SYJ Holdings Inc v. Kitchener (City), 2026 CanLII 25179

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: March 17, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000686

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Applicant/Appellant: SYJ Holdings Inc

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: To allow a semi-detached dwelling containing 4-units each

Reference Number: A 2025-079 and A 2025-080

Property Address: 706 Frederick Street

Municipality/UT: Kitchener/Waterloo

OLT Case No: OLT-25-000686

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-25-000686

OLT Case Name: SYJ Holdings Inc v. Kitchener (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Applicant/Appellant: SYJ Holdings Inc

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: To allow a semi-detached dwelling containing 4-units each

Reference Number: A 2025-080

Property Address: 706 Frederick Street

Municipality/UT: Kitchener/Waterloo

OLT Case No: OLT-25-000691

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-25-000686

Heard: November 12, 2025 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel/Representative*

SYJ Holdings Inc. (“Applicant”)

Clinton Chan*

City of Kitchener (“City”)

Katherine Hughes

DECISION DELIVERED BY SHARON L. DIONNE AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The matters before the Tribunal are appeals filed by SYJ Holdings Inc. in respect of the refusal by the City of Kitchener Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) to approve two Minor Variance Applications, which apply to lands municipally known as 706 Frederick Street, in the City of Kitchener (“Property”). The Property has a width of 15.2 metres (“m”), depth of 45 m, and lot area of 684 square metres (all approximate).

2The Applicant is proposing to demolish an existing residential building that contains three dwelling units to be replaced with a pair of Semi-Detached Dwellings (“Semi”). Each Semi is proposed to be comprised of a principal dwelling and three attached Additional Dwelling Units (“ADUs”). If approved, there would be four units per Semi, thereby resulting in a total of eight units on the Property (“Proposed Development”).

3To permit the Proposed Development, the Applicant submitted two applications (one for each of the proposed Semis) seeking relief from the Section 4.12.2 g) provision of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law No. 2019-051 (“By-law”), to permit three attached ADUs within a Semi located on lands which are located outside of the Central Neighbourhood Area and more than 800 m to a Light Rail Transit station (“LRT”), by reducing the minimum lot width requirement from 10.5 m to 7.6 m (“MV Applications”).

4The COA denied the MV Applications, consistent with the recommendations as set out in the City Staff Report dated August 12, 2025 (“City Report”).

5The City Report sets out a recommendation for refusal. In summary, it acknowledges that the City of Kitchener Official Plan (2014) (“Official Plan”) supports residential intensification by way of ADUs but that, in City Staff’s opinion, the MV Applications do not maintain the general intent and purpose of the By-law, the proposed built form and proposed parking arrangement (one parking space in a garage and two parking spaces in tandem in a single-vehicle width driveway per Semi) are not desirable and not appropriate, and the Proposed Development is not good planning. City Staff suggest that alternative proposals should be considered which have a lower number of proposed units in a different built form requiring a lower number of parking spaces for a more functional arrangement on the Property. The City Report also notes that the Proposed Development may not comply with other provisions of the By-law.

6The MV Applications were appealed under s. 45(12) of the Planning Act, which results in a Hearing de novo before the Tribunal. This means that the MV Applications for the requested variances are a matter for the Tribunal to decide upon, and the onus falls on the Applicant to provide evidence to satisfy the Tribunal that the variances requested meet all the statutory tests.

7Counsel for the City advised the Tribunal that they would not be calling evidence or taking a position in the Hearing but would be available through the Hearing to assist the Tribunal if necessary.

8The Applicant was self-represented. The Applicant’s position is that the Proposed Development is a rental housing opportunity and that if the Property were located three intersections over and within the Central Neighbourhood Area, no variances would be required and the proposed parking spaces in tandem would be fine.

9Craig Dumart (“Planner”), who holds the designation of a Registered Professional Planner in Ontario and Member of the Canadian Institute of Planners, was qualified by the Tribunal to provide opinion evidence on planning matters.

10In summary, the Planner’s opinion evidence is that a pair of Semis with one ADU each are permitted under the By-law on the Property, that the built form does not change with the additional two ADUs, that parking spaces arranged in tandem are permitted under the By-law, that the requested variances to reduce the lot width requirement would allow for additional units as an infill opportunity which is supported by the Official Plan and By-law, and that, if permitted, the Proposed Development will result in better use of infrastructure. It is the Planner’s opinion that the requested variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, are desirable for the appropriate use of the Property, and are minor.

