[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:23] Welcome to this evening's committee of adjustment hearing. In accordance with the amendments to the Municipal Act and the Township Procedural by-law to hold electronic meetings, tonight's committee of adjustment hearing is being held as a hybrid meeting with in-person and virtual attendance.
[0:38] This hearing is being live-streamed and is accessible via the Township's website at kin.ca slash cavaem meetings.
[0:46] I would like to provide some general reminders to all applicants and agents before I open the floor to the chair.
[0:53] Please direct all comments through the chair of the committee.
[0:56] Please ensure your microphone is on mute when not speaking to prevent any background noises.
[1:02] There is a mandated 20-day appeal period on all approved applications as outlined in the Planning Act.
[1:08] This appeal period must lapse with no appeals being received before the decision on an application can be considered final and binding.
[1:15] In order to keep the agenda on track, all speakers are kindly asked not to exceed 10 minutes
[1:20] a speaking time.
[1:22] A deferral fee is applicable if a deferral request is made this evening by either the applicant
[1:27] or the agent.
[1:30] I will now hand it over to our chair, Mark Coraffa, to provide opening remarks and call
[1:34] this meeting to order.
[1:40] This is a hearing of the Township of King Committee of Adjustment, which will be conducting
[1:44] In accordance with section 45 and 53 of the Planning Act, it is a policy of this committee to
[1:50] hear each application and all evidence in support of or against an application, including
[1:55] that of any commenting government agency.
[1:59] As a result of a favorable decision, certain conditions may be imposed as deemed advisable
[2:04] by the committee.
[2:06] Copies of the decision may this evening will be sent to be a email to all owners and their
[2:12] authorized agents or solicitors, other members of the public who wish to be notified of the decision
[2:18] of the committee in respect to an application must submit a request to the Secretary
[2:22] Treasurer. This will also entitle you to be advised of a possible Ontario Land Tribunal
[2:28] hearing. In the case of a minor variance or non-conforming use application, the decision
[2:34] of the committee of adjustment may be appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal within 20 days
[2:38] after the making of the decision.
[2:41] In the case of consent application, the decision of the committee or any condition imposed
[2:46] by the committee may be appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal within 20 of these after
[2:52] the giving of the notice of the decision.
[2:55] Item 1 on the agenda this evening, called to order, good evening, my name is Mark Roth from
[3:00] the chair of this evening's committee.
[3:02] Members of the committee present this evening are to my left, Dino Colletti, and to my right,
[3:07] and Brandt King.
[3:09] Staff participating at this evening,
[3:11] shearing Ari Adriana Botso,
[3:13] the Secretary-Tracker,
[3:14] Dewani Shaw, Assistant Secretary-Tracker,
[3:17] Haley Amadi, Assistant Secretary-Tracker,
[3:20] Gordon Dixon, who's the supervisor of
[3:22] Development Planning, and your
[3:24] crush-shoddery. She's a planner with
[3:26] the town.
[3:28] Item two, declarations of interests.
[3:31] I'll ask any members if they have
[3:32] any interest to disclose this evening.
[3:36] I would ask that if you noted in the minutes, that no interest have been declared for this evening.
[3:44] Item 3 option of minutes. We have before us the minutes of hearing from July 15th,
[3:51] 2026 before us for approval. Do all members agree to the adoption of the minutes,
[3:56] and if so, can I get a motion to adopt the minutes of July 15th?
[4:01] Motion to adopt. Can I get a second? Thank you, sir. All in favour?
[4:06] Motion carried the minutes of July 15 have been adopted.
[4:12] Item 4, request for deferral.
[4:15] Can the Secretary treasurer please confirm if there are any requests for adjournment this evening?
[4:22] We have no request for deferral this evening.
[4:25] Thank you.
[4:29] Item 5, applications to be heard this evening.
[4:32] Can the Secretary treasurer please provide us with an overview of the first application to be heard this evening?
[4:40] Item 5.1 file A2601 for the property of 18 Skyline Trail in Numbleton.
