has a a provision that says if you convey in contravention then your conveyance uh in contravention of the subdivision control provisions and you convey no interest in land. And so the food bank sitting here today, the reason we need uh the reason we brought this application is to validate it. The magic of section 57 is uh if and when this committee approves uh the the uh the application validation certificate, we'll of course follow up to get the validation certificate issued by uh by the committee secretary. But uh it magically validates it and and which is important in this case because the party that conveyed in 2000 is no longer even around. So, we can't go back and get a correcting transfer. That corporation is is no longer in existence. I apologize for the long-winded answer. No, that was actually really fascinating. I guess I'm a real estate dork, so I actually really enjoyed hearing that. Really interesting. Sorry, member uh remember. Thank you for that. I do appreciate it. Just a quick question out of curiosity. Is the once the certificate of validation is provided, is that going to clean up your registry issue or are there other issues to unravel there? uh the validation certificate will will fully cure the contravention. Um it is a certificate that gets signed by uh uh by the committee secretary similar to a consent and and it would then be registered through what we call a section 71 notice on title and it just stands uh there as a signal to anybody who you know connects the dots and goes oh there was a problem in 2000 to say it's been validated. So it it creates a essentially a this historical signpost saying this has been validated by the committee. Mor Marco. Yeah, I'm I'm curious how um how this was uh discovered. Um definitely seems like something that requires quite a fine tooth comb to uh uncover 26 years later. Um, I'm just I'm curious how that came about. I I understand that that uh I think at some point a title search was requested and one of the local title searchers who anytime a property is being uh conveyed or otherwise dealt with identified the issue um and uh it came came to us to uh seek to to bring an application to validate. Thank you. Excellent. So, seeing no further uh questions or comments or debate, I'm okay to call for the vote. Uh so, all those uh in favor one, two, three, four, five. Um all five are in favor carried. Passed. Good luck. All right. So, got through all our agenda items. Just one remaining number seven, which is uh adjournment. Anyone to make that motion to adjourn? Me Marco, I will move that this meeting be adjourned. Thank you, Member Marco. Seconded by uh member Bob. Uh all those in favor to adjourn. 1 2 3 4

Full Transcript