11The Tribunal marked the following Exhibits as documentary evidence in the Hearing:

Exhibit 1 – Applicant’s Documents – Tabs A – L

Exhibit 2 – Curriculum Vitae of Craig Dumart

Exhibit 3 – Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty of Craig Dumart

It is noted that the City Report is found in Exhibit 1 at Tab A.

12The Tribunal granted Participant Status to Kellie Gies, who resides near the Property and has concerns with the Proposed Development.

13The Applicant has not obtained approval from the City to facilitate the division of the Property for the purposes of accommodating Semis. For the purposes of the Hearing before the Tribunal and its Decision, the Tribunal considers the Property as a single parcel of land, as it was at the time of the COA’s decision. Each application seeks relief for a hypothetical Semi should it be approved for development by the City.

14In this case, after considering the Applicant’s evidence, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant has failed to demonstrate to the Tribunal that the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act has been met with respect to the requested variance(s). The Tribunal finds that the requested variance(s) do not maintain the general intent and purpose of the By-law, are not desirable for the appropriate development and use of the Property, and are not minor. The Tribunal finds that the Proposed Development does not represent good planning. The Tribunal’s findings and reasons are as set out in this Decision.

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS

15For the Tribunal to authorize a variance, the Tribunal must be satisfied that a requested variance meets all parts of the four-part test as set out in s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, namely:

1. Does it maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan?

2. Does it maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law?

3. Is it desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure? and,

4. Is it minor in nature?

16The Tribunal must also be satisfied that the MV Application is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS 2024”), as required under s. 3(5)(a) of the Planning Act.

17When making its decision, the Tribunal must have regard to matters of Provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act and, as well, have regard to the decision of the COA and the information and material considered by it, as required under s. 2.1(1) of the Planning Act. The Tribunal is not bound by the COA decision.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

18The Tribunal has considered the opinion evidence provided by the Applicant’s Planner, as well as reviewed and considered the documentary evidence in the Hearing, including the City Report.

The Plan

19The Planner pointed the Tribunal to a Plan and advised the Tribunal that has been provided to the City for the proposed pair of Semis with one ADU each. It is a proposed lot grading plan prepared by GRIT Engineering Inc. of Issue Date October 30, 2025, found in Exhibit 1, Tab C, which illustrates a proposed building footprint predicated on dividing the Property into two, with a pair of single-wide, side-by-side driveways up the middle of the Property. Each driveway is shown to accommodate two parking spaces in tandem, in front of a single-vehicle garage.

20Along each side of the asphalt driveway there is a concrete walkway approximately 1.10 m in width, and it extends beyond the property limit and onto the City’s boulevard to the edge of the sidewalk. Also shown are 1.10 m wide concrete walkways across the fronts and down the sides of each Semi, with proposed steel grates over four window wells along each side of the building. The proposed side yards are 1.52 m.

21The Plan illustrates that each Semi has four proposed doors, two off the front porch, one off the side yard, and one off the rear side corner of the building.

22There are no floor plans or building elevations as part of the evidence in the Hearing.

23The Planner testified that the built form on the Plan will not change if an additional two units are permitted by way of the Tribunal authorizing the requested variances.

Requested Variances

24The request is for relief from the Section 4.12.2 g) provision of the By-law, which reads as follows:

4.12.2 Two or Three Additional Dwelling Units (Attached)

Two (2) or Three (3) additional dwelling units (attached) may be permitted in association with a single detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling unit or street townhouse dwelling unit in accordance with the regulations specified by the zone category in which additional dwelling units (attached) are permitted, and the dwelling type in which the additional dwelling unit(s) (attached) are located and subject to and as amended by the following:

g) Where a lot is located farther than 800 metres from a Light Rail Transit (LRT) station as shown on Appendix E, and outside the Central Neighbourhood Area as shown on Appendix C – Central Neighbourhood Areas the minimum lot width shall be 10.5 metres or in accordance with Table 7-2, 7-3 or 7-4, as may be applicable for the principal dwelling type in which the additional dwelling unit (attached) is located, whichever is greater.

