The Committee of Adjustment Hearing for August 27, 2026. If
you are attending virtually any technical assistance during the meeting,
please email virtual meeting. help at mississaga. ca. And members
of the public will be given five minutes to speak
to the item on the agenda. Those attending virtually will
be introduced by staff and staff will turn your microphone
on. Those attending in person will be called upon by
the chair to approach the podium if they wish to
address the committee. The committee may ask you questions at
the end of your presentation, an agent may be given
a chance to respond to comments made by members of
the public. We ask that everyone maintain respectful conduct at
all times. If anything inappropriate is said, your microphone may
be turned off and you may be removed from the
meeting. Once all presentations are made, we move into the
decision - making process and no further input from agents
or members of the public will be permitted. Requests for
deferrals will be handled at the beginning of today's hearing,
and no evidence will be heard today on those files.
The Committee may or may not assign new hearing dates
for items deferred at today's hearing. Once deferred hearing dates
are finalised, everyone in the original circulation area, as well
as those that have written in, registered speak, or place
their name on the sign - in sheet located beside
the podium, will be notified. If you are an applicant
and you wish to defer your application, please raise your
hand now, whether in person or using the virtual hand
raise feature to let us know. Members, do you have
any declarations of conflict of interest on today's agenda? No
chair. No. Thanks, Alexander. Welcome to the Committee of Adjustment
meeting for Thursday, August 27th. We're going to start off
by seeing if anybody wishes to defer withdrawn applications. Is
there anybody in the audience that wishes to defer with
drawn application on today's agenda. No. Alexander, any. Mr. Chair,
yes, we do a few hands raised. First up, I
have Tony DeFranco. Tony, you've been unmuted. You can go
ahead. Thank you, and good afternoon. I'm the agent representing
the owner on behalf of 21, 21 Rappern. It's file
number A247. And we would ask for a deferral, given
the staff report with that came forward. Yeah, I'm not
even sure. I think staff's suggesting that it needs to
go through rezoning application. Is that correct, Stath. Thank you,
Mr. Chair. Yes. That's correct. We'd be recommending the rezoning
process as opposed to the Committee of Adjustment. Mr. Page.
Well, just if it did, for some reason, come back
to us. I'm very uncomfortable with any of the setbacks
being asked for their existing residential. The low density stuff.
Mrs. Robinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look at this
proposal, and to me, it's a rezoning, not something that
with this number of variances, and it's not just a
number of variances. It's an introducing a different land use,
which is quite different than what's immediately across from it.
The residential low rise residential neighbourhood. Thank you. Mr. De
Franko, I guess this is almost, weren't you here last
week for a similar application. Yes, yes, chair. I was
here last week for 1055 War Street. Look, you know
what, I think whoever's giving you the advice to go
through Committee of Adjustment versus zoning is probably not giving
you the best advice. My suggestion is we will defer
it. But I think you're going to have a hard
uphill climb if you come back to the committee with
the way it is. I think you probably want to
listen to staff and have a conversation with them. You
know, it doesn't hurt us deferring it for now. But
again, if you come back to this committee, I think
you're going to have an uphill climb as far as
that the application goes. So why don't we just defer,
leave it open - ended when you're ready to go.
You can just come back to the committee, or sorry,
contact Mr. Alexander, he'll put you on new agenda if
you come back. If you don't, and you go through
the rezoning, then you just withdraw the application. Thanks very
much. Committee members are satisfied to withdraw. Very, sorry, to
defer. I know, I'm not sure if the audience have
an interest in this application. I think, yeah, so we're
deferring it. Staff's comments are basically they should go through
rezoning application. We're not sure how that's going to occur.
But if you were circulated on it, you'll be recirculated
on again if we do have a hearing here, or
they may go through the rezonin, and then it gets
withdrawn. And the more hearing date. So we'll keep you
posted when we do have a new date. If you've
signed your name up to the sheet there, you'll make
sure that it's just on at the bottom of the
stairs on the counter there. And then you're more than
welcome to come back on the near hearing date, okay?
Committee member satisfied to defer. So application's been deferred. Alexander,
anybody else wished to defer with drawn application? Yes, Mr.