[4:47] Relief from the zoning bylaws being repusted for maximum driveway with provisions to facilitate
[4:52] an as-built driveway extension, planning staff recommended approval of application A2601
[5:00] in accordance with conditions as set out in attachment 1.
[5:04] Notice hasn't circulated to all properties within a 60-meter radius, and two letters of objection
[5:09] have been received from 14 Skyline Trail and 8 James Bowman Court.
[5:15] There are no registered speakers for this item this evening.
[5:19] Thank you, Secretary Treasurer. I'll call on the applicant or agent in attendance to present
[5:24] their application to the committee, please. Chair, prior to doing that, could I make a comment?
[5:28] of course. I visited this property twice over the past week on both occasions. The sign was
[5:35] not visible at all. It was down flat on the ground. I also understand that staff have spoken
[5:42] the email to the applicant about signs. Maybe Adrian, it can tell us what she did and then I'll
[5:49] make another comment. Sure. Secretary Treasurer, do we have any further information around the sign
[5:56] And did we have any contact with the applicant?
[6:01] Through the chair, there's been two pieces of correspondence that have been sent out to both owner and agent in regards to placement, sign placement, and there being no visibility.
[6:13] The first was sent on Wednesday August the 12th, in which case there was a reply, and the sign was repositioned to another location that did not provide visibility.
[6:26] So, response followed with an image indicating an example of how it should be placed on top of the description.
[6:36] That was sent the following down Thursday, August 13th, then we have not received a response since then.
[6:42] Chair, this is a big concern to me.
[6:44] Signs are important. Neighbors have to have an opportunity to either support or not support applications.
[6:53] And for that reason, I'm prepared to ask for deferral on this one to give the applicant opportunity to display the sign appropriately for another meeting.
[7:02] And I would so move.
[7:05] Before we get a second, can the secretary treasurer remind me what are the rules around signage like the display time?
[7:13] I get the visibility, these, and that's kind of what we're talking about here.
[7:19] How many of these, the sign have to be erected prior to the committee meeting?
[7:26] The notice of hearing is issued at the same time.
[7:30] At the same time, that the sign should be up, so would be a minimum of 10 days prior to hearing. We do issue that information via email to all the owners and the agents, along with detailed instructions in terms of where it should be placed, how it should be placed up, that it should be stationed to the ground, that it can't be affixed to a tree, a window, a railing, and so on and so forth.
[7:52] Okay, thank you for that clarification. So Terry, I take your motion. I'll look for a member to second that motion to defer to the next meeting.
[8:05] Happy to second that motion to defer. Okay, bring to a second.
[8:09] And before we vote, where we get?
[8:14] I just want to confirm that because committee is deferring, there will be no additional fees to the applicant correct.
[8:22] Okay,
[9:08] okay, the motion's been carried, so this item has been adjourned to a later meeting in the later date.
[9:14] We'll ask the applicant or agent to work with planning staff to find another date and time, or another date I should say,
[9:23] for the next committee meeting and please ensure the sign is appropriately visible and installed until the next meeting.
[9:36] Can the Secretary of Treasurer provide us an overview of the next application for this evening?
[9:43] Item 5.2 file A2646 for the property of 51, Crest View Road in Novelton.
[9:52] Relief in the zoning bylaws being requested for minimum interior side yard setback and
[9:57] locked coverage to facilitate the construction of a proposed cabana.
[10:01] Planning staff recommended approval of application A2646 in accordance with conditions
[10:06] as set out in attachment one.
[10:09] Notice as I circulated to all properties with an A-16 meter radius and no public correspondence
[10:13] has been received.
[10:15] There are no registered speakers for this item this evening.
[10:19] Thank you Secretary Treasurer, I'll call on the applicant or agent in attendance to walk us
[10:24] through their application to the committee this evening.
[10:26] Thank you.
[10:30] Good evening, everyone.
[10:31] Hopefully you can hear me.
[10:33] Yes, we can.
[10:34] Thank you.
[10:34] Can you introduce yourself for the committee?
[10:37] Of course.
