Transcript: Controversial Expansion Decision Deferred - 2026-03-17 - Committee of Adjustment | Summary 744

Controversial Expansion Decision Deferred - 2026-03-17 - Committee of Adjustment

Good morning everyone. Uh 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 statutory 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/applicant will receive a copy of the committee's decision in writing via email 10 days after the meeting. Meeting procedure. Please note each application will be addressed in the following manner. The planning coordinator will introduce the application and staff 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 applicant or agent if they have reviewed the staff report and whether in support of the staff recommendation. The chair will invite parties in opposition to make an oral submission. Uh and parties providing oral submission 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 have any. The agent or applicant can ask questions uh regarding the staff recommendation. The committee members may ask questions of the agent applicant. The committee members can also ask questions of city staff. Afterwards, the committee will pass a motion to approve, reject, or defer the application. Uh next in our agenda, we have minutes. So, can I call for someone to move a recommendation to uh approve the minutes from our our last meeting? So need a first and a seconder. Member Amanda first uh second by member Marco. So that's to approve the minutes from our last meeting that was held on February 17th, 2026 as circulated. So we've got a mover and a seconder so we can uh have that vote. All those in favor of approving the minutes from our last meeting 1 2 3 4 5. All five in favor. So that's carried. Thank you. Uh next along we have uh a call for disclosures of conflicts or any pecunary interests and the general nature thereof. So anyone have to claim an interest? Uh seeing none. So we'll uh we'll move uh on with our agenda. Uh there's no unfinished business. So we go to new business. And first up we have 6.1 A2026-010 and that's 12 Crescent Street. If I can invite the uh agent or applicant to be seated uh over there on my right, that's your left. And while that's happening, if I can kindly ask the planning coordinator to introduce the application and staff recommendation, please. Thank you, chair. Uh this is a minor variance application before you this morning with five minor variances. Uh to permit a maximum lock coverage for accessory structures, uh 18.1% instead of the maximum 15%. Uh to permit parking uh to permit a parking space width within a private garage of 2.7 meters instead of the minimum required 3 mters. To permit a maximum driveway width of 8.2 m instead of the maximum permitted 4.8 m to permit two driveways from the street whereas only one driveway is permitted and to permit a driveway width of 2.1 m instead of the minimum required 2.6 m. These variances are to facilitate the construction of an additional dwelling unit detached um with an attached garage in and a detached garage in the rear yard of the subject property. Um staff have reviewed the variances in light of the four tests of the planning act. Um there are a number of challenges and difficulties in that they don't meet the four tests and staff are recommending refusal of the application. Okay. Thank you so much. if I can ask the agent or the applicant uh if they've reviewed the staff report and whether you're in support of the recommendation and first can ask you though too if you can introduce yourself please my name is George Sedra uh and I ask actually on Friday to defer the application so we'll do some modification to proposal I did not receive any answer when I send an email requesting a deferral Okay. Thank you. So, George, are you the owner or the I'm the applicant. Yes. Yes. How long we look for a deferral for? Uh I would think uh one month will be okay. Okay. Thank you. Um anyone here uh in opposition to this uh application? Uh seeing none. Um members, do you have any uh questions uh for the uh agent or applicant? Pardon me? None. Uh questions for city staff member Marco. Um yeah, quick question. Would staff be opposed to a deferral? Uh no, staff would not be opposed to a deferral. Um I just question the coming back to April. Um, if there are modifications to the proposal and they need to be readvertised, it unfortunately won't be able to be considered in April, I would suggest uh a May deferral or sooner, um, that way if there are modifications that don't require advertising, it come it could come back to April, but at least it would come back to May if there's some revertisement required. Thank you. Thank you for that explanation. Any more questions? Uh if seeing none, I'll just wait for a motion. Then member Marco, um I will move to defer this application to um 3 months or sooner. Okay. So that takes us to what is that? April, May, June. Yeah. Gives them a little bit of extra time if they need it. Okay. So June or sooner. Okay. Uh second on that Maria first and second floor is open for debate. Any debate on this? No. So u yeah I'll call for the vote which is to move this to June uh or sooner on a deferral. All those in favor of deferral 1 2 3 4 5. Um that's carried. So good luck. Yeah. Next up, we have uh uh agenda item 6.2. That's A2026-011 67 Bler Street. If I can invite the uh agent or the applicant to be seated over there, please. And uh if I can please invite the planning coordinator to introduce the application and staff recommendation, please. Yes. Thank you, chair. Uh this is a minor variance application for 67 Blue Church Street. There are three minor variances before you this morning. to permit a visitor parking requirement of two parking spaces instead of the minimum required three. To permit a front yard setback of 4.4 meters instead of the minimum required 6.62 meters and to permit a floor space ratio of 0.7 instead of the maximum permitted 0.6. Uh these variances will facilitate the construction of a 16 unit multiple dwelling uh within two buildings on the subject property. Uh the committee may remember this application. On January 20th, the committee of adjustment approved variances and consent applications in order to separate the subject properties into two properties. Um this was going to um facilitate individual ownership of the already developed properties. So there was no concerns with water capacity. Um the ultimate proposal is to develop the property in accordance with a site plan that was approved in 2024. Conditional approval and that four-unit cluster townhouse on the one property would then be redeveloped with the two stack townhouse dwellings with a total of 16 dwelling units. These variances will facilitate that redevelopment uh in accordance with the approved site plan application. staff have reviewed the variances in light of the four tests the planning act find that they meet all four and is recommending approval of all three variances. Thank you very much. If I can ask you to introduce yourself please and uh confirm if you review the staff report and whether in support of the staff recommendation. Uh good morning Kristen Barisdale from GSP Group. Uh we are the agents acting on behalf of the property owner. We've had a chance to review the staff report. We have no concerns or objections. We're in support of the recommendation. I'd be happy to answer any questions you have with regards to the development of the site. Thank you so much. Um, are there any parties here in the gallery in opposition to this application? Uh, seeing none, uh, committee members, you have any questions for the agent or city staff? Seeing uh, no questions. So, if no questions, we'll need then just a motion, please. Mor Marco. Uh, I will move the staff recommendation to approve. Thank you. Okay. So, me Marco made that motion. Seconder. Uh, member Amanda first and second. Floor's open for debate. No. Happy to see a project come along and not being slowed down by any uh any hurdles. So, this is this is great. Uh, we'll call for the vote. All those in favor. One, two, three, four, five. Uh, all four in favor. So, it's uh carried. Good luck. Uh, moving along, we've got 6.3A 20226-012. It's 449 and 471 Wellington Street North. If I can invite the agent to come to the microphone, uh, please. And if I can, please ask the planning coordinator to introduce the application and staff recommendation, please. Yes, thank you, Ch. This is a minor variance application for 449 to 471 Wellington Street North. There are two variances before you this morning. To permit a minimum front yard setback of 5 meters instead of the minimum required 6 mters and to permit a maximum building height of 19.7 meters instead of the maximum permitted 9 m. These two variances will facilitate the development of a six-story multiple dwelling having 35 affordable dwelling units. Um this these variances uh will implement a a a proposal that is currently be considered under SI plan application. staff have reviewed the two variances in light of the four tests of the planning act find that they meet all four and is recommending approval. Thank you so much. If I can just ask you introduce yourself please if you've uh read the staff uh report and if you're in support of it. Thank you. Thank you. Um my name is Jenna Wzel. I'm a planner with GSP Group representing the um applicant for this um minor variance. Um I have read the staff report and am in in agreement with um with the decision or sorry recommendation sorry hopefully decision as well and um yeah I'm happy to answer any questions if you have. Excellent. Thank you so much. Wishful thinking that's good. Uh anyone here in opposition uh to this application? Seeing someone. Awesome. If you can come down uh please there's a microphone uh just over uh there. So on your right hand side and um just uh you can introduce yourself uh please and then uh the mic is yours just uh right there. Perfect. Thank you. I live on an adjacent property to the one that's being applied for right now. Um so I read through the report most of which I agree with. I agree with uh packing as many as possible. Um the minimum front yard setback, no problem with that. Um there's two topics I'd like to discuss though. The first one is a challenge to the maximum building height. Um it looks like it's been dispositioned as acceptable because of no balconies for privacy reasons. Um I'd like to challenge that and just say that not having a balcony doesn't fix the privacy issue. Right. They still have full view of all I think I counted 11 backyards including mine right from the window. I just like that to be considered. So I don't think that issue has been mitigated. I think that the disposition is not having a balcony is just something to write down in terms to just to pass the report off. Um the second of issue I'd like to discuss is um the potential sound impacts on the rest of the block. Um so about a year ago, American Iron and Metal opened up a railard in the property that is about 330 ft from the property line. Um, so up until last year, the rail traffic was approximately 600 feet from that property line. Um, and now about 6 days a week at 7 a.m. they are unloading and loading scrap metal and iron approximately 300 feet from that property line. That's just going to bounce back and echo throughout the entire complex. Um, not to mention, I don't it wouldn't be a