Chair. Next up, we have Paul Demchak registered. Paul, you've
been unmuted. You can go ahead. Good afternoon, members of
the committee. Um, I'm here as the Landy's Planning Consultant
on behalf of the applicant for 660 Kennedy Road. This
is file. A237 - 26. We receive city recommendation to
defer the application. This included some by - law, um,
comments associated with the parking spaces and storage on site,
which the client intends to rectify. There's also transportation services
staff comments, which we intended to update our transportation study
to address those comments. Do you have a date in
mind, or did you just want to leave it open
- ended, then just come back? Yeah, okay, we'll just
leave it open - ended. Is there anybody in the
eyes has an interest in application A. 237. It's 6560
Kennedy Road. Now Committee member satisfied to defer. So, sir,
your application's been deferred when you're ready to go. Just
contact the Committee Office and the Plitch on Neagenda, okay?
Thank you, members. Thank you. Alexander, anybody else. Yes, Mr.
Chair, we have Chizang registered, his hand - up. Gee,
you've been unmuted, you can go ahead. Hi. Um, I
speak for my dad, Keda. My name is Villing for
the file number is A. 251. 26, address 3152 Content
Crash. Applying for the driveway. Yeah, do you want to
defer the app? You wanted to further the application. I'm
not sure I got the common. I'm a little bit
confused. Yeah, so the comment - staff. So the comments
are that they want you to defer and sit with
staff and look at potentially redesigning the driveway. So your
two options is you can defer it now, or you
can wait till your turn, and you can present. It's
up to you on what you want to do. Um,
sorry. So the option one is differ, and then the
second one. So can you repeat one more time? Do
you want to defer or do you want to present.
Kanai's plane to met that first. Right now, you're not
on turn. If you wanted to present to the committee,
we'll call you when it's your turn. If you want
to defer, now's the time to defer it. Sorry, can
I just explain to my dad first? And then I
ask him. No, you can't do that. Do you want
to defer the application or do you want to present
it? I'm not sure if I can be any more
clearer than that. Okay. Um, yeah, yes. So what, you
know what, just why don't you wait until we call
your applications up, talk to your dad, and then you
can come back and tell us what you want to
do, okay? Okay, so when I will get the call
back? No, no, just stay on the line. We'll call
your application, okay? Okay, no problem, yeah, sorry. No problem.
Alexander, anybody else. Three you, Mr. Chair, no, we don't
have any of the further hands raised. All right, so
we'll start at the top. The agenda will call application
B28 at 1840 and 1850 Blur Street. Is there anybody
in the aids has an interest in this application? No?
Okay. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. If you just want
to introduce yourself for the record. Yep, my name is
Stephanie Cost, planner with Bosefields addresses three church streets, suite
200 Toronto M5E, 1M2. Okay, so it looks like you
have favorable planning staff comments. There's nobody in the audience
nor online that wishes to address committee on this application.
So if you just want to give us a brief
presentation on what you're looking at doing. Sure, thank you,
Mr. Chair, and good afternoon to all. As you mentioned,
we do have a positive staff report. And so what
we are essentially seeking to do today is a severance
that will facilitate financing for the construction of new purpose
- built rental housing that has already been approved on
this site. Perhaps we could go to the next slide,
and I could show you where the site is. So
you can see here, the site's located on the south
side of Blur Street, approximately 200 metres west of the
Etobico Creek. You can see that it has existing 14
- story buildings on it, and the approval that we
recently received through an official plan and zoning bylawmen application
is to add two additional rental buildings to the southerly
portion of the site, and those are at 18 stories,
each, and will facilitate the construction of about 450 new
rental dwelling units. For the next slide, please. We have
a site plan application currently underway. That is nearing completion,
so now is the time to be before the committee
requesting the severance of the property. As I said this
severance is required by CMHC to enable the funding for
the rental units, the new rental units on the southernly
portion of the property. If we could go to the
next slide. So here you can see the severance that
we are contemplating. So the existing buildings are in the
orange to the north and the new approved rental buildings
are to the south there. Um, importantly, no variances are
required to facilitate this severance. And in order to ensure
that the sites continue to operate as one seamless vehicular
access, shared amenities, shared servicing as they are today, there
will be blanket reciprocal easements put on the property. The
details of which are being sorted out through an agreement,
and in the development engineering comments, um, uh, 43R plan
will be provided along with the agreement to satisfy that
department. Perfect. Um, have you seen the draft conditions? Are
you satisfied with them? Correct, no problem. You got no
problem with them? Through you, Mr. Chair. Unfortunately, an incorrect
version of the conditions was published online. Apologies for that.