[10:38] My name is Danielle Thomes. I am the author, I say agent on behalf of the clients, the
[10:42] homeowners, Kermalina, and Dominic Laylee at the address 51, Chris, we wrote in Nobleton.
[10:49] Perfect. Thank you. So we have the materials in front of us. Can you walk the committee through
[10:54] us to why the variances are being requested this evening? Absolutely. So this we are proposing
[11:01] Some backyard landscaping, which includes a cabana that we're proposing to be built.
[11:09] The two variances that we are seeking currently are one a setback.
[11:15] The recurrently the setback is three meters for the structure that we're proposing.
[11:21] We would like that to be reflected at 1.75 meters, which aligns with the current house.
[11:28] helps with the balance and overall aesthetic of the property, giving them the maximum usage of their space as well.
[11:35] The second would be the total gross area of the command of footprint.
[11:42] We do understand that the roof and everything covered goes beyond the 120 square meters that is the current bylaw.
[11:51] However, I would like to note that the enclosed space is actually under, so the footing and the framework for the enclosed space of the structure is 91.01 square meters or the by-law states currently it's 120 square meters that is allowable
[12:06] and we're hoping to extend some covered sitting areas with simple roofs that go over that to cover that which does go above and beyond the coverage allowed.
[12:19] Okay, thank you for that. Sorry, I thought I heard you see three meters to 1.75 meters.
[12:25] The material that I have in front of me has that the minimum setback is currently set at 3.6 meters.
[12:33] 3.6 meters.
[12:36] Yeah, that might be of a stable length.
[12:38] Okay.
[12:41] Thank you. I'll open it up to questions before before we move forward.
[12:45] Good morning. Good evening.
[12:47] Through you, Mr. Chair.
[12:50] Can you tell me how wide this lot is?
[12:56] I don't have that in front of me.
[12:59] I've got all my cabana information, but not a lot.
[13:02] But if you give me one second.
[13:04] Yeah, it's not clear on the safe plan we've got.
[13:11] Not that far
[13:34] off it right here.
[13:54] Total width is 25.28 meters.
[13:58] So you'd agree with me that it's a fairly wide lot, and I went and stood in the backyard,
[14:07] and it is a sizable piece of space in that backyard behind the house.
[14:14] Can you tell me why the cabana is eating into the side yard setback by about 50% when you have a lot of room on the other side of the lot on the other side.
[14:27] of the pool, like everything seems to be jammed into this side where it's going to butt up.
[14:34] I know the site plan says neighboring agricultural, but I think the ground is being scraped
[14:39] for commercial and mixed residential now, but everything seems to be jammed into that side
[14:48] yard setback, but to the tune of about a 50% reduction in the side yard setback, when you
[14:55] have all this other space in this lot.
[15:00] Yeah, that's a great question. Happy to address. So, yes, coming down into it, part of the conversation with at least these homeowners is that they've got a growing family. They want as much space along the back property line as they can progress in play area. We do intend to add more trees and stuff along the back. And one note on this as well is that, well, we're going to put a bunch of alumni trees behind the piano on that side yard.
[15:22] setback to add not only a green, sound, noise barrier, and visual barrier as well to the new subdivisions.
[15:32] They're not looking at this Kavanaugh from the backside, but also for the homeowners as well to help with construction, noise reduction and all of those good things that go with that.
[15:45] I would agree with you that in terms of the depth, there's a lot of depth space at the back.
[15:52] But they would have the same visual barrier.
[15:56] If it actually was within the side yard set back or 3.6,
[16:00] as opposed to 175.
[16:10] Sure, it could be on the side yard.
[16:14] However, it doesn't need a fair bit on the property itself.
[16:17] So if you start to bring that into the property and the balance kind of gets a little bit
[16:21] thrown off at least with design intent and functional intent as well without changing too much
[16:27] and what they're proposing and then you should jump the structure itself.
[16:35] Chair, thank you through you to staff.