very pleasant situation to be in the top couple floors of that building. Um, that's pretty much the end of that statement. Cool. Thank you. I just missed it at the very beginning. Your name got cut out in the microphone there. Sorry, Ryan Porter. Ryan, thank you so much. Um, does the agent have any comments to make after that? Uh, no. Um, I would just, um, defer to city staff if they would want to speak to the privacy element that they noted in their report. Um, but, um, certainly can understand the concerns. Um, but if the city has anything to say to that. Thank you. Yes. Could I just get the address of the delegation? Just trying to reorient them on the map in your address, please. Ryan, sorry about that. Um, I'm over on Lancaster Street. So, 64 Lancaster. So, I'm over to the west. Um, and just to give background on how I determined that the balcony, I guess removal of a balcony doesn't really affect is if you just simply do the math, a six-foot setback of how somebody can view your property line doesn't do much when they're 20 20 meters of the air, right? Yes. Thank you. So, you're across the street on Wellington, north of the property. Okay. No, I'm I'm on the I'm not across the street. No, but like uh Wellington across the street down Lancast like up Lancaster. Like if we look at figure one, I'm just referencing to the committee in terms of figure one the location map and you can see 64 Lancaster on figure one just north on Lancaster. But I will comment on the the setbacks and um their appropriateness in terms of the four tests. So on the side property lines, the proposed building is going to be located greater than 20 m from those two side property lines. Um whereas that minimum sideyard setback is 1.2 2 meters. So it's it's well in excess of the minimum required. So 20 mters on both sides of the property lines in terms of the rear property line which would back onto the properties onto I'm just going to get back to figure one on Brightup Street. So that rear property line uh backing onto the rear yards on Brightup Street. So that requirement for the um rear yard setback is um just going back to the staff report. Uh so that will be set back uh 6.2 meters from that property line whereas the the requirement is one meter. So well in in excess of the required setbacks for the building. So 20 mters on either side of the sideyards and 6.2 m on the rear yard backing onto the rear yards of the properties on Brightup Street. So staff are of the opinion that the the height six stories in a low-rise residential zone is appropriate and the variance meets the host four tests. Anyone else have any more questions for the agent or even uh the delegation that's uh in opposition? Marco, uh you mentioned some uh a business using rail infrastructure. Is that to the the the north south? I'm curious where Google Maps I sorry I'll restart. Um that business is to the south. So, if you're on Google Maps, you can scroll back. Um, the most recent imagery does not show the additional rails they've added. Um, but basically that property line of where you can see that scrapyard, they've added rail tracks right up against that line, removed a bunch of trees. Um, so in the past year or so, it's gotten a whole lot louder on our block. Um, and it's just going to get amplified by this building getting put in. Thank you. Yeah, I can uh sympathize with the u this Ryan that's in opposition to this though too where you have like permitted 9 meters and get to 20 is quite a big difference and then I can see that just not having a balcony can be a not much of a game changer that way. Have we seen this happen before? I suppose just as a solution just no balconies is I think the setbacks are okay like it's totally reasonable. Just I I totally hear from a neighbor's perspective, though. There's a big difference. Yes. So, we're talking about a six-story building and four stories are permitted in lowrise and six stories on this property is an appropriate um height given the size of the property and the setbacks that are being proposed. It is being reviewed as part of a site plan application. So, we are looking at wind and shadow impacts and there are none. and the bal the lack of balconies does help those privacy concerns and that you won't have people sitting out on balconies uh overlooking other properties. Yes, there are windows and and there's a window to window uh relationship. However, again, those setbacks are great. We've got 20 mters on either side of the building and and 6 mters at the rear. So, those window window impacts should not be um significant. Thank you for that. Yeah. Any more questions for um Mayor Bob? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Quest quick question for staff. Can you uh refresh my memory as to the requirements for affordable housing? We do not have specific zoning or setback regulations for affordable housing. It's for the use that's permitted in the zone. Um, in this zone though, it's considered a public use and so the use is permitted on this property that is zoned M1. So, this is not a rent geared to income development. I'll let the applicant speak to the specifics. I'm not familiar entirely with that, but it is affordable housing, so it is a public use under the zoning bylaw. Uh Jenna, do you have any info on that if you can share? Yeah, thank you. Um so this was through um so it's cityowned um property um and there was a request for proposal that went out quite a while ago and reception house um was the um uh the winner or successful bidder on that proposal. Um so it is intended to be for um uh housing for uh refugees um and people who are new to Canada. Um so that that is the intent of of this location for reception house if that answers your question. Bob, go ahead. Um thank you. Um, there's been a lot of discussion in the news media these days about what affordable is and we have it listed here in this application and I really don't know what is affordable. I mean, it's probably different depending upon who you are. If you're Elon Musk, affordable is a whole lot different than if you're Bob McCall. Uh so um I I haven't really received an answer on the definition of affordable other than that's the ambition of the developer is to do it for affordable but there are no parameters on that. So uh I guess if there's no answer there's no answer. So that's all I got. So just to clarify um member McCall the uh affordable meets the definition under the planning act and the provincial policy statement. So it is affordable under the planning document uh definitions which is yeah okay can you just use your microphone if you don't mind? Sorry about that. I'll do that from now on. Um, I just heard so the the goal of the the reason for the additional stories is for extra dwelling units, right? I guess that's a question to the applicant. Yeah. Um, I mean, technically speaking, we're the intent is to try and get as many people housing as possible. So, yes. Okay. So, there's no all six floors or all housing. There's no office space or mixed retail, not ground floor. Um, correct. There would be like a small I believe small office area like for reception house specifically. Um, but it would all be in relation um to the actual to reception house and the intent is for housing. Okay. But so the the building's getting hired to not only add housing units but also to provide offices for reception house. No, to clarify, I mean, um, if you have, um, if you live in an apartment building, you generally have like a manager's office that would be there on site to help assist with, um, people um, needing help, like needing entry into their building if something happens, something like that. The intent is not to have like an office building for reception house. It would be a small office for reception house to be on site in case there is any sort of um need for um the people living there. Gotcha. Okay. I mean I I really like to see the comparison of square footage for those for those two uh I guess office space versus residential use but Okay. Thank you. I imagine it be minimal. It's just um it's mostly all just units from the report looks like. But yeah, any other questions for either the uh delegate in opposition for the applicant uh or city staff? If seeing no questions, we'll just need a motion then please. Mayor Marco. Uh thank you, chair. Um yeah, I don't think we get very many applications that are um this far past the the setbacks. Um but uh I will move the staff recommendation to approve. Okay, thank you. So member Marco made that motion to approve. Need a seconder. Member Amanda. Uh floor is open for uh for debate. Any debate on this? No. Like I I feel for the neighbors. It is a difference from going from four stories to six as far as like our hands just being a little bit tight again though too as far as meeting those four tests. It's always the challenge as far as you know what um what we're here to do and what our requirements are. So that's always the uh the sticking point though too as far as making it all uh making all work. So yeah from 9 to 19.7. But um yeah, if you guys are ready to vote, we'll call for the vote. Uh, all those in favor of this application. Um, all in favor? 1 2 3 4 opposed. Uh, one. So, that's carried. A four to one. Approved. Good luck. Thank you. Uh, next up 6.4 A2026-013 99 Brendan Avenue. If I can invite the uh, agent to come forward to the microphone, please. And 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 99 Brandon Avenue. It's to permit an interior sideyard setback of 0.7 m instead of the minimum required 1.2 m. This is to facilitate the construction of a one-story addition with an attached garage to the existing dwelling. Staff have reviewed this variance in light of the forecast of the planning act, find that they meet all four, and is recommending approval. Thank you so much. If I can just ask you to introduce yourself, please. And if you reviewed the staff report and whether in support of the staff recommendation, please. Good morning. My name is Mark from Malamar Construction. I'm the agent for this application. I have reviewed the staff report and I am in agreement with it and support it. Thank you so much. Uh is there anyone in here in opposition uh to this uh application? Uh seeing none, committee members, do you have any questions for the agent or for city staff? Uh, seeing none, uh, looks straightforward. So, just need a motion. Member Marco, you're on fire. Uh, I will again move the staff recommendation to approve. Looks pretty straightforward to me. Thank you, Member Marco. Appreciate that. Uh, S Marco made that motion to approve. Need a seconder. Member Maria. Uh, floor is open for debate. If I see no debate, again, looks like pretty straightforward to me. We'll call for the vote. So, all those in favor of this application, 1 2 3 4 5. Um, that's all in favor. So, good luck. Thank you. Next, uh 6.5 A2026 uh-014 at uh 1010 Queens Boulevard. If I can invite the agent to come forward, please uh to the microphone and if I can uh kindly ask the planning coordinator to introduce the application and staff recommendation, please. Thank you, chair. This is a minor variance application for 1010 Queens Boulevard. Um there's one v variance before you this morning to permit a reard setback of zero meters instead of the minimum required 7.5 m. And I would note that the zero meters is at one corner of the