1000775777 Ontario Ltd. v. Kitchener (City), 2026 CanLII 9728

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: February 02, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000612

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

Applicant/Appellant: 1000775777 Ontario Ltd.

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: To permit a reduced parking minimum to facilitate the development of a detached dwelling with 3 dwelling units.

Reference Number: A 2025-065

Property Address: 82 Brunswick Avenue, Kitchener

Municipality/UT: Kitchener/Waterloo

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000612

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000612

OLT Case Name: 1000775777 Ontario Ltd. v. Kitchener (City)

Heard: October 10, 2025 by video hearing

Parties

Counsel/Representative*

1000775777 Ontario Ltd (“Appellant”)

Amy Brooke (*)

City of Kitchener (“City”)

Katherine Hughes

DECISION DELIVERED BY L.P. YOU AND FINAL ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The appeal arises under s. 45(12) of the Planning Act, R. S. O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended (“Act”) by the Appellant, with respect to the City’s Committee of Adjustment’s (“COA”) refusal of the application for minor variances (“Application”) to permit a rear yard setback and a reduced parking space to facilitate the development of two semi-detached dwellings on the lands municipally known as 82 Brunswick Avenue (“Subject Lands”).

CONTEXT

2The Subject Lands are located on the eastern side of Brunswick Avenue between Hartwood Avenue and Guelph Street, within the “Fairfield Community. The Subject Lands are currently occupied by a 1.5-storey single-detached dwelling with a frontage of approximately 15 metres (“m”) and a depth of approximately 30 m.

3The Subject Lands are surrounded by low-rise residential dwellings, with an exception being abutted by “Margaret Place” apartment buildings, each of which is 18 storeys tall. There are existing commercial properties located to the further north and northeast of the Subject Lands.

4The City’s Official Plan (“City OP”) designates the Subject Lands “Community Areas” on Map 2 - Urban Structure and “Low Rise Residential” on Map 3 - Land Use.

5The Subject Lands are zoned “RES-4” in the City’s Zoning By-law No. 2019-051 (“City ZBL”).

6The Appellant sought the relief from the City ZBL for below variances to facilitate the development of two semi-detached dwellings containing a total of six units on the Subject Lands (three units within each semi-detached dwelling):

City File No. A2025-064 (Future Severed)

Section 5.6 a), Table 5-5-1, to permit a parking requirement of 1 parking space instead of the minimum required 2 parking spaces; and,
Section 7.3, Table 7-3, to permit a rear yard setback of 5.6m instead of the minimum required 7.5m.

City File No. A2025-065 (Future Retained)

Section 5.6 a), Table 5-5-1, to permit a parking requirement of 1 parking space instead of the minimum required 2 parking spaces; and,
Section 7.3, Table 7-3, to permit a rear yard setback of 7m instead of the minimum required 7.5m.

7The COA refused the Application despite the recommendation of the City’s Planning staff to approve the Application, subject to below conditions and the opinion of COA itself that the Application satisfied the four tests under the Act. Following are the conditions of Approval recommended for both Applications in the City Planning staff report (“Staff Report”):

That the Owner shall submit a Plan, prepared by a qualified consultant, to the satisfaction and approval of the City’s Manager, Site Plans and the Director of Parks and Cemeteries, showing the following:

a) The proposed location of all buildings (including accessory buildings and structures), decks and driveways;

b) The location of any existing buildings or structures to be removed or relocated;

c) The proposed grades and drainage;

d) The location of all trees to be preserved, removed or potentially impacted on or adjacent to the subject lands, including notations of their size, species and condition. If necessary, the plan shall include required mitigation and or compensation measures;

e) The location of all City-owned street-tree(s) demonstrating protection and preservation of the City-owned tree(s);

f) Justification for any tree(s) to be removed;

g) Outline tree protection measures for trees to be preserved; and,

h) Building elevation drawings.

STATUS REQUEST AND CONCERNS OF PARTICIPANTS

8The Tribunal received five requests from below individuals for Participant status and they were granted the requested status to the individuals with consent from the Parties:

Racheal Miller
Peter Eckstein
Leanne Charette
Julie Ditzend
Geoff Wright

9The Participants’ concerns are summarized as follows:

Insufficient parking;
Negative impacts to neighbourhood character;
Noise, traffic, and safety;
Lack of green space/landscape; and,
Lack of space for large waste containers.

EXHIBITS

10Staff report was marked as “Exhibit 1” during the Hearing.

NOTICE OF HEARING

11There is no issue with Notice of this Hearing.

ANALYSIS

12Ms. Brooke was an agent representing the Appellant during the Hearing. In her opening remarks, Ms. Brooke stated that she would reference to the Staff Report to support her request for the approval of the Applications at the Hearing. Ms. Brooke stated that the City staff supported the Applications and recommended the approval of the two Applications, subject to the conditions in paragraph [7], but the COA refused the Applications based on members’ votes.

13The City did not call its expert witness to provide opinion evidence nor testified the evidence in the Staff Report on the matter before the Tribunal.