[16:39] When I first took a look at this application, the thing that stood out right away was the fact
[16:44] that the house actually is set back by 1.75 also, I thought it possibly could have been a
[16:53] previous minor variance, but I did ask staff about that and perhaps staff could explain
[16:58] why the house is legal the way it is and doesn't require a variance.
[17:04] Through the chair, this question relates to the construction of additions to an existing dwelling.
[17:10] So, the by-law requires a minimum interior size, a setback of 3.6 meters.
[17:16] However, the portion of the house with the setback of 1.73 meters was determined to be legal,
[17:23] not conforming based off the processes the township had in place.
[17:27] As got specific portion of the dwelling was existing and established prior to the current zoning
[17:33] by-law and the current zoning requirements.
[17:35] And this was supported through documentation to township zoning side.
[17:39] The new additions, like I said,
[17:41] is additions to the house.
[17:43] The new additions beyond the existing building footprint.
[17:46] That was determined to be legal known for me.
[17:48] I required to comply with the current zoning standards,
[17:51] including the 3.6 meter interior setback.
[17:55] At the time of their process through the township,
[18:00] this was just demonstrated and complied with,
[18:02] and the applicants have since received all necessary
[18:05] approvals and permits from the township for the dwelling.
[18:10] The second question to staff, I could chair, the agricultural land to the south.
[18:17] Do you know much about the subdivision in terms of what size lots they will be and whether
[18:22] that crest view will extend and this house will have another one right up against it?
[18:29] So unfortunately at this time, I do not have the information.
[18:32] is a draft approved, draft approved plan for single detached dwelling lots, as mentioned in
[18:40] staff support.
[18:43] Thank you.
[18:52] Danielle, the question I'm reading in additional comments from
[18:57] development engineering, they're requesting that at least 0.6 meters. So my question stems from
[19:06] the conversation around the trees that you're going to be planting in the in the
[19:10] setback area. That 0.6 meters from the property line must be
[19:16] underserved. So did you see that comment and are you and the applicant in agreement
[19:21] with that? Yes, and yes, we have spoken with, I believe it was our planner,
[19:26] E.C. at the time, who had mentioned that as well, and that can remain underserved
[19:30] who will bring the trees in a little bit, at least that two feet, like six meters, and make sure
[19:36] that that remains undisturbed, and then the trees can grow, as I mentioned before, previously
[19:40] they will be clung their varieties, so they shouldn't require too much canopy space for or to be
[19:47] within that disturbed area by too much at all. Okay, thank you. And just to circle back on Terry's
[19:52] question, we don't know what's going to be developed to the self of the property, like what's
[20:00] for single-by-touch dwelling lots, that is a different application, but it has been dropped
[20:06] approved.
[20:08] Thank you.
[20:12] No further questions.
[20:14] I'll look for somebody to move this application.
[20:17] Chair, I move that application A2646 together with all the recommendation, recommended
[20:25] conditions of approval, as it is, in my opinion, the proposed meets the four tests
[20:31] of the Pioneer Act.
[20:33] Thank you, Terry.
[20:34] Do I have a second?
[20:37] Do you know a second?
[20:58] Okay, Danielle Motion carried your application has been approved.
[21:01] Thank you.
[21:03] Thank you very much.
[21:09] Can the Secretary Treasurer provide us with an overview of the next application for this evening?
[21:21] Item 5.3 file a 2650 for the property of 81 Elizabeth's Drive in Ogleton.
[21:28] Relief in the zoning bylaws being requested for the maximum permitted front yard set back
[21:32] to facilitate the development of the second-story addition of a previously approved single-story garage addition.
[21:41] Planning staff recommended approval of application A2650 in accordance with the conditions as
[21:46] set out in attachment one. Notice has been circulated to all properties with an A16 meter radius
[21:52] and a petition in support has been received. We have one registered speaker for this item this evening,
[21:59] Mr. Peter Grandduley.
[22:08] Thank you, Secretary Treasurer.
[22:11] Hi, Peter, the applicant or agent to speak to this item.
[22:17] Okay, we'll call you up after the applicant or agent has had a chance to speak.
[22:23] Okay, I'll call you up after.
[22:25] Yeah.