dwelling, not the entire facade or length of the dwelling. So it only affects one corner. And this is to recognize the location of the existing building on the subject property as a single detached dwelling with two additional dwelling units attached which is a triplex. So the variances are to um rec recognize the building for a triplex use. Um staff have reviewed the variances in light of the forecast the planning act find that they meet all four and I guess the reason for the variance came up during a building permit review for zoning compliance. Um they did get a building permit for the attached garage. So in 2017 a building permit was issued for the demolition of the existing attached garage and reconstruction of a laundry addition and attached garage. Um the approved plans for building permit showed a 0.6 meter setback but unfortunately it was not constructed that way. So the one corner instead of being 6 is actually zero and that is the reason for the variance before you this morning. So it's to recognize the um location of that addition that was constructed in 2017 for the use of the building as a triplex. Yeah, thank you for that. Um if I can ask the Asian applicant introduce yourself please if you've read the staff report and whether you're in support of it. Thank you. uh through your chair of committee. My name is Justin Masker. I'm the agent for the owner. I have reviewed the staff report. I do support the staff report uh and even the recommendation for condition to trim back the overhang so it's not encroaching on the neighbor's property. I believe that to be a reasonable uh condition. Excellent. Thank you. Uh anyone here in opposition of this uh application? Uh seeing no one, any questions for the agent or for city staff and committee members? Um, Amanda, just curious what what's the impact of trimming off the eaves there? Like what's going to happen to the water? Am I misunderstanding sort of what's going to happen when you trim it down? Uh, yeah, that's a good question. Um, through chair to committee. It's Sorry, Justin, if you speak closer to the microphone. I have a hard time hearing you. Sorry about that. Thank you. I'll shift over here a little bit. Um the there is a roof overhang. So that could actually be trimmed back to be at that zero meter kind of setback. Uh and the actual ease trough could move forward because again it is on an angle. So that could actually deal with all of the the water runoff and things like that from the the roof. The flow of water can be entirely addressed within the property limits on that corner. Yes. Yes. Cool. Thanks. Okay. Thank you. Uh any more questions? If seeing none, just wait for a motion. Member Marco, let's go. I will move the staff recommendation to approve. Excellent. Thank you, Member Mark, for making that motion to approve. Uh seconder, member Bob, thank you very much. So, first and second floor is uh open for uh debate. Anyone have any comments on this? just seems like a funny one, funny shaped lot that has some challenges here. So, they're making it right. So, if we can uh vote on this, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor? One, two, three, four, five. So, all five are in favor carried. Good luck. All right. Next up, we have 6.6 a uh 2026-015. That's 126 uh Clive Road. Um just before I get started, just want to uh say that we did receive written submissions um from Jay Sullivan and ROE and we also uh today we had a big stack of them that we all read through. They're on our desks. As far as um people that wrote in regarding this this application, um yeah, we'll get started. So, if I can invite the agent, they're already there. And if I can kindly ask the planning coordinator to introduce the application and staff recommendation, please. Yes, thank you, chair. Um, the purpose of this minor variance application is to vary several zoning bylaw regulations to facilitate an addition at the rear of the existing multiple dwelling having six dwelling units for a total of 10 dwelling units on the subject property. Um, as there are 10 dwelling units, it's not subject uh to site plan approval. Uh, the first minor variance that is being requested uh is to permit the minimum amount of street line facade openings with 16.7% instead of the minimum required 20%. And this is to recognize the front facade of the existing building. Uh generally the intent of the street light facade uh treatment zoning regulation is to avoid blank wall conditions and ensure a positive relationship with the public realm. The existing facade consists of several windows rather than a large blank wall and as an existing condition generally meets the intent of the official plan and zoning bylaw which were not in effect when the building was constructed. The variance for the facade treatment is to legalize an existing condition and the facade is generally consistent with surrounding uses and desirable to maintain that compatible built form. As no changes are proposed and the variant seeks to legalize the existing condition, the overall impact of the variance is minor and desirable appropriate use of the building. And so it is staff's opinion that this variance meets all four tasks of the planning act and staff are recommending approval of this minor variance. The next minor variances uh five of them relate to the um the first two or one sorry but relates to the overall parking provision for the site and to permit a parking requirement of six parking spaces instead of the minimum minimum required 12 parking spaces. Uh the determination of the number of parking spaces proposed is appropriate particularly in scenarios where a proportionately large reduction is requested uh needs to be supported by a parking justification report. A parking justification report was prepared and supported the application and reviewed by city transportation services staff. Several concerns are noted with the report including transit accessibility, travel time assumptions, neighborhood walkability, and the parking data that was used. Uh full transportation services comments were provided in the um staff report under attachment B and my colleague Stefan uh beside me this morning can speak more detail to those comments in the inadequacy of the parking justification report. And as such, the city is not satisfied the proposed parking rate is appropriate and as staff's opinion that this variance does not meet the forecast of the planning act. The next two variances before you this morning are to permit parking in the front yard where the zoning bylaw does not permit parking space to be located here and to permit the parking space to be located within 2.4 meters of the front lot lines instead of the minimum part 3 m. Uh these two variances um are it's important to note in the review of these two variances official plan policy 4. C.1.8 which provides guidance where where special zoning regulations or binary variances are requested or proposed. Um staff needs to ensure the lands can function appropriately and not create unacceptable adverse impacts for adjacent properties. Um the impact of each zoning regulation will be reviewed prior to formulation of a recommendation to show that that deficiency in one zoning requirement does not compromise the site in achieving objectives or create further zoning deficiencies. While a total of six parking spaces are proposed uh five of the parking spaces are at the rear of the subject property. Uh the this is the result of the area not being sufficiently large enough to accommodate all six theo proposed parking spaces in the rear. Uh this is firm further limited by the MTO setback which is 14 meters from the MTO property line. So in order to provide all six parking spaces a separate variance is required to permit that front yard parking. This results in one variance causing another and relying on another which fails to meet that official plan policy. Staff note that the application form indicated that the variance is to permit front yard parking um pertains to an existing parking space and the city has consistently and repeatedly notified the property owner that the front yard of the subject property does not contain a legal parking space as demonstrated by several zoning violations um that have been issued for the property over the uh over years and that there's um historical imagery on Google Street View to um demonstrate that the parking space existed, did not exist, and it's um the types of materials that it was comprised of. As the barrierfree parking space is a requirement of the accessibility for Ontario's Ontarians with disabilities acts is it is important to re it is inappropriate to rely on a variance to meet this requirement. Should the barrier barrierfree parking space be relocated to a location on the subject property where parking is permitted such as the rear yard, there is insufficient space to accommodate the six parking spaces. uh the reduced minimum number of parking spaces would actually be five instead of the requested six. And it is staff's opinion that the variance to permit the parking in the front yard does not meet the forecast of the planning act. Next, we'll move on to the variance to permit a floor floor space ratio of 0.72 instead of the maximum permitted 0.6. While an increase to floor space ratio does not implicitly result in the requirement of other variances, proposed addition to the existing building and hence the gross floor area is located in size to to require reduced interior side setback as well as contribute to insufficient space being provided to meet the minimum parking and as such a staff are the opinion that this uh variance does not meet the intent again of that policy in the official plan 4 C18F. Um the increased gross floor area um results in additional dwelling units and therefore parking space requirements which cannot be accommodated. Again the reliance on one variance for the approval of another um escapes the scope of what could be considered minor. While the applicant's planning justification letter speaks to masking incompatibility, there is no assessment of the runoff effects of the increased floor area and configuration of the building addition and why the FSR increase is minor. I'll move on to the other variants. The next variants to permit interior sideyard setback of 2 meters instead of min minimum required 3 meters. Sideyard setbacks are generally used to ensure that sufficient access to the site can be provided. There's appropriate separation distance to adjacent land uses and the site can accommodate site functions such as uh sufficient amenity space. A private amenity space is proposed in the setback area as required by the zoning bylaw. Although the zoning bylaw does not establish minimum patio dimensions as proposed, the patio is not appropriate. The patio is two separate areas, one of which has a window well that requires a tenant to traverse the unobstructed walkway to access. And both areas are proposed to be only 0.9 meters in width, which is not functional. For comparison, the zoning bylaw establish establishes a minimum porch width of 1.5 meters, which is more reasonable in terms of amenity size. Regarding the private patio space uh proposed in the setback, as mentioned, the zoning bylaw does not have minimum dimensions uh for staff to consider it to be an appropriate amenity area. Um although the patio space does not technically