City Council Meeting: Planning Committee Approves Clive Road Application Despite Staff Opposition

The committee held a statutory public meeting under the Planning Act to hear minor variance and consent applications, with verbal decisions issued at the meeting and written decisions to follow within 10 days. The longest discussion focused on File A2026-015126 for 126 Clive Road, a 10-unit residential proposal that returned from a March deferral with new material on parking, garbage and bicycle storage, and Ministry of Transportation requirements. The committee ultimately approved that application on a 3-2 vote despite continued staff opposition on parking and Planning Act tests. The committee also approved several other variance and consent applications, including 55 Hibbury Crescent, 240 Autumn Hill Crescent, 535 Manitou, 530 Mil Street, 168 Simeon Street, and an Edgefield Drive garage application.

Topics Discussed

1. CLIVE ROAD: Deferred application returned with new materials

File A2026-015126 for 126 Clive Road returned after being deferred from the March 17, 2026 meeting. The applicant has satisfied those and asked that it come back to this meeting. The applicant addressed the three deferral conditions by obtaining Ministry of Transportation confirmation, proposing an accessory building in the rear yard for garbage and bicycle parking, and filing a revised parking justification study reviewed by a qualified transportation engineer. The new accessory structure slightly increased floor space ratio, requiring an additional variance.

2. CLIVE ROAD: Parking remained the central issue

The proposal is for a 10-unit residential building with five one-bedroom units, one bachelor unit, and four two-bedroom units. The application proposed six on-site parking spaces and 16 Class A bicycle parking spaces, including 10 within units and six in an accessory structure.

City staff said the revised parking evidence still showed a larger demand than the applicant proposed. Staff told the committee that "the parking justification study need to be prepared by a qualified person" and that the revised study's finding was "10 to 15 parking spaces," adding: "I understand the applicant's proposing things that could mitigate that demand, but that demand is still going to be there and there's no guarantees that those mitigations will be in place for the um eternity of the the project."

The applicant's representative argued staff had misread the transportation evidence, saying, "the qualified engineers traffic study doesn't recommend the parking rate where it does. They're recommending support of the reduced parking to essentially provide six parking spaces on site."

Staff also raised concerns about the functionality of the parking layout and about headlight glare affecting a basement window beside a barrier-free front-yard parking space. The applicant responded that the window serves a utility room rather than a living space.

3. CLIVE ROAD: Staff opposed the variances; committee approved the application

Planning staff maintained that the application should not be approved. Staff said that "in terms of the analysis of the four tests of the Planning Act, there wasn't any new information that would cause us to review the variances in any different way than they were already analyzed" and concluded: "They don't meet the four tests of the Planning Act and staff were not recommending approval."

Committee members focused heavily on parking. One member said parking was the issue drawing the closest scrutiny, remarking, "whenever I see something dropping to zero, my eyes open wide and I take a second and sometimes third look at it."

The discussion also touched on neighbourhood feedback. One member pushed back on claims of broad support, saying, "I would challenge that there is not overwhelming community support for this. If you look at the comments, their distance, and what they're commenting on, it's not in the totality of the variances."

Despite staff's recommendation, Marco moved approval, saying, "I will move the staff recommendation to approve." The motion to approve carried 3-2.

4. Conflict disclosures and recusals

Several members disclosed conflicts during the meeting and did not vote on affected items. One member said they had recently worked with the owner of 168 Simeon Street. Another disclosed a conflict related to proximity to an application. Marco also disclosed a former-employment conflict on the Edgefield Drive item.

5. Other variance and consent applications approved

The committee approved several other applications:

• 55 Hibbury Crescent (A2026-30): variances for a sunroom addition, including reduced side yard and rear yard setbacks; approved 5-0.
• 9 Cyber Avenue: front step variances for a detached building with two additional dwelling units were discussed, but the notes provided do not include the final vote.
• 240 Autumn Hill Crescent (A206-32-240): visual barrier waiver for the Waterloo Catholic District School Board; approved.
• 168 Simeon Street: staff described the application as seeking three variances "to permit a driveway width of 6.6 meters instead of the maximum permit of 4.6," "a driveway sideyard of zero meters instead of the minimum required 1.2," and "interior sideyard setback of 0.2 m instead of the minimum required 1.2 meters"; approved.
• Edgefield Drive (file noted as 6.4A226-03393): side yard setback reduction for a larger garage; approved unanimously by eligible voting members.
• 530 Mil Street (A2026-035530): staff said the application sought two variances, "to permit a front yard setback of 4.4 meters instead of the minimum required 4.5 m" and "to permit a landscaped area of 20% instead of the minimum required 30%" to allow a second-floor addition and one additional dwelling unit; approved unanimously, with a proposed tree management plan condition removed.
• 535 Manitou (B20226-006535): severance to create a new lot and easements for servicing and access. Staff said the proposal would "create an easement in favor of the retained lands for servicing and access" and recommended approval; approved unanimously.

Motions

• File A2026-015126 - 126 Clive Road: Approved, 3-2
• Application A2026-30 - 55 Hibbury Crescent: Approved, 5-0
• 9 Cyber Avenue: Discussed; final vote not included in the notes provided
• A206-32-240 - 240 Autumn Hill Crescent visual barrier waiver: Approved
• Edgefield Drive / File 6.4A226-03393 - garage side yard setback variance: Approved unanimously by eligible voting members
• 168 Simeon Street - driveway width, driveway side yard, and interior side yard variances: Approved
• A2026-035530 - 530 Mil Street: Approved unanimously; tree management plan condition removed
• B20226-006535 - 535 Manitou severance and easements: Approved unanimously
• Shared access development motion (location not specified in notes): Approved, 5-0

Attendees

The notes identify the following committee members as present:

• Marco
• Bob
• Miranda
• Amanda
• Gambetti

Other attendees identified in the discussion included:

• David Salvatore, property owner for 126 Clive Road
• Craig Dmer, consultant for the Clive Road application
• Pri Kohli, applicant for 55 Hibbury Crescent
• Robert Westbury, applicant on the front step variance item
• Jennifer Paci, Planning Manager, Waterloo Catholic District School Board
• Shawn Malloy, property owner on the Edgefield Drive application
• Brandon Fuing, agent for the Edgefield Drive application
• Scott Patterson, planning consultant for 530 Mil Street