[22:26] We'll forget is the applicant or agent.
[22:30] We speak to the application. Thank you.
[22:41] Good evening. Are you want to introduce yourself? I'm Daniel Tzadabri from Nobu Brother Zink. Okay. Daniel, can you take us here? I was trying to go through the previous approval that we had given. Give us a little bit of a context of what's transpired since we got that approval and what you're seeking for this evening.
[23:03] So, we originally got the minor variants for the setback of a single story garage, and since then the family has grown, and my parents are loving grandparents, and they need more space, and the most reasonable way to get that space was over top of the garage.
[23:25] And that is basically what this is to inquire about going up about the garage.
[23:35] Okay, so you mentioned family's growing more space, this is not an in living dwelling unit, it's a garage.
[23:43] Correct, there's no going to be nobody going to be living in this unit.
[23:46] No, you mean above the garage?
[23:47] Correct, no.
[23:50] Or below the garage?
[23:51] No, no, no, absolutely nothing on the garage, no.
[23:54] Okay, so you need more storage space because you have more folks living in the house.
[23:59] So basically the area upstairs, it's with a washroom as well.
[24:05] So my children, basically they're saying my parents are talking about an arts studio,
[24:10] a place a space for them to play indoors.
[24:13] Since the whole indoor interior of the property now is more for my parents
[24:19] in terms of a family room and kitchen.
[24:21] So they just wanted to get a little bit more space for storage as well as the kids to play
[24:27] It's basically the concept
[24:31] Okay any questions from committee for Daniel
[24:39] could you expand on that a bit more so there's going to be no bedrooms above the garage?
[24:43] No, no. Yeah, so a bathroom and a big play area
[24:49] Yeah, basically it's I believe it's 600 square feet is what it came out to so
[24:56] So during the construction we're finding that we're not saving, but it's not as expensive
[25:03] to go up as we had expected.
[25:06] We didn't plan on it before I just had a new child, so now we're discussing dance, music,
[25:14] art that my children and that were in Canada, it's not a fortune.
[25:20] We like the cold weather, but they're in the cold weather to be inside and doing things of the nature of playing sports and so on as I have my son.
[25:29] That's what the idea of that space is to have if they get dirty to have the wash when they're to clean up, so this is the concept of having an area up there.
[25:37] And then, of course, additional storage is included in that.
[25:42] Okay. Question for staff.
[25:46] When I was, or staff, when I was looking at the previous approval, so I have before us the approval this evening.
[25:55] If I look at the planning report, we are proving to permit a front yard set back of 3.6 meters from the zoning that requires a 7.5 meter set back.
[26:09] So in our previous approval, did we approve a smaller set back than 7.5 meters?
[26:19] Through the chair, I do not have the previous approval of front of me, but from my understanding in May of 2024,
[26:27] May of 2024, committee did approve the garage to be the garage to have a 3.6.
[26:35] So the garage addition to have a 3.6 meter from your set back.
[26:39] Okay, so we've already approved the 3.6 meter set back, so will be approved before us is just to
[26:46] recommit to the 3.6.
[26:48] So the approval is for, so the garage is a tag, I'm sorry.
[26:54] So the approval from 2024 is for the front-year set back to the garage, which at that time was
[27:01] supposed to be a single story in garage, as they are now adding a garage addition, a second
[27:07] story edition on top, they still have to maintain that setback.
[27:10] So they are a still in front of committee today to have the 3.6-meter setback to the second
[27:15] floor edition.
[27:16] Okay.
[27:17] Okay.
[27:17] Thanks for the clarity.
[27:18] I appreciate that.
[27:20] Any other questions for the applicant?
[27:22] Just a comment, Chair.
[27:23] Not so much a question to the applicant, but I remember this application from a couple of years
[27:29] ago and I think that I was in support of it because it was a single story.
[27:36] I felt that because it was a single story 3.6 meters, it wasn't appropriate my interference.
[27:43] I'm not sure how I feel now about it being a 7-2-story structure, but I'll determine that after
[27:51] all the discussion.