Two conditions were left out. One was for zoning clearance,
and the other was for the region of Peel. So
did you just want to maybe... So their comments from
those departments were included in the comment report. We just
didn't list them in the actual list of conditions, so
those would need to be added to the list of
conditions. So there's two conditions that we need to add,
just with regards to getting clearance from zoning in the
region appeal. And I guess based on the comments that
they made in the package, so are you okay with
that? Three of you. Yeah, they didn't put them on
there yet. They missed them, so we've got to amend
the draft conditions and add two more conditions to it.
So one is to receive clearance from the zoning department.
With regards to their comments that they've made in your
package. And the second one is with regards to the
region of peel comments that were made. You just need
to get clearance from them on that. So through you,
Mr. Chair, fundamentally, I don't think there's a concern, but
I just haven't seen... Could you direct me to where
these are in the staff report? Yeah, so the region
appeal comments are an appendix 4, and then the zoning
comments are an appendix 2. Okay, so this report I
have doesn't have appendix 4. An appendix 2. I have
the zoning. And that's fine, no issue with the zoning
complaints, but I am... So I can just read it
off quickly, what zonings, sorry, what the region appeal is
asking for is arrangement satisfactory to the region of shall
be made with respect to the location of existing and
installation of new services and or possible required municipal or
municipal easements. No problem, that's fine. So you're okay with
those? Yes. Committee members, so I do amend the conditions,
okay? Alexander, comments, please. Yes, Mr. Chair, the city has
no objections to the application, no written submissions are received,
no members of the public kept pre - registered speak.
Thank you again. Is there anybody in the audience has
an interest application A, B28, located 1840, 1850 Blur Street.
No? Oh, yep. Do you want to have seat for
a moment? Thank you. Sir, yeah, if you want to
come forward. Do you want to give us your name
and address for the record, please? My name is Dino
Balakhesko, and I'm a resident at 80 - 40 Blue
Street. And I'm here today to strongly object to this
application for consent to several. Well, and the sender, the
zoning for the 218 - story towers was previously approved.
Severing this lot into two independent parcels right now is
entirely premature and creates massive unresolved planning failures for the
existing community. I urge the committee to deny or defer
this application based on several critical issues. First one, severe
gridlock and traffic safety. Sorry, sir, what you're doing now
is you're relitigating the zoning application. That's not what's before
us. No, no, no, no, no, no. Yes, I'm illegal
that. What we're dealing with is a severance line. You're
talking about gridlock that has nothing to do with what's
here today with regards to the severance. So we're not
going to litigate the approval of the - White me
speaking, what's the problem? Sorry, you know, we've got, a
lot of people in the audience, we need to hear
comments that are relative to our decision today, not on
something else that was already made somewhere else. So if
you want to stick to why the severance is premature,
but if you start talking about gridlock and about all
this other stuff, I'm going to cut you off, and
then I'm going to tell you to sit down. Let
me tell you. Severing this lot now creates a chaotic
scenario where two completely separate independently owned properties are forced
to share congested, overlapping driveway layout. The site plan review
files, SP25. 8W3 has not finalised how these two independent
owners will manage safe. Daily, vaguely grass without spilling traffic
onto Blurs. So just to answer that one, before they,
so if they're here today for the severance, there's conditions
that we had mentioned to them, the five conditions. What
they have to do is they have to go through
those conditions and satisfy comments with regards to traffic flow
easements and all that other stuff. They have to get
those signed off by the departments. If they get them
signed off to the satisfaction of the departments after they've
reviewed them, then they'll get their severance. If they don't,
then they're going to have to meet the requirements that
the department's are asking them for. So whatever severeds we
do today, if it gets approved, there are conditions that
they have to go through and meet. And some of
the comments that you've made will be reviewed at that
point. With the comments? Sorry? Would you let me make
the comments? You had a comment about the traffic, and
you said that there was going to be a problem
with it, and it wasn't being reviewed. So I was
just telling you what's going on. Okay, so I understand
will take care of it. It's not a variance, it's
a severance. So let me clarify two things. The approval
for the zoning and all that stuff with the high
- rise condyles and so forth. That has gone through
that process. No, no, let me finish. They will have
spoke, they would have dealt with the traffic in the
area and so forth. This process here with the severance,
they'll have to deal with the circulation of traffic within
those boundaries. So those will have to be met before
any severed certificate is given. Okay. Under Mrs. Oga zoning