[emphasis added]

25The By-law allows for a second and third ADU if the criteria set out in Section 4.12.2 of the By-law can be met. One of the criteria imposes a larger lot width requirement for lands that are located outside of the Central Neighbourhood Area or are located more than 800 m to an LRT station. Essentially, the MV Applications seek relief from this criterion so that the larger lot width is not applied to the Property.

Participant Statement

26The Participant Statement sets out the following concerns:

a) the need for additional housing units in the area is questioned;

b) the proposed development and number of units seems excessive for the size of the Property;

c) if the proposed development were to be approved, there is a potential impact of loss of privacy; and,

d) if the proposed development were to be approved, there may be drainage and potential flooding concerns given its proposed placement relative to the lot lines.

27In response to the comments set out in the Participant Statement, the Applicant submits to the Tribunal that there is a mismatch between vacant units and lack of housing affordability. He suggests that unit vacancy rates must increase for rent prices to come down, and that the Proposed Development will provide additional purpose-built rental housing supply. The Tribunal accepts this proposition.

28The Planner testified that the area surrounding the Property has developed with a mix of low-density residential housing types and described the Property as being one of many lots along Frederick Street that are long and narrow in their dimensions. He also testified that the Semi built form in terms of its massing and scale is in keeping with the character of the surrounding area.

29The Planner indicated to the Tribunal that a drainage and grading plan is a requirement as part of the building permit process, that privacy can be addressed by including a board fence, and that there are no variances required for building setbacks or building height for the Proposed Development.

30The Tribunal accepts the Planner’s evidence that privacy will be addressed by way of the fencing of the rear yard and lot grading and drainage are looked at by the City as part of the Building Permit application process, and the Tribunal is satisfied that the concerns can be mitigated and/or addressed by way of the City’s standard practices and planning or building application processes.

31However, there was no specific response to address the issue raised as to whether the number of proposed units (eight in total) is appropriate for the size of the Property.

The Four-Part Test

32The Tribunal’s analysis and findings as to whether the requested variances meet the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act based on the evidence in the Hearing is as discussed below.

Does the requested variance maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan?

33The Property has an Official Plan designation of Low Rise Residential.

34The Planner testified that the Official Plan policies encourage intensification, infill and the efficient use of infrastructure, and that the Property represents an infill opportunity. It is his opinion that the Proposed Development would make better use of infrastructure and result in additional housing units in alignment with the policies of the Official Plan.

35The Planner also directed the Tribunal to policy 15.D.3.3 of the Official Plan and testified that a Semi is a built form that is compatible with the surrounding area, and that this policy is met by the Proposed Development by providing adequate parking and front yard landscape / amenity area. On this basis, it is his opinion that the requested variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.

36The Tribunal finds that the Official Plan contains several policies regarding the intensification of the Low Rise Residential areas. According to the City Report, Policy 4.C.1.8 of the Official Plan provides specific policy direction when considering any application for minor variance related to a proposal for intensification.

37Policy 4.C.1.8 of the Official Plan sets out that the overall impact of the variance is to be reviewed to ensure the following:

• That buildings are appropriate in massing and scale and are compatible with the built form and the community character of the established neighbourhood; and,

• That lands can function appropriately and not create unacceptable adverse impacts for adjacent Properties by providing both an appropriate number of parking spaces and an appropriate landscaped amenity area on the site.

38In regard to the MV Applications, both the Planner and City Staff agree that the scale and massing of a Semi is compatible with the built form of the surrounding area, that the required number of parking spaces (three) can be accommodated, and that landscaped area can be provided in the front yard (albeit by having the parking spaces in a tandem arrangement).

39Further, the Official Plan policies provide additional policy direction regarding compatibility with the Low Rise Residential designation. Policy 15.D.3.3 of the Official Plan is intended to support the successful integration of different housing types, specifically multiple residential developments, through re-development, and to do so an emphasis is to be placed on:

a) compatibility of building form with respect to massing, scale, design;

b) the relationship of housing to adjacent buildings, street and exterior areas;

c) adequate and appropriate parking areas are provided on site;

d) adequate and appropriate amenity areas and landscaped areas are provided on site.