[27:54] Thank you Mr. Chair.
[27:56] And maybe we can have the applicant address that issue.
[28:00] What's the degree of impact on the second story being added to this as opposed to being single story?
[28:07] As I look at the plan, you're going to drive way and make a turn into the garage.
[28:14] So, like you're coming in off the street, there's going to be a curb cut and whatnot.
[28:19] But what's the impact on anybody around you?
[28:22] I mean that's a consideration for us all the time.
[28:26] is this, is this tree burned? Is there any kind of break? Whatever. Just what's the degree of
[28:33] impact? Well, the fortune part of this situation is that we're lined with trees around the whole
[28:46] property. So I believe the trees are something I could be completely wrong with something to the extent
[28:51] of 40 to 50 feet, all lines right on the back of where this garage will be.
[28:57] So in essence, in terms of my opinion, it's not really affecting anything in terms of
[29:03] sight lines because it's covered with which are evergreen trees.
[29:07] I've literally spoken to almost every neighbor on the street of cross and Elizabeth, they were
[29:16] on support which was really powerful and grateful for to them, but to be honest, I don't
[29:23] see any problems in terms of the visual aspect of where it's laying because of these trees.
[29:28] It actually creates a really nice structure and then our focal point to view and with the
[29:37] lighting that's going to be on the new garage is going to upgrade the appearance of the property.
[29:47] So, is that a board and batten sighting on this?
[29:50] There you go.
[29:51] Yeah, that's what we're looking at at the moment.
[29:58] Okay, thanks for the quiet any other.
[30:00] Any questions for the applicant? So what we'll do, Daniels, we have you say we have a gentleman who'd like to come and speak and then we'll make a decision.
[30:09] Thank you.
[30:10] Thank you.
[30:12] So I'll invite Peter to the mic.
[30:22] Thank you.
[30:23] Good evening. My name is Peter Grondilly, and I do represented a property across the street from 81, 88 Elizabeth.
[30:31] I have no objection to story or story or story or so on.
[30:36] I thought that in Novelton you can go up to 90 meters.
[30:42] So we can make one story in 90 meters.
[30:44] We can live two stories.
[30:46] One story is 90 meters.
[30:48] I don't know.
[30:49] We don't put anything in the middle.
[30:51] It's only one.
[30:53] I don't know.
[30:54] The height doesn't bother me,
[30:55] and it's all about taking a similar price there.
[30:57] He had a lot of comment about this.
[31:00] Two years ago, he approved it because it was a single story house.
[31:05] I don't think this will make any difference at this time.
[31:08] If it's going to two stories, because the fact that the trees are much taller than a two-story
[31:14] that is going to go there.
[31:16] So therefore, I think that should be considered.
[31:20] The main thing that I'm over here also beside that I'm okay with it.
[31:24] The way the notice that we're now, the way are written, written over here, if I'm confused, I don't know, but this is,
[31:36] zoning by law 2616-071, which was approved almost two years ago.
[31:45] And in the height over here, what the by law says about the height, if everybody can build up to nine meters,
[31:53] Unless, written this again now, we're going to change this from Ari one, from Ari one, to Ari two, I guess, two stories.
[32:06] Which by-law, is he breaking right now? Why did he have to make an application or not?
[32:12] So to answer you Peter, there was a point of clarification that I asked, the approval that the applicant received two years ago was for the setback.
[32:20] that wasn't, we're not talking about height.
[32:22] So the front yard setback is seven and a half meters
[32:25] as per the by-law, so because they're building,
[32:29] they were gonna eat into that setback
[32:30] and they got approval for 3.6 meters.
[32:33] Now, because they're adding a second story,
[32:35] they have to come back and ask for the same setback
[32:39] because they're going up.
[32:40] It's not a height conversation that we're having.
[32:43] It's still the setback from the front yard setback
[32:47] that we're talking about.
[32:48] Thank you.
[32:48] I also have a lot of confusing.
[32:51] Thank you very much.
[32:53] Okay, thank you, Peter.