require a variance, uh the proposed 9 meters does not meet the intent of an appropriate amenity space. Um the bylaw further states that the private patio areas to be sorry patio areas to be private and there is no reasonable means to reserve the space solely for the tenants of the corresponding dwelling unit. Uh the applicant's planning justification letter submitted as part of the application references ample on-site amenity area and landscaping. However, aside from the private patio for the use of one dwelling unit, no landscaping or amenity area is noted on the site plan. It's staff opinion uh that this minor variance to reduce interior side setback does not meet the four tests of the planning act. Um I would also like to note that the subject property shares a lot line as I mentioned with the MTO. Um the MTO establishes a 14 meter setback from their lands where generally do not permit a development or uses integral to the function of the property. Um drawing a perpendicular line to the nearest point. Um the proposed development and unobstructed walkway would appear to be within this setback. MTO was contacted to confirm their acceptability of the proposal and they determined that insufficient information is provided on the site plan and they were unable to comment. I would also note the site plan is also deficient in other aspects uh such as garbage collection as a subject property is supposed to be 10 dwelling units. The the site would no longer be eligible for municipal waste collection and a private waste collection uh will be required and should be noted on the plan where one is not located there. Now in summary, planning uh opinion uh five of the six requested variances do not meet the forecast of the planning act. Um as a variety of variances are required such as a reduction in the number of required parking spaces by 50%, two variances to permit parking in the front yard, an increase in the maximum permitted floor space ratio, and a reduced interior sideyard setback suggests that the proposed addition is too large for or an overdevelopment of the subject property. Okay, thank you for that. If I can uh ask the uh agent applicant to introduce yourself, please you've read the uh staff report and if you're in support of it. Thank you. Uh yes, good morning. Uh my name is Craig Dart. I'm a development consultant here on behalf of the property owner. Uh with me today is also the property owner uh Dave Salvador and we'll both be speaking to the application today. Um, and we are not in support of the staff recommendation. Um, and have a lengthy response to uh staff's comments there. Cool. Thank you for that. Uh, just before we get to that, if I can just uh ask if there's anyone in opposition to this application in the gallery. Uh, seeing none, which is interesting. Most of these uh letters here are all in support of it. Usually it's the other way around. So, it's kind of interesting there. But uh yeah, floor is yours to uh respond to u the staff recommendation. Thank you. Uh so the first thing I want to speak to is the front yard parking. Uh while city staff does not recognize it as an existing uh nor do they have an existing site plan for the property to confirm the site plan uh layout um essentially to determine what is and is not existing. The fact is that the physical space does exist and rather it's actually been overgrown with weeds and the city curb cut exists as well. So, we're actually just looking to legalize existing situation to allow for the one front yard parking space. So, this is not a new condition in the neighborhood. Um, and in fact, the surrounding neighborhood has existing surface parking located in the front yard. Uh, if you look directly to the east, uh, there's a 10 unit multiple dwelling that has eight parking spaces located entirely in front of the property. Um, I do want to also make note that the city's most recent zoning that was implemented is the SGA zones allows for front yard parking. So, while the city may say that front yard parking is not allowed for 10 unit multiple dwellings, it's allowed as of right in all the SJA zones, it's allowed as of right in all 8 unit semi-attached multiple dwellings or so attached aplexes. Um, it's however the RES 5 zone uh currently does not permit it. However, in the 851 it did. So, if this property was SJ1, a 10-unit multiple dwelling, it allows an 8 m wide driveway. We're proposing six. If this was developed as a semi-attached dwelling, we'd be allowed a 13 meter wide driveway. We're proposing six. Um, again, it's not a new condition. It reflects the existing surrounding neighborhood and we're just looking to clean up the site, repave it, and it's the most logistical spot to have the barrier free space as there's a walkway leading from the street to the actual building, which would also function as the accessible parking or accessible um aisle for the beerfree space. Um, furthermore, uh, legalizing a front yard parking, it's it's something that staff has actually supported in the past and this committee has approved. Example being a 2022 034 that was at 215 Morgan Avenue, uh, where staff supported legalizing front yard parking and legalized the winding of a front yard drive. In terms of the proposed density of 0.72, um, I'm the opinion that the FSR does meet the official plan zoning. The proposed addition to the multiple dwelling uh provides a mix of housing types and unit types while maintaining compatibility with low-rise residential neighborhood. Uh the FSR proposed um is the same FSAR that was essentially just approved by this committee minutes ago uh for 67 Bler Street that requested an increase in FSR in parking decrease. Both supported by staff yet staff note they can't support an increase FSR if it results in decreased parking. Yet it was just supported and approved by committee. In terms of the requested sideyard setback, the intent of the interior sideyard setbacks are insured compatible built forms between adjacent properties and citable room for access and landscaping. The S5 zoning requirement requires 3 meters and that's currently not being met. The building is actually just around 2.5 meters away. So that's the existing building 2.5. The addition will be set back at 2.05 meters. Um again that's just on the one side while the other side will exceed that minimum requirement. Um the right side where the reduction has been requested provides for ample landscaping and suitable room for access. Um again it's something the committee has supported in the past and numerous times for multiple dwellings. Example of that being a 2022 108 for 34 to 42 windmav which is for 58 unit multiple dwelling that reduced the sideear setback on both sides to 2 meters. In that case they add they argued that it was adequate for landscaping and private amenity. Um staff notes that there's not enough manity space provided on site. While we're proposing 11 meter, which is the minimum requirement, I'm not asking for a variance for that. Uh the site plant does note that there's 39.90% landscaping. 20%'s required. So I will just direct staff to that site plant notes that stat that 40% essentially of the site is landscaping that we use for landscaping amendment uses. Uh in consultation with staff, I prepared a parking justification study with TDM measures being offered such as one class A bicycle parking space per unit, which is above and beyond the required uh minimum class A parking requirements. We're offering transit passes to units and we'll be assigning a TDM coordinator um to essentially promote uh TDM and alternative modes of transportation. Furthermore, transportation tomorrow survey data was reviewed and existing parking demand was reviewed. So essentially there's six spaces proposed 0.6 six spaces per unit. This is a suitable parking rate for this type of build form with affordable rental dwellings. Uh similar to the multiple project uh that the committee just approved for a building of 19.7 meters instead of 9 meters uh which had 15 spaces for 35 units. That's 0.43 spaces per unit. Yet no reduction was required. No justification was provided and was fully supported with staff. So we're above and beyond that. We're less units and essentially providing TDM measures. Um while we're fully supportive of affordable housing and note that that proposal was considered um a public use, there's also affordable units being offered in this project. Um and we're just trying to compare the difference when the committee just disapproved versus ours. Uh while it's important to have parking on site for current and future tenants, note that the current six-unit building currently only has two tenants that have a car. Um and that this proposed development will have parking that's in bundled. So that means that not every rental unit will be offered a parking space. So, if you have a car and you're looking to rent a unit that does not have a parking space included in your rent, you're not going to rent the unit. And rather, people who do not own cards and will use nearby transit in alternative modes of transportations, they'll be the ones renting units that aren't offered a parking space. Um, I also want to note in staff's comments that uh they evaluated the parking study. Um, they used the parking demand with all 10 units having two bedrooms units or more. Uh, that yeah, it would generate a higher parking demand using the IT generator. However, the unit breakdown is one bachelor unit, five one-bedroom units, and four two-bedroom units. Um, so in terms of the garbage pickup, um, I also want to note that, uh, on demand garbage pickup will be accommodated on site and that will essentially, uh, be dealt with by private pickup. Uh, in conclusion, my client's looking to clean up this six-unit multiple dwelling, uh, bring some fresh life to it, add gentle intensification to the neighborhood, uh, with missing middle and affordable housing and rental units that this community needs. Thank you. Yeah, thanks for that. Uh, many members, any questions for the, uh, agent? Bob. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Not really a question for the agent, but just a a question for the committee. Should we uh divide these into two separate U applications? Well, not separate applications, but a part A and a part B. Part A is fairly straightforward and part B is a little more complicated. So, we can get rid of the concern um as indicated in part A. So, that's my question to the committee. Uh do you think that we should divide this into two? If so, I would move that this be divided into two. I think they um they already are A and B so we can vote on them separately. We can just have someone make a motion just for A and then uh divide it that way and not put them all together. I'm I'm okay with that. Right. If that's okay, we can just have uh our questions here and then when someone makes a motion, don't put it all together. just make a motion just for A and then we'll vote on that and then come back and then make a motion for um section B if that's okay. A good suggestion. Uh any questions then for um the agent? Meanda just a just a few um points clarification. I thank you for sort of the um lengthy explanation. Bicycle units um there's a note on the site plan that they're going to be accommodated within the units. I'm just wondering if you could speak to sort of what that would look like in terms of day-to-day use. Yeah, so each unit will have a large indoor storage use or locker for it or closet space. Um, in previous development applications, a lot of multiple dwellings will have bike rooms. Um, if you're an avid biker, you'll you'll buy a very very expensive bike that can get upward $10,000. Typically, what happens is if people put these in bike rooms, they're more likely to get stolen or damaged because it's a communal bike room. So people, if you drive around the city, you'll see people have expensive bikes. They actually store them in their unit, you'll see them on balconies, you'll see them internal. So we've actually found that having them indoor in internal units uh as a more secure location to have them rather than a communal bike room. Yeah, I I appreciate the risk. I'm just wondering because it's hard to tell because the site plan's a little um not super detailed in terms of the interior spaces and what that will look like. like what what's going to be the like what these units are going to have bike storage. What's the overall square footage and then how much square footage would a typical bike storage take up? So the zoning bile actually requires I believe it's two points of contact for the bike and Steve staff can confirm that as well. Yeah. So essentially it's a internal unit. It'd be a bike rack with two points of contact. Um so a very small typical closet with a a 32 inch door two feet deep would accommodate that. So that be 3 feet by two feet. Okay. And then this kind of leads in sort of my other question. I wonder if you could go through um because unless I missed it in the package and feel free to direct me, but um what is going to what are the individual unit? I know you mentioned bachelor a couple like what's the square footage like a little bit more detail in terms of what we're looking at sort of the inside the guts of these buildings. Okay. So the existing sixunit multiple dwelling has one bachelor. Uh that unit is about 400. It's it's a small bachelor style unit. So it's no bedroom. It's got the kitchen, a bathroom, and essentially you'd have the Murphy Beno now with a closet space. Uh the onebedroom units are larger than that. Essentially similar layout, but then they have an actual bedroom uh with a closet space as well. Uh so those are about six 650. So they're very very small um affordable units right now. um and then proposing the four additional units. Those will be upwards to about 900 square units and those will be two bedrooms. So, we're just looking to essentially add a mix of unit types um in this neighborhood here and essentially clean up the property and bike storage in all of those units under a thousand. Yeah. The other alternative we and we've been in consultation with MTO is providing also above and beyond that uh a 10x10 structure in the landscaped area. Uh MTO had no concerns about that. Uh they just note that if in the future if there was essentially going to be expropriation, which there is nothing planned in the nearby future that was recently done, which kind of resulted in these all regular shaped properties neighborhood. Yeah. But they would be supportive of having a shed in there. You essentially just have to sign off that if there is anything ever um expropriated that is removed. So yeah, there's options to provide both internal unit and then external as well. Okay. And then related, this probably relates back to this shed situation. Um, garbage. You mentioned ondemand garbage. I don't really understand what that means. Like presumably there has to still be some storage and it's not an immediate pickup. Yep. You would essentially no different than any other household. You store it within your unit and then on demand. So depending on frequencies, it can be once a week, it can be twice a week. Um, you know, if you own a singly attached dwelling now, you're subject to roll bins. It's every two weeks, but with private pickup, it's it's on demand. So if there's a higher demand, then it's could occur three times a week. If it's lower, it'll be twice a week. But it's a private pickup. And how does that pickup look? Like do I like lug my garbage bag and then put it in a truck or does it go in a bin than a truck? Like I'm both. It could be either option. It could be curbside pickup by the private contractor. It could be on the site. But essentially it's not relying on the the region for pickup. It's private, right? But presumably there'd still be bins that would need to be stored until the truck arrives. Yep. It's very common for small bachelor units and small tubing units to essentially have Yeah. I'm just trying to fill in the pieces on the site plane because I don't know where those bins would be stored. Yeah, we could add that to the the rear. There's a ample amount of space at the rear where if if that's something that comes up through detailed design that we need, then yeah, definitely we could add essentially an outdoor uh garbage bin for for temporary pickup to on demand comes. Can you just use your microphone, please? Thank you. Couldn't hear you. Thank you. Oh, sorry. Is it on? Oh, okay. There. Sorry, guys. Uh my name is David. Thank you again for everybody's time here and consideration. I really appreciate it. Um I'm the owner of the property. Thank you so much. I facilitated with the neighbor. They have a garbage pickup that goes into the back and with the setbacks with the MTO and I considered it with MTO as well. These are things I want to ensure obviously before doing a project of of this nature. Uh the MTO supports that if we were to put a bin in the back, uh there's ample room within the setbacks that we're not going to be building on. We're not going to be parking on. there's nothing going to be built there or anything like that that the MTO supports there be the garbage pickup within that area. I spoke with the neighbors as well and uh yeah there's a facility for um garbage truck to go in to pick up the garbage uh for the tenants. So that has been taken care of in respect to the bikes as well and also I've even taken into consideration there's a large utility room. I may even have that area uh sectioned off for uh the tenants because I think it's very important for people to have accessibility to environmentally friendly um transportation as well. Okay. Um, sorry to monopolize the time. I just had one other question. Um, there was a reference to affordable housing. Um, is that just sort of a general business principle that you're adopting or like is there grants um those sort of formal application processes for to make it affordable housing? That's correct. And and thank you for uh giving me the opportunity to speak again uh with regards to that uh with I'm doing CHC funding. In order to do CMHC funding, they require specifics tenants and and 10% below the average rental and they use buy ratios uh implementation utilizing what the average rents are in the area and they use buy ratio subtracting 10% and that would actually make it they so they know for sure it is affordable and otherwise I wouldn't be able to get the funding in order to facilitate the property uh which is you know advantageous but it's something I want to do actually for the community as well. I've done previous projects as well and I I'm very advantageous for that and so is so is the neighborhood and I'd like once the questions are done I'll also like an opportunity just to speak on my behalf as well and thank you for your time. Yeah, no worries. Thank you. Sorry. And just one one other question. I was just and I'm not a planner but um I was just looking at this and I was looking at sort of the other property that sort of hooks around Clive. Is there any is there was there been any explanation of what it would look like if um or whether it would be possible to sort of shorten the length of the proposed building so that parking could extend towards the rear. I appreciate that that may um sort of impact the MTO setback. Um yeah, it does look like the other property they're very close to the that's actually something we originally proposed to staff and we actually had eight parking on site. So that was the initial concept we had and um it wasn't something to support it. So this is what we came back with and and essentially resulted. So yeah, when we've done that in the past where yeah, there's been parking in the back there and I know you can't count that because um it's in the MO setback. So yeah, that's why you have such a large large landscaped area in the back there is is because it's within the MO setback. Um again consultation with MTO there you can get permits for this if there is anything whether it's a structure or parking that's part of it you just have to essentially sign a form that in the event of an expropriation that you won't get full market value for that right yeah and I I spoke with MTO as well and you know again nothing is formal but off record they indicated they're going to support that as long as I'm not building any type of you know footings or structures something that you know would be you know obviously in the way but there is going to be a large area for ext extra or stuff like that, you know, the bikes, the garbage, etc. Okay, any more questions? No. You said you wanted to make a couple points. Again, I I just want to say thank I apologize. I know this is longwinded for you guys. I I appreciate your guys times and your consideration, your fairness, and your reasonleness under these circumstances. I do respect the rules. Uh I completely understand. And uh I just uh I wanted to say that I went throughout the whole community like this is very important for me. I want to ensure that the neighbors are in support of a project like this and uh 100% of the people were completely in support of this project. Um I don't I'm unsure of how many emails you got. I was very impressed that people actually reached out into their hearts and sent out positive things for the project because I went door todoor um with the community. They they completely support the transit. I completely support the accessibility for renters, for affordable housing, for the parking. Uh the parking has been uh I spoke with all the neighbors that have been there since the 1980s and they said parking has been aotted in the front of this building and I do agree maybe with the previous owner. There's been some violations. I'm sure she tried to maybe put more whatever it may be. I'm unsure. Um but the neighbors did advise me that uh since the 1980s that parking has been allowed at the front of this unit. I am not change of the front of this uh project. I am not changing the front of this project at all. I'm keeping it completely consistent with the way it is. I'm changing it cosmetically. I sent an email. I'm completely uplifting the way it's going to look to uplift the community. The neighbors are completely impressed by the way I'm going to make it look and I will make it look like that if not better. I think it uh will show that uh one car parking in the front will not affect the community. It's not going to obstruct anybody. It's not going to bother anybody in respect to obstructing it's actually if anything it's going to get cars parked off the street um to allow accessibility uh for people to walk etc etc. Um I think overall I just I wanted to say this is an affordable CHC funding again spoke with all the neighbors um school parks