40In the context of the above policy, again, both the Planner and City Staff agree that generally a Semi is compatible with the surrounding area. Where they differ in opinion is, according to the Planner, with respect to whether the parking spaces in a tandem arrangement is adequate and appropriate or not.

41The Tribunal is left with a question as to the adequacy and appropriateness of the proposed parking areas from a functionality perspective. This issue is considered further in the context of other parts of the four-part test.

42The Tribunal accepts the Planner’s opinion evidence that the requested variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan by allowing for residential intensification of the Property, as this opinion aligns with that of City Staff as set out in the City Report.

Does the requested variance maintain the general intent and purpose of the By-law?

43The Property is zoned Low Rise Residential Four Zone (RES-4).

44The Planner pointed the Tribunal to a number of extracts of the By-law.

45It is the Planner’s evidence that the By-law allows for Semis with one ADU where a lot is 7.5 m in width and has two parking spaces, and regardless of where it is located in the City. In the case of the Proposed Development, more parking is required to be provided. More precisely, three parking spaces are required for the additional ADUs.

46The Planner opined that the additional lot width (of 10.5 m) set out in Section 4.12.2 g) of the By-law is not required for the Property because the required number of parking spaces can be accommodated by way of a tandem parking arrangement. He pointed the Tribunal to Section 5.3.3 a) ii) of the By-law, that three parking spaces in tandem are permitted and that there is no regulation or requirement for side-by-side parking.

47The Planner acknowledged that City Staff are not in support of the proposed three parking spaces in a tandem arrangement, and also that the tandem parking arrangement is not ideal. However, according to the Planner, City Transportation Planning Staff had no issues with it. In his opinion, if side-by-side parking was a requirement this would still require cars to be juggled, so despite preferences ultimately tandem parking is permitted.

48It was also his evidence that the Staff Reports found in Exhibit 1, Tabs J, K, and L are examples of City Staff supporting parking on reduced lot widths.

49It is the Planner’s opinion that the requested variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the By-law because there is sufficient room to accommodate three parking spaces, the By-law permits parking in tandem, adequate landscape / amenity area is provided, and in his opinion the Proposed Development meets the other provisions of the By-law.

50The Tribunal finds that the By-law is clear.

51The purpose of the RES-4 zone is to accommodate a range of low-density dwelling types and to allow up to four dwelling units on a range of lot sizes in low-rise areas, as set out in Section 7.1 of the By-law. The By-law permits a range of low-density housing types in the RES-4 zone, including Singles, Semis, and Street Townhouse dwellings. ADUs are also permitted in the RES-4 zone subject to the provisions of Sections 4.12.1 and 4.12.2 of the By-law.

52The Tribunal finds that up to four units are permissible in the RES-4 zone in accordance with the purpose of the By-law. As noted, the Property at present is a single parcel of land. The Applicant has not made application to the City to request the division of the Property for the proposed Semis, by way of, for example, a severance or a part-lot control by-law exemption. In reality, the Applicant is proposing a total of eight units on the Property.

53The Tribunal recognizes that the Planner testified that the City will process an application for building permit for a Semi in advance of the division of the land it is situated on. As it stands, it is not known if a request for re-development of the Property for Semis would be successful, regardless of the number of ADUs proposed.

54While the By-law is clear that the City allows for additional density in the form of ADUs, either attached (as part of the building within which the principal dwelling is) or detached (a separate building), the “permission” is subject to compliance with the other provisions of the By-law, and the amount of density (number) in the form of ADUs varies depending on where it is located within the City.

55In defined areas, such as the Central Neighbourhood Area or on residential lands in locations within an 800 m distance of a LRT station, the City, through its By-law, permits a second and third ADU-attached without the need for additional lot width. The fact is that the Property is not located within those defined areas.

56While the Applicant’s position is that the Property is only three intersections outside of the Central Neighbourhood Area where a Semi with three ADUs and three parking spaces in tandem would be permitted, the Property is still nonetheless outside of this area. The City could have drawn the boundary differently, but it did not.

57By-law provision 4.12.2 g) applies, along with the minimum lot width requirement of 10.5 m for a second and third ADU in each Semi proposed on the Property. According to the City Report, “the primary intent of this larger lot width requirement is to ensure sufficient parking can be provided as transit connectivity and walkability is generally weaker in the non-central areas and beyond the typical walking range to higher order transit”. The Tribunal reasons that a lot outside of the defined areas are intended to be larger in width to accommodate for additional parking for the ADUs.