14The Staff Report indicates that the Applications originally proposed three Additional Dwelling Units (“ARUs”) on each property after the severance of the Subject Lands. Following the COA’s refusal on the original applications, the Appellant revised the plans by proposing two ARUs on each parcel of the lands after severance, which will result in a total of three units within each semi-detached dwelling and six units in total on the Subject Lands. Further, the Staff Report states that the revised plan provides a slightly larger rear yard area.

15In the Staff Report, the City staff assessed the Applications with respect to policies 4.C.1.8 e) and f), 4.C.1.9 and 15.D.3.3 of the City OP. These policies encourage intensification and redevelopment of different housing types within the existing Low Rise Residential areas in the City while appropriate landscaping and amenity areas maintained on the site.

16The staff demonstrated his/her opinion in the Staff Report that, though the Applications did not propose the development “the same as” the existing neighbourhood, the Applications were compatible. Further, the staff found that the Applications could be considered having provided sufficient landscaped and amenity area pursuant to the relevant policies in the City OP. Therefore, the staff concluded that the Applications maintained the general intent of the City OP.

17In addition, according to the Staff Report, the staff recognized that the revised plan provided additional space for amenity in the rear yard and landscaping in the front yard for the severed lot after the severance. The staff confirmed that the landscaped area in the revised plan for the severed lot met the minimum requirements of the City ZBL.

18The staff also noted in the Staff Report that the rear yard setback for the future retained lot ranged from 7.1 m at the shortest point to 8.6 m at the longest point, and the average rear yard setback for this lot was approximately 7.85 m. The staff further stated in his/her report that the average rear yard setback was beyond the minimum requirement of 7.5m in the City ZBL. In his opinion, the proposed reduction to the rear yard setback for this lot met the general intent of the City ZBL to provide sufficient distance to ensure privacy to adjacent properties.

19With respect to the proposed variance to the parking space, the staff stated the intent of the requirements of minimum parking spaces in the City ZBL was to ensure sufficient parking to be provided to new developments. The staff noted that the Subject Lands had close access to public transit and cycling infrastructure. Further, the staff recognized that residents of ARUs had a lower rate of car ownership. Therefore, the staff opined that the parking space variance could be justified and overall, the Applications maintained general intent of the City ZBL.

20While assessing whether the Applications could be considered minor in nature, the staff acknowledged the residents’ concerns about lacking parking space on the Subject Lands. The staff noted that the future residents of the dwellings would be made aware of no parking space available on the site and/or on the street. In the staff’s opinion, this arrangement was acceptable to address the concerns.

21Further, the staff held the opinion that the reduced rear yard setback would not create adverse impacts to the neighbourhood and no additional public green space would be required to accommodate the needs of the proposed development. Therefore, the staff reached a conclusion that the Applications were minor in nature.

22In the staff report, the staff finds that the decreased rear yard setback enables the units in the dwellings to be larger than typical ARUs and further enhances the livability of the units, contributing to the mix of rental units available in the City area. The staff also held the opinion that the parking space variance would help reduce the residents’ use or reliance on auto vehicles and encourage the use of public transportation. In conclusion, the staff considers the Applications desirable and represent good use of the Subject Lands.

23Lastly, the staff summarizes the review of other City departments and commenting agencies and finds that no objections to the Applications from the City departments and the agencies. The staff recommended to approve the Applications subject to the conditions in paragraph [7].

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

24Considering both Parties did not call expert witnesses at the Hearing, the Tribunal relies on the Staff Report by a land use planning professional while making the decision.

25The Tribunal recognizes the effort of the Appellant revising the Applications to minimize the impacts of the Applications to the existing neighbourhood and to ensure the Applications compatible.

26In the Tribunal’s view, the Applications make good use of existing facilities in the neighbourhood, such as public green space and public transit. The Applications would help increase the housing variety and contribute to housing supply in the City, which are encouraged by the City OP.

27The Tribunal does not object to the staff’s opinion that the tenants have lower rate of car ownership and will rely more on existing public transit and/or cycling infrastructure. There are ways that future tenants could be made aware of parking space availabilities. In addition, there should be mechanisms available for the City to address illegal parking should any illegal parking be identified.

28Overall, in the Tribunal’s opinion, some concerns of residents and the City have been evaluated and responded to in the Staff Report and other concerns will be addressed properly through the conditions of approval.

29Finally, the Tribunal accepts the assessment of the Staff Report and finds that the Applications have appropriate use of the lands and meets the four tests as set out in s. 45(1) of the Act:

The minor variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the City OP.
The minor variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the City ZBL.
The minor variances are considered desirable for the use of the lands.
The minor variances are considered minor in nature.

ORDER

30THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed, and the variances to the City’s Zoning By-law No. 2019-051, listed in “Appendix A” are authorized, subject to the conditions listed in “Attachment 1” to this Order.

“L.P. You”

L.P. YOU

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.

Appendix A

List of variances