are nearby transits nearby uh parks are nearby for kids and families to grow into this neighborhood. I think this is kind of like the common goal of our housing uh with which Kitchener with what Kitchener wants. I think uh that it is a very in totality of the circumstance I think is very uh minor impact on the neighborhood. If anything, it's uplifting. It's desirable uh for the long-term housing goals of the city. Um and I'm respecting the spirit of the community. There's an up there's a a a multiplex to the left of it with parking. There's a a a multiplex to the right of it with numerous amount of parking. So, I'm within the area and scope of the community. And again, that's the reason why I reached out to the support of the of the neighbors and everything. And again, I just want to say thank you so much for your time. I and I do believe that if you make this building like really, really nice, beautiful, you're going to bring in good people to the community. And I think it's really important, but again, I want to know and I and I noted with um with Greg that it's very important that accessibility is there that we have people able to safely go in and out of the property that I ensure that I have property security etc. Um because I want to ensure that it's a positive thing for the community and as you can see for the support I got from the community as well. Thank you for that. Uh no more questions or comments. I'll just wait for uh a motion and we'll look to separate them. Now so Oh, sorry. Sorry. I would like to comment that um on the sheets in front of you, the LUC220, so we did use the two-bedroom that was taken from their transportation study. So their transportation study use that land use code. So that is what shown in front of you. So if that doesn't match for the two-bedroom, then that's what was um mentioned. Sorry, I'm just a little bit confused there. What were we talking about? Sorry. Sure. Uh so one of the points that he mentioned was that we the handouts in front of you um they assessed a two-bedroom type of unit that was the So there's a land use code. So that's how we kind of identify it and he used a two-bedroom unit in his calculation. So we just reproduced that data and then I provided on the handout. So he the applicant had concerns about that code being used but that's the one he's used in his transportation study. Okay. I'll just provide clarification. Sorry. Go ahead. Sorry about that. It's one bachelor, five one bedrooms and and four two bedrooms. So that would have been a clear but I can confirm that is the unit breakdown. Excellent. Thank you. Um, member Bob, you had your hand up. Uh, yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I mentioned earlier, I think we should separate A and B. I mean, part A is fairly straightforward and part B is anything but. Uh, so um I will move that uh we um approve part A of the staff report. Cool. So, member Bob made that motion to approve just uh part A. I got a seconder for that. Member Marco. Uh floor is open for debate for uh part A of this uh application. No debate. We'll uh call for that vote. All those in favor. Uh 1 2 3 4 5. So part A is uh is carried. That's passed. Uh next looking for another motion. Mayor Bob. Uh not really a motion, but uh on part B, which as I had previously mentioned is is much more complex. And just as a way of comment, I I've been on this committee for oh, a couple of years now. Um, when you have that much support from your neighborhood, that's enough to make you go, "What? Really?" Um, that's great. Uh, when having been part of a neighborhood association for again a few months or several thousand months, um, that's important. Good neighbors is important. Um uh just another off the top of my head comment u about bicycle uh storage. Um I have a friend who really likes his bicycle. Uh and um I am getting back into bicycling. Uh I wouldn't really call a $10,000 bicycle affordable. Now I could stand to be corrected if made out of titanium or platinum or something. Um just a comment but uh moving ahead. So I'm going to move uh that uh part B of the uh report be approved as opposed to the staff saying refusal or if not approval then deferral because I let's make it uh one or the other. Uh so we have uh the approval or a deferral. What are we looking for? Let me let me clarify a few things. a number of the conditions that have or the applications one two three four five some of them are very minor and these are things that we have approved in other areas. So um my question for staff would be of the five uh variances that are being requested here which is the most significant is it is it parking? I would uh refer to the committee of the policy and the official plan 4C18 which talks about the number of variances the cumulative effect one variance causing another variance. Um the addition in itself given its size is causing an FSR variance is causing a parking variance. Um it's causing to move one parking space in the front yard. So there's a number of variances before you. One is causing another variance. Um the biggest one is the parking reduction. Um we do not feel that the study that or report that was provided the justification is sufficient. Um there are a number of issues with it and again Stefan can speak to those. Um that the justification just isn't there for the parking reduction and what we're seeing in neighborhoods um in these locations is that there are parking problems and although they're bachelor units, they still can have cars. And so, uh, we field a number of inquiries daily, uh, people wanting to widen their driveways and there's not enough parking. Um, we had a situation the other day where you approved a a parking reduction of one parking space for, uh, a triplex and that person is saying they need that parking space. They want to widen their driveway. So, parking is an issue in neighborhoods. Um, and I would question some of the the support that you've received and and the closeness and proximity of those support letters to the property and are they going to be experiencing the on street parking and the prop parking problems that may result from this from this development. Um, president setting is not uh indicative of uh support for this. Um, just because you've approved it one location, the circumstances are completely different. the height this morning FSR variance did not require a parking variance. So I would just ask you to look at the variances before you the cumulative effect of those variances and that they do meet the four tests of the planning act. Cool. If I just tail on uh member Bob's question there would a deferral work at all to work together with this uh applicant to find some type of compromise? Would that be a benefit? Sorry Bob, hope I didn't. Uh that's difficult to say. I may uh ask uh Stefan to um weigh in on that. I think there's needs some be some updates to the parking justification study to be able to support the five parking spaces. Uh whether that's possible, I will leave that to my colleague to comment on. Um we have been working with the applicants since I believe uh late last year. Um trying to um modify the proposal, look at different ways um reconfigurations of the parking area as the applicants indicated. um it may assist. Um I I just don't know the answer to that right now, but it may be beneficial. Um if there can be updates, I'll let Stephan speak to the parking justification report that would need to be updated. Uh so based on the site layout is because of the MTO setback and any given time the MTO could take that land back. We can't provide or we can't assume that any features in the MTO setback will be there permanently. So if they were doing construction work, they could tear out that bike shed to like if they're widening the highway, if they're maintaining the highway or temporary lane openings, they could remove that. Therefore, we have to look at the site plan within the setbacks as illustrated. We have a lot of maneuverability concerns. If you look at the site plan, every person has to reverse all the way out of the site to exit. There are multiple obstructions. There's blind corners. Um, in terms of the vehicle ownership rate, what we've been finding is if if it's a very minor difference, then the unbundled parking can help. But 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 and then that's when the neighbors start complaining and then we have to start enforcing it. So then we're taxing all of our bylaw staff as well as making these new residents angry because they may have thought that they could park here. Um, in terms of the parking study, there was numerous errors. Um, people typically walk at 1 meter a second. That's how we time our traffic lights. That's one of the attachments I provided. Um, in order to meet some of these like walking distances, you need to walk almost, you basically need to sprint to the bus stop every single day. So, that's not something we would support. Um, so yeah, we have a lot of maneuverability concerns just in terms of like the nature of the location. in terms of the vehicle ownership rate for waterl region's decreasing. However, in this specific area, the zones go down to about three acre size. So, yeah, you can look at the whole city, but on the other hand, the downtown rate, which was the urban dense urban, which was provided um would represent a decrease in traffic. This area doesn't have shopping malls within walking distance. There's no businesses within walking distance. There's no entertainment within walking distance. So, there's a lot of areas we would support reduced parking. and this amount of parking reduction and the configuration of the parking we have serious concerns with so that's why we cannot support it Bob uh yes Mr. Sure. Thank you. Seems to be that u the major topic these days before this committee is parking. We have approved uh applications of zero parking. We have uh many places that parking is in the front yard. Um, I'm going to ask the applicant, uh, is there any, to use a colloquial term, wiggle room on your part to try and convince staff to support your application because I think it has to be pretty pretty close. Uh, you know, I mean, we're talking parking space to be located within 2.4 four versus the required three. Well, that's pretty minor when uh you consider all of the applications that have come before this committee. Um so I'm going to so would you be amanable to a deferral so you could go back to staff uh and and talk to them and say that this development should go ahead. what do we need to do to make this happen? Uh again coming back to I think it's a great development. Um and apparently I'm not the only one who thinks so. So other than the applicant. So um would you be okay for a deferral uh for two months to go back to staff and see if you could figure something out? And I I I really appreciate that. I've been uh trying actually to go back and forth with the staffs uh since um October and there was actually approvals back and forth back and forth back with our um surveying etc to meet their requirements. Um we've done everything we could. It just appears that it became a domino effect the moment that sixth parking in the front of the premise came into effect. It kind of dominoed everything down uh the spiral. So this is the reason why I went through all the neighbors on the street. This is the reason why