The Committee further considered Development Services Department report DSD-2025-126.
L. Pietschinski was in attendance in opposition to the application noting the same variances were previously considered by the Committee and were refused. Further, it was noted some parking spaces are being occupied by garbage dumpsters or being utilized by individuals who do not reside in the building. C. Wilson and L. Intini were also in attendance in opposition to the application noting the Zoning By-law requirements are currently not being maintained at the subject property, as such, it is likely the applicant will not comply with the proposed site plans, if the subject minor variance application is approved.
R. Mounsey, Urban Insights Inc, was in attendance in support of the staff recommendation.
B. McColl brought forward a motion for the Committee to defer consideration of the application to the April 15, 2025 Committee of Adjustment meeting to allow an opportunity for additional notice outlining the new information included in the application to be provided to residents of the subject property, and, to allow an opportunity for the applicant to address concerns of the delegations. The motion was seconded by M. Gambetti.
R. Mounsey advised the Committee he is not in support of the Committee deferring consideration of the application as the applicant is owed due process following the submission and City's receipt of a planning application. Further, R. Mounsey stated it is likely residents of the subject property were appropriately notified of the minor variance application, given there were 59 signatures on a petition received in opposition to the application. In response to questions from the Committee, T. Malone-Wright advised City of Kitchener Planning Staff erected a sign on the subject property thereby providing additional notice of the minor variance application.
In response to questions from the Committee, L. Pietschinski and B. Zmija advised they would prefer the Committee render a decision on the application this date.
B. McColl's motion to defer consideration of the application was then voted on, and LOST.
B. McColl left the meeting at this time.
R. Mounsey advised the Committee, a Justification Study was conducted and it was determined the proposed 4 new dwelling units will not add strain to the existing parking supply. It was further noted, the property owner will not be accepting new tenants that require parking as there is insufficient parking on the property. R. Mounsey noted the variances for the reduction in parking spaces increases density at the subject property which aligns with the intent of the Provincial Planning Statement to increase intensification along transit routes. R. Mounsey also noted the property is located 150m from the Protected Major Transit Station Areas (PMTSA) however if the property was located within the PMTSA, there would be no parking required. Lastly, R. Mounsey noted the application seeks to convert underutilized space into housing.
In response to questions from the Committee, R. Mounsey noted the existing 8 visitor parking spaces at the subject property were approved in compliance with the previous Zoning By-Law (85-1). However, once the future Zoning By-Law comes into effect 12 visitor parking spaces will be required.
In response to questions from the Committee, T. Malone-Wright noted the future Zoning By-Law requires 124 parking spaces in total whereas the applicant is requesting a variance to provide 117 parking spaces.
In response to further questions from the Committee, R. Mounsey noted there is insufficient space on the property to provide additional parking however through the site plan approval process, options to maximize parking and address the loss thereof will be considered.
A. Brennan brought forward a motion to approve the application which was seconded by M. Melo, was then voted on, and was Carried.