by - law, the existing 14 - story buildings are
legally required to maintain a minimum amount of outdoor amenity
area per unit, for the health and well - being
of the tenants. By slicing this property in health, the
developer is permanently stripping the existing towers of the green
space, open lawn, and mature trees that fulfill that legal
requirement. Sir, to stop you there. There's going to be
reciprocal agreements that both properties can use, that's going to
be treated pretty much as one property. So there is
going to be reciprocal agreements that they're going to be
working out through the planning department that will allow this
to function as one property. The proposed property lines cut
directly to the surface parking space. It's currently relied upon
by the residents at 1840 and 1850 Blue Street. If
you subvert this land today, you create an immediate and
illegal parking deficit for the existing buildings before any replacement
underground parking structures are even dug. The developer has not
secured an official legally binding shared parking agreement that guarantees
where current residents will park during and after construction. That'll
be up to them to figure that out. And the
project is currently frozen in the middle of a highly
technical site plan review under application SP25. A. W3. The
final location of fire access routes, underground plumbing infrastructure and
legal tree preservation hoarding lines have not been finalised or
signed off by city engineers. Severing the cut you off
there, those are conditions that they'll have to meet before
they get the severance. Hopefully, yes. Well, they're the conditions
that she's agreed to so that they'll have to meet
them. Because B. 18. 185 has removed our communities democratic
right to appeal the wrong decision to the OLT. The
burden falls entirely on this committee today to protect the
existing tenants. You are our only line of defence. If
you are proven in complete severance layout today, the residents
have no legal safety net to fix it later. For
these reasons, I ask the committee denied this severance, or
at very least the issue of formal deferral until the
side plan approval process is a hundred percent complete can
prove the existing towers remain fully zoning compliant. Okay, thank
you. Committee members, has any questions? Thank you, sir, for
your comments. Thanks. Ms. Quest, do you want to come
back up to the... Where are you? Just to confirm,
this property is going to act as one property, even
though you've got two, you're going to have a severance
line in there. Tenants from both locations will be able
to use everything that's on either property, parking, and all
that other stuff is going to act as one. Exactly.
This is just solely for CMHC purposes in order to
get the finances. Thank you. Committee members. Questions or comments?
Ready for a motion. Mr. Dale. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I believe this application meets the criteria set out in
section 5124, the Planning Act, and I'll move approval subject
to the provisional conditions as amended. Do I have a
second, Mrs. Robinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll second the
motion. This process is not incomplete, and this consent is
not premature. Any discussion on the motion? All those in
favor. Any opposed? It's cross your application has been approved
by the committee and subject to the draft conditions that
you agree to, okay? Thank you. Next application is B224
at 751 Indian Road. Is there anybody in the it's
has an interest in this application? Good afternoon, sir. If
you want to give us your name and address, and
there is someone in the audience who wants to address
committee, so if you just give us a presentation, please.
Sure. My name, Oris Steenowski. I'm an agent on this
application. Stenosky architects 194 earlier croat, Tron Ontario. Good of
thin Charmand Committee. I'm here to present revised application. Originally
we submitted proposed severance for three lots. And then, uh,
as per comments from planning department, we revised our application.
And now we are proposing only two lots. One lot
to remain and one new severed lot. Uh, as per
planning comments, uh, it's clear we are within the 4plex,
4 desks of the committee. And the variant seems to
be minor, as well as we don't need any variances
for nearly created lots there within the zoning bylaw. And
similar to what's in the neighbourhood. Uh, so we think
it's really minor in nature and would like to ask
for your approval. There is some letters from the neighbours,
and I guess some of the concerns are with regards
to some drainage and so forth. So just to confirm,
you do have to provide, I think one of the
conditions from TNW are development in engineering construction, as they
call themselves now. You do have to provide an overall
grading plan before you can get your severance done, correct?
Like that's part of the conditions that if you agree
to that, that will be part of what you need
to do before you get your certificate? Uh, yes, absolutely.
Uh, there is a number of conditions from various departments.
And this is what we would be looking into. And
we can satisfy all of those conditions. So when I
look at this, uh, these drawings, you've got the, uh,
the new house being built away from the, let's say,
the left side of the, uh, the property line. Is
that because you're trying to create some amenity space there?