I determined where transit was, etc. I was planning on doing affordable housing from the beginning with CMHC funding. CMHC funding, they're they're doing a 70% efficiency rate uh commencing uh in September. So my timelines uh to meet the efficiency rates, which I'm making the building high efficiency, incredibly high efficiency because I think that's very important for the environment. Um I and this is not I apologize guys. I've been with the city and doing these type of things and even my own area many uh many um times and I'm I'm very for the community. I want to ensure that the neighbors are in support of this. As for transit, uh many of the neighbors I spoke with utilize transit. Um I'm going to make this affordable housing. The people I'm going to rent it to, I'm going to let them know that they I'm going to give them transit things so they're able to utilize transit. I'm going to do bike racks so they're able to utilize their bikes. So, because I do respect the parking on the street, I do think that that's that would be a problem with people parking on the street. Hence the reason why I'm specifying um the parking and that I'm specifying some of the units are not going to have parking and they're not going to be allowed to have parking. But the the community is so close-knit that people are going to be able to just walk there. And as for the one Peter one meter per second for walking and people run running to the to the the bus stop. I was walking the street up and down yesterday all of Clive Street and the intersecting streets and I went to numerous bus stops very quickly. So I'm and it's very the the area is actually has lots of plazas. Uh it has a park, a school, uh plaza down the street, the highways nearby, the the transit's nearby. Like everything is great for the community. And my concern and to your question again is ideally I would I would just I think and this is the reason again I went to the community is for their support is to just get an absolute approval for this because of this domino effect. It appears if it wasn't just for that one car parking in the front that everything else would have been approved otherwise. And I did try to work with staff since October and we actually pushed it to this date which you know unfortunately this causes issues for me but it's okay. It's what's needed. Um, but and also I just um I I heard while we were doing this that it was just approved uh 35 units and 15 parking. So I don't know how they're arguing on mine when that was just approved again. 35 units and 15 parking. So mine, you know, I I just trying my best. Thank you. Sorry. Thank you. Um was is that any validation to that though too? If we didn't have the parking in the front, would that facilitate that domino effect of uh variances? So the the issue with the parking space in the front is it's the barrierfree parking space which is required um by the Ontario Act. So um by moving it in the in the in the rear, it decreases the number of parking space because it's a larger parking space. So then it decreases it and then it's the accessibility of that parking space. Would it be truly accessible in the rear yard? So I don't think there's any other location for it but the front yard. But it's again it's the the domino effect and the cumulative effect of the variances. Um I want to just clarify that this variance application is unique and different from all variance applications considered by this committee. So if you've considered an FSR variance this morning, there wasn't a parking variance associated with that. There are a number of variances. There's there's five of them um that are required to facilitate this development. Um I'm happy to look at deferral, but I really do believe the traffic or sorry the parking justification study needs to be updated and accurate for us to be able to support a parking reduction. So that's the first um thing that I would suggest that needs to be done is an accurate look at the parking and maybe there's an opportunity to reconfigure. As Stephan said, there are serious concerns with the functionality of that parking space in the rear and the ability for people to exit in a forward motion. It's it's very it's very tight. Um we possibly could look at um an agreement on title possibly to require parking spaces uh sorry transit passes and and bicycle parking. um that's something we could explore with our transportation services staff again based on a parking justification study. So I think that's the first and foremost uh thing that is required by staff is an an accurate study that supports the parking reduction and then we can go from there. In terms of the parking survey data, we as an industry we do not accept proxy survey data from the Finley applicant surveying their own property using their own methods. Usually, it always has to be a third party and always has to be at least one other site. So, what we want to confirm is because we don't know whether how many residents were currently living there during the survey, which is what we found out during other applications. So, maybe there's only two residents there. Maybe there's three. So, that's why we want to do other sites. That is something that um we did flag we flagged all these concerns for the the parking study. The applicant did not update their study. Um my colleague Dave Seller did comment provide all these detailed comments months ago. We never received an updated parking justification study. We never received a revised site plan that addressed any of these concerns. So, we're not sure if a deferral will really help any of this. Member Amanda, I just had some general comments. I'm not sure if it's best to reserve them for the debate or go ahead and vote or what what you want to do. We don't even have a motion on the floor right now. So, you could put a motion in theory and then debate it and put it to vote. MCO got a motion. I I have a question for staff. That's okay. Um I I recall that we've had applications um that where we have allowed parking in the front close to that front lot line. um if that were the only variance requested um from my perspective to telegraph a little bit I wouldn't be concern I'm not concerned about that space in like specifically people park in their driveways all the time my understanding is that it's the FSR and the parking um all of those things are kind of dependent on each other um but just kind of if we were to at that front yard parking space in isolation without other changes to the property. Um maybe that's a little bit too hypothetical, but what would staff does staff have an opinion on on that? I'm curious. So staff would review that variance in the context of the proposal and there could be a different analysis of the four tests. But it would depend on what the proposal is and you know how that variance relates to other variances again and uh in accordance with the official plan policy that does direct us to look at the cumulative effect of one variance causing another or relying on another variant. So, um, staff would need to review a proposal where that's the only variance requested. Cool. Any more questions? If not, we'll just need a motion. We'll either like defer or approve or refuse. Bob, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, and I hear about this domino effect and it makes me think about the straw that broke the camel's back. I'm looking at this and four of the uh requested variances are very minor. It seems to be this one problem of parking. And I think six parking spaces instead of the required 12. Maybe the required 12 is a little more than necessary. But I I uh parking is going to be a problem moving forward in this city for years to come. Um I'm kind of sitting on the fence between approving part B and deferring to allow uh staff and the applicant to iron out u the park was it the parking assessment or something that had been mentioned. uh because if that could get resolved then I think uh this is a straightforward um well semistraforward. So I overall I like the application. Um there are just a few intertwined glitches. It's the what's that old Gordian knot thing that they talk about in ancient Greece or something. Um I'd like to see it move ahead. I really would. Uh um but there are some things that have to be addressed and uh I I think that I my motion is to defer this for uh two months to allow the applicant uh to discuss with staff on what needs to be done to get this to pass. Uh so and comment to staff is u I know that technically there what we do on lot a not here but one lot does not set a precedent for lot another lot but in in many ways it does I know it's not a legal precedent under the terms of the law and I'm sure there are people here who know more about law than I do uh but I I would really like to see the two folks the two opposing views work this out because I think this is a development that should go forward and I'm going to underscore that the neighborhood thinks that this is a development that should go ahead and whenever I see neighbors and developers working together I go Yahoo that's great so my motion is to defer this for two months to let the two sides come together and try to figure it out. Excellent. Thank you. So member bought me the motion to defer for two months. Um, need a seconder. Mayor Marco. Yeah, I have some comments for debate if that's okay. Sure. But first, we need a seconder. So, member Maria seconded. So, uh, we have a first and a second. Member Bob made the motion. Meia seconded and floor is open now for debate. Marco. Um, thank you, chair. Um, there are a couple concerns that I have. Um, the overall parking reduction I'm a little bit concerned about just because I don't know that the I don't know if the bus stops are quite close enough for them to be convenient. Um and the bicycle parking that the applicant has um mentioned that they'd like to include. It will only work for certain types of bicycles partic if it's vertical storage then it's only a light bicycle will work. Um, and some of the bicycles that the ebikes, you know, that can be $10,000 that are most effective for replacing a car, uh, are very big and heavy. They can hold a lot of stuff. They can hold kids. Um, and you're not going to be able to store those vertically. Um, I appreciate I absolutely appreciate the um the theft concern. Um, at the same time, I think a shared storage space does make it geometrically a little bit easier to store large bikes, which then from my perspective would make it easier to justify a parking reduction. Um, um, the accessible parking space in the front, um, I'll be honest, I'm not really that concerned about it in isolation. Um the the setback particularly with the MTO I'm a little bit concerned about. Um and the the FSR is also kind of related to that. Um from my perspective if the MTO hasn't provided uh written um confirmation that they're in support um then it's kind of conjecture whether they support it or not. Um if they do provide maybe a deferral might give the MTO time to provide commentary and say, "Hey, we support this." Um but um but yeah, overall I would be tentatively supportive of a of a deferral. Um I don't know how much it will solve. Um but um I I would be supportive of splitting um at least that front parking space out because I don't I don't have any concerns with that specific parking spot. Thank you. Amanda, just a few