By Claude & Parth on 2026-03-19, City: Kitchener, View Transcript
The Committee of Adjustment held a lengthy meeting to review multiple variance applications, with the most contentious being a proposal at 126 Clive Road to expand from 6 to 10 dwelling units. The application sparked debate over parking reductions, with staff recommending refusal but the applicant citing strong neighborhood support. After extensive discussion, the committee deferred the decision for four months to allow the applicant to address concerns about parking justification, MTO setback requirements, and site plan details. Other applications, including affordable housing projects, received quicker approvals.
A property owner sought approval to expand an existing 6-unit building to 10 units, requesting a 50% parking reduction (6 spaces instead of 12 required) along with four other variances. Staff recommended refusal, stating "this variance does not meet the forecast of the planning act" and citing concerns that "one variance causing another variance" violated Official Plan Policy 4.C.1.8. The parking justification study was rejected because it used citywide vehicle ownership rates rather than area-specific data, and staff noted the walking time calculations were unrealistic: "you basically need to sprint to the bus stop every single day" to meet the distances claimed.
The developer, Craig Dart and property owner Dave Salvador, countered that they had strong neighborhood support, with the developer stating "I went throughout the whole community...I want to ensure that the neighbors are in support" and claiming "100% of the people were completely in support." They proposed transportation demand management measures including transit passes, bicycle storage, and unbundled parking. The developer also noted they were pursuing CMHC funding requiring rents "10% below average market rates."
After extensive debate, Member Bob moved to defer for four months, stating "There isn't the information or enough information for us to make a logical decision...There's missing details." The motion passed 4-1, with conditions requiring an updated parking justification study, floor plans showing bicycle storage, and additional information for the Ministry of Transportation Ontario.
The committee approved a six-story, 35-unit affordable housing development despite significant height variance concerns. The proposal required increasing the maximum building height from 9 meters to 19.7 meters - more than double the permitted height. Staff recommended approval, but neighboring residents raised objections.
Ryan Porter from 64 Lancaster Street opposed the development, citing privacy concerns: "Not having a balcony doesn't fix the privacy issue. They still have full view of all I think I counted 11 backyards including mine right from the window." He also raised noise concerns about a nearby scrapyard that "added rail tracks right up against that property line, removed a bunch of trees" in the past year, warning the sound would "bounce back and echo throughout the entire complex."
One council member noted the significant variance: "Permitted 9 meters and get to 20 is quite a big difference." Despite concerns, the Chair acknowledged limited options: "I feel for the neighbors. It is a difference from going from four stories to six...our hands just being a little bit tight again though too as far as meeting those four tests." The application was approved 4-1, with the development targeting refugees and newcomers to Canada through Reception House.
Staff recommended refusal of a minor variance application seeking five variances to facilitate construction of an additional dwelling unit with attached and detached garages. The requested variances included lot coverage for accessory structures at 18.1% (instead of maximum 15% permitted), parking space width of 2.7 meters (instead of minimum 3 meters required), maximum driveway width of 8.2 meters (instead of maximum 4.8 meters permitted), two driveways from the street (only one permitted), and driveway width of 2.1 meters (instead of minimum 2.6 meters required).
Staff stated the variances "don't meet the four tests" of the Planning Act and cited "a number of challenges and difficulties." The significant variances requested—particularly the oversized driveway nearly double the permitted width and dual driveways—raised concerns about neighborhood character, street parking availability, and traffic patterns.
The committee unanimously approved (5-0) a minor variance application for a 16-unit multiple dwelling development across two buildings. The application required three variances: two visitor parking spaces instead of the required three, front yard setback of 4.4 meters instead of the required 6.62 meters, and floor space ratio increase of 0.7 instead of the maximum 0.6.
The Committee of Adjustment had previously approved variances on January 20th to separate the properties for individual ownership. The development will proceed according to a site plan conditionally approved in 2024, redeveloping an existing four-unit cluster townhouse into two stack townhouse dwellings with 16 total units. Staff reviewed the application against the four tests under the Planning Act and recommended approval. Kristen Barisdale from GSP Group, representing the property owner, confirmed support for staff recommendations.
Throughout the meeting, parking emerged as a recurring theme. Staff member Stefan emphasized the challenge: "when you're looking at 50% difference in a fairly car focused area, then we field all the complaints because what happens is people start trying to get away with parking on street." Member Bob noted the broader context: "Parking is going to be a problem moving forward in this city for years to come."
One application raised concerns about barrier-free parking violations under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA). Staff stated "it is inappropriate to rely on a variance to meet this requirement" when a legally required accessible parking space was proposed in a location that would only be permitted through a variance. The issue highlighted tensions between accessibility requirements and zoning compliance.
Passed: - File A2026-011 (67 Blue Church Street, 16-unit development) - Approved unanimously 5-0 - File A2026-012 (449-471 Wellington Street North, six-story affordable housing) - Approved 4-1 - File A2026-013 (99 Brandon Avenue, one-story addition with garage) - Approved unanimously 5-0 - File A2026-014 (1010 Queens Boulevard, triplex setback variance) - Approved unanimously 5-0 - George Sedra application - Deferred to June or sooner, approved unanimously 5-0
Deferred: - File A2026-015 (126 Clive Road, 10-unit development) - Deferred for four months or sooner, passed 4-1, with conditions requiring updated parking justification study, floor plans showing bicycle storage, and additional MTO information
Status Unclear: - File A2026-010 (12 Crescent Street) - Staff recommended refusal; final vote not captured in transcript