The Committee considered Development Services Department report DSD-2022-041 dated January 14, 2022, recommending that Official Plan Amendment Application OPA20/005/W/JVW for 660 Belmont LP Inc., 660 Belmont GP Inc., & City of Kitchener.
The Committee was in receipt of written submissions from B. Trotter, G. Nicholls; J. Ryrie; N. Matthews; S. Savor; P. Heiman; P. Eglin; C. Trotter; C. Forlippa; H. Beaulieu; M. Bowman; N. Carter; F. Marino; D. Bennett; E. McCarron; J. Barlow; M. Cadotte; S. Ross; A. Bielak; P. Vieira; M. Robson and 76 letters of support submitted by Zehr Group from M. Tofflemire; K. McBride; L. Shamoun; S. Dowrick; T. Bax; M. Jutzi; W. Huber; N. Huber & R. Lloyd-Craig; S. Trotta; P. Schreiter; T. Moher; C. Zehr; N. Schnuur; K. Stewart; R. Montag; A. Devaris; B. Prudham; N. Baloo; I. Divaris; H. Budd; M. Williamson; B. Gedja; A. Toews; C. Slinger; H. Yule; T. Witzel; R. Hooper; J. Latta; P. Kalbfleisch; J. Burns; M. Bowman; D. Driedger; M. Wolle; J. Anstett; M. Fedy; S. Yule; B. Assimacopoulos-Markou; M. Ivanovic; S. Keller; D. Car; T. and S. Schmidt; B. and G. Chatha; M. Robson; C. Farwell; M. Hildebrand & M. Sendel; S. and D. Delamere; T. Sittler; H. and M. Khoosal; M. Kula; Y. Couture; M. Grieco; T. Foster Grieco; J. MacIntyre; J. and S. Morley; R. Corrigan & A. Wickens; J. Hall; N. Mueller; S. Khoosal; R. Fowlie; C. Zehr; T. Rakic; C. & T. Corrigan; W. Klassen; J. Rennie; B. Brown; K. Steffenson; D. Edenborough; G. & C. Kehayas; J. Delaat; S. Ryder; S. Ramautor; P. Vanderheyden; M. Engel; J. Edenborough; G. Campbell and D. Nagle.
G. Stevenson was in attendance to present the report and respond to questions from the Committee. G. Stevenson explained the proposed development was revised and reduced in height from what was initially proposed, in response to feedback from the neighborhood. The proposed development being considered by the Committee this date no longer requires an Official Plan Amendment, which is the reason for staff recommending a refusal on that Application.
D. Zehr, A. Bousfield, ABA architects and K. Muir, GSP group were in attendance in support of the staff recommendation. D. Zher presented a video that included a pedestrian view of the proposed development stating several amendments have been made to the proposed building, which were intended to address some of feedback received from the neighborhood through the consultation process. K. Muir addressed the Committee regarding the benefits of the project including but not limited to: diversification of the housing stock in the area, support of the commercial streetscape and promotion of active transportation routes.
P. Fauchon, M. Hennessey, A. Stahlke, M. Hennesey and B. Trotter were in attendance in opposition of the staff recommendation. They raised concerns regarding the proposed development including but not limited to: the increased building height and the 50% height increase policy; shadows over adjacent properties including the Iron Horse Trail and Gildner Green Park; privacy issues; loss of greenspace; lack of affordable housing units; increased traffic and impacts on pedestrian safety; reduced street parking and compatibility with the neighborhood character. M. Hennessey and A. Bielak requested the Committee to consider maintaining the building height in compliance with required parameters regulated by the By-Law.
M. Newbigging and N. Emptage were in attendance in opposition to the staff recommendation, expressing concerns with the adverse effects of the wind due to the building height and concerns with increased traffic. D. Khoeler and L. Oliver were in attendance in opposition to the proposed development at 660 Belmont Avenue West, expressing concerns with precedence and the future effects on Belmont Village and the protection of its unique qualities. N. Emptage, L. Oliver and D. Khoeler expressed further opposition to the sale of the public laneway, stating the lands should not be declared surplus.
H. Beaulieu and M. Ferraro were in attendance in opposition to the subject application. H. Beaulieu addressed the Committee regarding the loss of the neighborhood’s diverse architecture and the lack of sustainability considerations in the subject application. M. Ferraro stated where development is contemplated it should be gentle residential growth that is compatible with the area.
A. Toews addressed the Committee in support of the recommendation outlined in Report DSD-2022-041, indicating the proposal effectively addresses the needs of the aging population that currently reside in in the neighborhood who wish to downsize and continue to reside in the community.
J. Hoffman and E. Ginsler were in attendance in opposition to the subject application. J. Hoffman indicated he is not opposed to development in the neighborhood but requested the Committee direct staff to undertake further studies or implement development restrictions before any application is submitted for the current and future projects and further to not permit the sale of the laneway.
E. Ginsler stated the proposed development appears to be advertised as luxury condominiums and lacks accessibility features for the aging population.
K. McBride and J. McIntyre were in attendance in support of the subject application. K. McBridge stated in his opinion, it will have a positive impact on the surrounding neighborhood to support items including but not limited to: job and talent attraction; economic development of the neighborhood; and, increased housing stock for tech workers and young professionals. J. McIntyre expressed support for the staff recommendation, stating the importance of attracting more residents and businesses to promote growth and change in the neighborhood.
R. Cruikshank addressed the Committee in opposition to the staff recommendation. R. Cruikshank presented a series of diagrams demonstrating the scale of the development in relation to the neighborhood and concerns with its incompatibility with the existing neighborhood. R. Cruikshank spoke of the need to consider examples of other urban villages prior to approving a development of this scale and massing.
On motion by Councillor S. Marsh
It was resolved:
“That pursuant to Section 25.4.11 of Chapter 25 (Council Procedure) of the Municipal Code, the proceedings of the Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee this date shall be allowed to continue beyond 11:00 p.m. to conclude matters as listed on the agenda.”
Carried Unanimously
M. Summers, K. Stewart and S. Savor were in attendance in opposition to the subject application. They raised concerns with the lack of three-bedroom units, housing destined for families and affordable units in the proposed development, as well as the need for more daycare centers and green spaces in the community.
D. Driedger, MennoHomes, was in attendance in support of the staff recommendation. D. Driedger stated the developer through this proposal has proposed to make a cash donation to their company to support the development of further affordable housing units within the City.
The Chair noted as per the rules of procedures that were agreed upon earlier this date, Committee has heard from all of the delegations that were scheduled this date, noting Committee would recess and reconvene this matter to hear the balance of the delegations later in the week.