comments. Um, now that we're at the debate stage in terms of the deferral, what I'm hearing, I guess, from the applicant and they and the city, and they can correct me as if I'm wrong, is that we're at a bit of an impass and a decision needs to be made. So, I don't think kicking this down the road is useful or effective for anyone, um, including us. like if it comes back and we're going to have to sort of engage in this exercise all over again. Um which I don't think is really productive. Um that being said, if either the applicant or city feels differently, I encourage them to to jump in. Um I guess on the application generally, with all due respect to sort of my fellow committee members, I don't think it's close. I don't think it's, you know, I don't think it's a sort of razor thin decision. like looking at the site plan like it's it's really deficient like there's not a lot there. There's a lot of missing detail. Um some key concerns with respect to sort of you know what the exact dimensions of the dwellings are and um garbage like a lot of that's missing and if it was a sort of slam dunk application that would be fine. We could fill in the blanks but just because we're sort of you know with so many concerns I feel like the missing detail the missing detail is really problematic here. Um, and I do appreciate the comments about the neighbors, and I do really like receiving those. Um, but with with all due respect to them, like they don't have planning background, they don't have engineering background, and it's it's going to be the city that's going to have to sort of bear the brunt of what flows from the decision that we make today. So, um, I just think we need to be careful in giving them, um, sort of too much power here to sort of sway our decision. Um, and I think I think it's been potentially misleading sort of the amount that we've been sort of pulling out different decisions from different applications. I think it's really easy to do that and I think we just have to be careful not to say because, you know, we did it in that application that I can't remember what the context was, therefore we should do it here today. So, just something to keep in mind. Um and then just sort of generally from you know a different perspective it seems really problematic to me that we're sort of the site plan and the issues are being the sort of workaround is that we're going to sort of cut a deal with the MTO. Um in my mind um from a legal perspective that seems incredibly problematic. Thank you memoria. I just um wanted to echo the concerns, but also um what I wanted to talk about is the deferment. If the deferral actually helps both parties come to an agreement with the parking and with the MTO, I know Marco, you said um that um you would like to see written approval. If the deferral actually gets us to that point, um I would still be in favor of it. I am not quite on the other side of approving this. I know it is a refusal and member Bob mentioned that he the motion is to defer it, but I'm not quite on the side of approving this or even going against staff because of what you mentioned, member Amanda. There are way too many um gaps that we have to fill in and even if we are intuitive, they can have a lot of potential outcomes and we just don't have all the pieces to finish that puzzle right now. Bob, uh, thank you very much. You, uh, put your finger right on the problem. There isn't the information or enough information for us to make a logical, uh, decision. So, hence my uh, deferral. Um, there's missing details. The staff has said that, we have seen that. Um, those details, if they are addressed, could this actually be approved? uh the MTO. So maybe a question to the applicant. In your discussions with the MTO, was there any indication that they at some point may provide something right or wrong in writing because that would that would clear up one of the major concerns that this committee has. Yeah. So it's a bit of a chicken before the egg. Uh you get a land use permit from the MTO, a building permit. You can't get a building permit to the zones in effect. Uh the MTO requires a 14 meter setback. The building's at 15.33. Uh the city jumped across the property and they they estimated around 13 meters without getting a survey. That was based on their um I believe it was on point tool. Uh but the actual survey that we had done uh from our property to the actual building is is over 15 meters. Um so yeah, at the building permit process prior to issuance of the building permit, the MTO does require the land use permit from them is when you get it. Um you'll note that that's in the comments as well that they don't have that information yet. So yeah, we do fully intend to plan to get that in the event that it is within that 14 meter setback and the building just gets slightly decreased in the corner. It's a pinch point. Um, in terms of deferral, yeah, we're fully open to the deferral. Uh, note that the transportation staff is asking for an engineer now to do a parking study. Uh, I provided numerous parking studies in the past, just did one down the road in Jansen Avenue, which was fully supported with similar data. However, now they're asking for an engineer to do it. Um, we can look into that. We did have some quotes there around $9,000. So, it is a lengthy expensive process and it will take more than the two months that you're uh advising as a deferral. Uh just to give you a heads up if that's the route you want to go. Mayor Bob, um thank you. Again, we seem to keep coming back to we don't have the necessary data uh to make a proper decision. So, u the applicant has said it can't be done in two months. So, um I would like to amend my motion uh instead of two months, four months. So, I'm going to move that this be defer change my motion from two-month deferral to a four-month deferral. Um so, that I think, Mr. Chair, that that motion is now uh that this be deferred for four months to allow both sides to Okay. Well, that's that's good language. four months or sooner. That way, you know, when you get stuff going, you can figure it out and maybe it comes back in three months or maybe comes back in two months. I I'm going to say to um the applicant, the MTO has been mentioned a bunch, my advice, not part of official committee of adjustment stuff, see if you can get something in writing from the MTO because that would clean up one of the uh major concerns that we have here. Um so there we go. Uh sorry, we also would like to see the work from an engineer. Um, as of now, we have not approved a single point in their parking justification study. And I don't believe that we do not recall approving any applicate any parking justification studies from this applicant in the past. So, because almost every point was deficient in some way or another, which we did address in our comments, uh, we would like it done by a third party. Um, in terms of the quote of $9,000 as a consultant about two years ago, that seems on the high end, especially for development of this size. But that being said is I don't have any quotes in hand, so I'm not too sure what the going rate is nowadays. Cool. Thank you for that contact context. Um, if I have some help from the clerk here. So, we have a friendly uh amendment. Do we have to just get a secondary and we'll be okay with that amendment or do we have to like um Mr. Chair, it was my original amendment and I'm just revising. It's not really um it's not an amendment. It's just uh I'm revising the wording of my uh motion. Yes, we would need the seconder who was uh member to confirm whether or not she's still seconding with the amendment on the floor. Okay. And that would suffice then, right? Okay. So, member Bob uh you amended your motion to be four months or sooner. Member Maria. Yes, I agree with that. Okay. So, we have a second on that. So, yeah. As far as um debate, jeez, I think if we uh accept this, we'll have someone probably really upset. If we refuse it, we'll have another party really upset. I think a deferral, even though I can kind of agree with you, member Amanda, I'm not sure really helps us a whole lot, but at least uh punts and figures it out. And to use a a bad parking punt on the surface, this seems like a reasonable application. You know, a parking spot in the front uh very minor setbacks, but uh I'm not a planner, city staff. I feel this does unravel a lot of other problems. So hopefully we can get some um more questions answered and there are gaps in this site plan and things that I didn't love to see. So hopefully we can figure that out because yeah on the surface it doesn't seem like that um unreasonable and seems like a good project and I like seeing that people are in approval of it. So for that reason I'm willing to support this deferral of four months or sooner. Marco. Uh thank you chair. Um yeah, I think just to echo if if this application comes back and there aren't uh additional details and some somewhat significant changes um then we'll we'll address it then. Um I think for the time being we'll uh I'm I'm happy to give a little bit more time um and we'll see if uh the additional time is enough to resolve uh this application. Awesome. Thank you. Uh any other uh comments chair? I just have some comments uh at my just a reason for the deferral for the minutes so that there's some direction for the applicant and and so that this can come back in four months. Um so I would say number one update the parking justification study. Um number two, we would like some floor plans showing those bicycle spaces within the units. Um also uh we would like written conf. We did receive comments from NTO. um they noted that the um there wasn't enough information for them to comment on the setback reduction. So we did receive formal comments there just wasn't enough information. So if the applicant can go back to MTO and provide that additional information uh we can get some supportive comments from MTO for the next meeting. So I would say those uh three things are important for staff to consider the application in four months or sooner. Excellent. Thank you. Mayor Bob, just a comment uh making lots of comments in this one. Um comment to the applicant. I think you have just uh received u the information that the city needs. So, uh the three things I think uh if you can focus on those over the next four months, um maybe we'll be sitting around this uh horseshoe uh with a different viewpoint. I really would like again I'm going to underscore this really would like to see the this project go ahead maybe not as exactly here but if you can provide the information that staff wants this could I'm not I'm not going to say that because I can't prejudge what this committee will say I would be in support of that. So that's my comments and I think Mr. Chair we we have the motion on the floor and if no other comments I'm ready to call for the vote. Uh so all those in favor of the deferral of four months or sooner one two three four all those opposed we have one in an opposition so four to one so uh deferred for four months or uh or sooner. Thanks good luck. Uh that concludes then our agenda items. Just now need uh a motion to uh to adjurnn. Member Marco. I will make the motion to adjurnn. Yes. A motion to adjurnn. Member Marco. Seconder. Um member Amanda. All those in favor? Uh 1 2 3 4 5. Uh motion adjourn. Thank you so much.

Full Transcript