58There was little evidence provided by the Planner as to “why it is” that lands outside the defined areas are required to be larger. Rather, the evidence focused on trying to convince the Tribunal that the By-law permits tandem parking and therefore the City Staff’s concerns are unfounded.

59The Tribunal accepts the Planner’s opinion evidence that tandem parking is permitted under the By-law. However, doing so does not mean that the Tribunal is satisfied, that just because the By-law allows for parking spaces in tandem, such an arrangement is adequate or appropriate in all cases. The Tribunal finds that it is not adequate to merely provide the required number of parking spaces, but rather that those parking spaces must be both adequate and appropriate in their functionality for the Occupants of the Property.

60The Tribunal agrees with the concerns raised in the City Report that a lot with less than 10.5 m lot width would limit options for parking, whether side-by-side or angled, and that the Proposed Development would rely on a shared parking arrangement. The proposal consists of a single-vehicle width driveway in front of single-vehicle attached garage(s), with two cars parked in tandem in the driveway. The driveways for each of the proposed Semi are adjacent to one another. The parking arrangement would necessitate cooperation amongst Occupants of the separate units to move their vehicles to allow other Occupants to have vehicular ingress or egress at any time day or night, regardless of whether the vehicle is parked in the garage or on the driveway. There was no evidence presented to demonstrate how this would be managed or enforced. Regardless of parking on other lands in the area, the Tribunal finds that the proposed tandem parking arrangement is not workable, can not be considered functional, and is therefore not adequate and appropriate.

61Given the above, the Tribunal finds that the requested variances do not maintain the general intent and purpose of the By-law, both in terms of the number of units exceeding the density of four units in the RES-4 zone, and the evidence is not sufficient to support a reduction in the required additional lot width.

Is it desirable for the appropriate development and use of the Property?

62In this case, to obtain the requested variance the onus is on the Applicant to convince the Tribunal that the Property is of a sufficient size to accommodate the Proposed Development with 7.6 m lot width, as opposed to needing the required 10.5 m lot width. Based on the evidence in the Hearing and the Tribunal’s analysis above, the Tribunal finds that it is not persuaded in this regard. The Tribunal finds that the proposed parking arrangement is not adequate and appropriate, and that additional lot width is required to provide an alternative design. One such alternative design may be a single-vehicle driveway providing access to angled parking spaces.

63The Tribunal is not persuaded that what is being proposed is desirable in terms of its density and built form and agrees with the City Report that alternative designs for built form and parking layout should be considered.

64At the same time, the Tribunal is concerned that the Proposed Development is predicated on a proposal of allowing for issuance of a building permit for a pair of Semis (with ADUs) and a future application to the City for division of the Property into two, where there is no evidence before the Tribunal to provide assurance that the division would be obtained and carried out.

65The Tribunal is not persuaded by the evidence that the Proposed Development constitutes good planning.

66The Tribunal finds that the requested variance is not desirable for the appropriate development and use of the property.

Is it minor?

67The Planner opined that the requested variance is minor in that it allows for parking without impacting the streetscape or overall neighbourhood, will allow for gentle density, and will not impact the overall characteristics of the neighbourhood.

68The Tribunal does not accept this. Based on the evidence, the Tribunal has found that the Proposed Development does not meet the general intent and purpose of the By-law, does not provide adequate and appropriate parking, and does represent good planning.

Matters of Provincial Interest and Consistency with PPS 2024

69Given the Tribunal’s conclusions with respect to the four-part test, it is not necessary to consider matters under s. 2 of the Planning Act and consistency with the PPS 2024.

CONCLUSIONS

70Based on the above analysis, the Tribunal finds that the requested variance(s) to the Section 4.12.2 g) provision of the By-law to reduce the required minimum lot width from 10.5 m to 7.6 m (sought by way of the MV Applications) fails to meet the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act. The Tribunal concludes that the requested variance(s) do not represent good planning.

ORDER

71THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeals are dismissed and the variances to City of Kitchener Zoning By-law No. 2019-051 are not authorized.

“Sharon L. Dionne”

SHARON L. DIONNE

MEMBER

Ontario Land Tribunal

Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248

The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.