[32:55] So we'll invite the applicant back.
[32:57] If we have any other questions, otherwise I'll look for a member to move this item.
[33:13] Mr. I moved to approve application A2650 together with all the recommended conditions.
[33:22] of approval. Is it in my opinion that the proposal meets the four tests in the plan
[33:25] act? And the second for addition is, it's not going to be notable from the roads, and
[33:35] it's going to blend in a while over time. Thank you, Dino. I'll second.
[33:58] Okay, Daniel,
[33:59] motion, carry your application has been approved. Thank you. Thank you. Can the Secretary
[34:07] the Treasury provide us an overview with the final application for this evening.
[34:17] Item 5.4, file a 2653 for the property of 570 King Street.
[34:23] Relief from the zoning bylaws being requested for front yard, set back porch encroachment and
[34:28] driveway provisions to facilitate the development of an addition to an existing single detached
[34:35] dwelling and to permit two existing driveways.
[34:39] An administrative error was recently identified in the notice of hearing.
[34:44] The planning report has since been corrected and no substantial changes to the application
[34:49] or staff recommendations have occurred.
[34:52] Planning staff recommended approval of application A2653 in accordance with the conditions
[34:58] as settled in attachment 1.
[35:00] Notice has been circulated to all properties within a 60-meter radius and no public correspondence
[35:05] has been received. There are no registered speakers for this item in the evening.
[35:10] Thank you, Secretary Treasurer. I'll invite the applicant or their agent to approach the podium
[35:15] or online to walk us through this application.
[35:26] Good evening. Well, ISIS from Springwater Engineering
[35:29] agent for the eaks. We've read all the comments. We appreciate the feedback. We understand the
[35:41] conditions, and please to say that the Lake Simcoe Conservation Authority
[35:47] permit arrived today.
[35:51] The dryways are existing for agricultural purposes, and the
[35:58] porch we are not extending farther than the existing porch to the front yard. I can
[36:06] answer any questions if you have any.
[36:12] I'll open it up to committee if there's any questions.
[36:15] Maybe you could just tell us, so everybody knows just what the intent is here is.
[36:21] I understand you're taking a small house and making into a much larger place with farm garage.
[36:29] There's a shop being added to the rear of the expanded residents.
[36:38] What's the degree of impact on this new building on surrounding neighbors?
[36:45] The neighbors are far and few.
[36:50] The existing agricultural building on the site is already quite large.
[36:55] I think the addition will be smaller than that existing agricultural building.
[37:01] I don't think there's much of an impact to the neighbors.
[37:04] The addition is to the rear of the existing residents.
[37:09] At this lot's, a very large lot?
[37:12] It is a very large lot.
[37:13] But this is at the front of the lot.
[37:15] It is at the front of the lot.
[37:17] And who owns lots on both sides?
[37:20] I believe that the owner of this property owns the property around.
[37:25] The ex, yeah.
[37:27] I believe he's here. You may be able to tell you better.
[37:37] Any further questions from the committee?
[37:40] For the applicant.
[37:42] No?
[37:43] If we're comfortable with this application, can I get a member to move this item?
[37:48] Through you, Mr. Chair, I moved to approve application A2653.
[37:54] Together with all recommended conditions of approval, my opinion that the proposals
[37:58] meets the four tests on the Planning Act and has minimal impact on anything around it.
[38:04] Thank you.
[38:06] Okay. Second. You know a second.
[38:19] Okay. Motion carried. Your application has been approved. Thank you.
[38:21] Thank you very much. I'm a great evening.
[38:32] I'm six on the agenda. The next meeting for committee. Can the Secretary
[38:35] Treasurer please confirm the date of our next hearing?
[38:41] The next meeting will take place on Wednesdays of
[38:43] Number 16, that's expand.
[38:46] Thank you.
[38:47] Can I have a motion to adjourn the meeting?
[38:53] I'll get a second for that motion.
[38:56] Thank you, sir.
[38:58] All in favor?
[39:00] Motion carry.
[39:01] The meeting is now adjourned.
[39:02] Thank you.