Submission No.: A 2026-006
Applicant: George Stathopoulos
Property Location: 235 Hoffman Street
Legal Description: Part Lot 26, Plan 384
Appearances:
In Support:
J. Massecar
Contra:
None
Written Submissions:
None
The Committee was advised the applicant requested permission to expand a 'Legal Non-Conforming Use', a Single Detached Dwelling, to a Single Detached Dwelling with 2 ADUs (Attached) (Triplex); and, to permit a driveway width of 14.83m (88.3% of the lot width) rather than the maximum permitted 6.7m (40% of the lot width), to facilitate the conversion of a Single Detached Dwelling to a Triplex Dwelling.
The Committee considered Development Services Department report DSD-2026-008, dated December 30, 2026, recommending approval subject to conditions as outlined in the report.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated January 9, 2026, advising they have no concerns with the subject application.
The Committee considered the report of the Grand River Conservation Authority Resource Planning Technician dated December 31, 2025, advising they have no concerns with the subject application.
T. Malone Wright noted Staff are recommending refusal of the proposed driveway width of 14.83m (88.3% of the lot width) as the proposed four parking spaces exceeds the minimum required two spaces. It was further noted that Transportation Planning Staff reviewed the application and advised, the two additional parking spaces do not function appropriately on this lot as it does not support any vehicle movement.
J. Massecar, MW Drafting & Design Inc., was in attendance in support of the staff recommendation for approval of the expansion of the 'Legal Non-Conforming Use', however noted opposition to the recommendation for refusal of the proposed driveway width. J. Massecar stated the proposed driveway width is consistent with the character of properties on the street such as 492 Hoffman Street where there is a 10.16m curb cut and 206 Hoffman Street where there is a 9.21m curb cut. J. Massecar noted the proposed curb cut for the subject property is narrower than those properties to minimize visual impact. In response to the comments provided by Transportation Staff, J. Massecar requested the Committee consider imposing a condition requiring parking to be reconfigured with a wider curb cut. Lastly, J. Massecar stated the proposed 2 ADUs aligns with the City's housing pledge as it is a gentle form of intensification, it is in the public interest and has no adverse or unacceptable impacts.
In response to questions from the Committee regarding the purpose of constructing two additional parking spaces, J. Massecar explained the property owner anticipates future tenants will require parking at the property.
It was requested that the Committee vote on the Staff recommendations separately.
B. McColl brought forward a motion to approve the Staff recommendation to permit the expansion of a 'Legal Non-Conforming Use', a Single Detached Dwelling, to a Single Detached Dwelling with 2 ADUs (Attached) (Triplex). The motion was seconded by M. Gambetti, was then voted on and was Carried.
In response to questions from the Committee regarding removal of the existing garage to facilitate additional parking, J. Massecar noted the property owner prefers to maintain the garage for storage. Further, it was noted, use of the garage for parking will not accommodate four parking spaces neither will it be an ideal parking configuration for a multi-residential use.
In response to further questions from the Committee, J. Massecar noted he is amenable to deferral of the Committee decision to a later meeting date to allow an opportunity for a new parking configuration to be proposed to the satisfaction of the City. T. Malone Wright advised the Committee that Staff have worked with the applicant to identify alternative parking configurations, and the options are limited. Further, appropriate parking configurations will require additional variances which Staff have advised the applicant is not supported in low rise residential areas.
In response to additional questions from the Committee, T. Malone Wright clarified, the definition of parking lot is four or more parking spaces and one of the reasons a hammerhead-turning area is required at this property is to allow cars to exit in a forward motion. By widening the driveway at the street, cars may be exiting in a backward motion which is not permitted in a parking lot. As such, additional variances will be required if 4 parking spaces are permitted at this property.
The Committee noted their lack of support for approving the requested driveway width as the parking configuration is not functional and will require removal of green space and a large tree.
B. McColl brought forward a motion to refuse the requested driveway width of 14.83m (88.3% of the lot width) rather than the maximum permitted 6.7m (40% of the lot width) which was seconded by M. Gambetti. The motion to refuse the variance for the driveway was then voted on and was Carried. It was noted, as a result of the motion to refuse the driveway width of 14.83m being Carried, the requested driveway width has been refused.