Is that because the issues with drainage on that side?
Or how did you, how did you go about citing
this property or the house where it got it sitting
on the lot. Um, sure. Uh, I would be glad
to explain. Um, we had a number of discussions with
traffic department and the key point was for the traffic
to keep the entrance to the lot directly across the
entrance to the lot on the other side of Medigane.
Uh, so on our sideline, we are showing that we
are centring the driveway right in the centre of the
driveway opposite to this proposed a lot. And basically this
is the main element that kind of set the severance
line on the lot to have an access, as well
as for region of fuel connections, uh, there is an
existing connection. So for two houses across mitigance lane that
was several two years ago and as well, we are
lining up with those connections to make a possible connection
in the best easiest way. Thank you. Mrs. Robinson. Thank
you Mr. Chairman. I didn't hear you mention anything about
the drainage. And we have letters in our file. In
our package here from neighbours that talk about the drainage
that comes and the evidence even from other official documents
from years ago about drainage that comes from those lots
through this and kind of right through, if we could
go, I don't know how to do the page number.
I think it's page 58. If whoever's, who was on
the. Yeah, Evan, if you could go to, it's appendix
4A, that's it. That's it. That's the one I'm looking
at. So that drainage is going to come down and
through this lot. And there is no storm sewer. So
I see the catch base in there, but that is,
and they showed us pictures of a lot of standing
water. So, and I know that it sounds like it
didn't get flagged by engineering, but I have a serious
concern about how you're going to deal with this. And
so maybe you've studied it. Can you tell us how
you're going to deal with that stormwater that's going to
come down to this lot. Well, uh, we were planning
to address it by our grading plan working with engineering
department. And if there is an existing condition, as we
see on the screen right now, I think it's a
perfect opportunity to fix it and get the drainage corrected
to the way it should be to prevent from flooding
any adjacent properties. Uh, this is the condition of grading
approval not to have any impact on the neighbours. And
that's exactly what we are planning to do. And as
well as there is an existing condition, which is not
satisfactory. I think it's a perfect opportunity to address it
and regrade the site properly that would satisfy the departments.
The problem is when I look at this, that blue
area that's on the, the big blue area on the
neighbor's property as well. So they have low lying land
there. So this, it's not that easy for you to
just independently on your lot. Deal with it. Janice, this
is the neighbour that provided this. It's not from an
engineer. So at the end of the day, we've got
comments in our file. And I'm going to read them
out so the neighbour realised in everybody else does. The
applicants consultant engineer will be required to prepare an overall
grading service and drainage plans, which contain sufficient details to
ensure grading compatibility with the adjacent lands and submit the
grading and drainage proposal to this department for review and
approval. That's prior to the certificate being issued. And then
there's another lock grading and drainage where we advise the
applicant that issuance of any building permits for the new
dolland will be subject to the owner submitting a certified
lock rating and drainage plan of this department for review
and approval. So it's going to be looked at twice.
So at the end of the day, we've got the
engine, the professionals in our building and they're going to
have to get their own engineers. If they don't meet
it and it does cause these problems, then they're not
going to get their severance application. My suggestion would be
that, um, Alexander, if we can send these documents to
Mr. Jacobice or whomever is down there. So they've got
that so that when they do review it, they've got
some information from some of the neighbours of what has
occurred. And then they can take a look at it.
Uh, any other questions, Mr. Page. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Clarification
may be in favor of one of the residents letters
that we saw. So even based on this sketch here,
the access to the drive is two city right -
of - way, correct? Not Madigan's Lane, private owned or
any of that stuff. It's all owned by the city.
Is that correct? Yes, correct. Thank you very much. Any
other questions. Alexander Comments, please. City has no objections to
the application. Uh, two letters of objection, one letter of
concern we received as a result of this circulation, as
this is a deferred file. And you know, previous emissions
that have not been amended remain enforced and effect. One
member of the public has pre - registered speak. Thank
you. Have you seen the draft conditions you satisfied with
them? Yes, sir. Okay. So you've gone over a seat
for a moment. We'll see if the neighbours want to
speak. If you want to speak, just come up, give
us your name and address and comments. Good afternoon, sir.
Good afternoon. Um, I have submitted a PowerPoint presentation that,
yeah, we go to the next one, please. My wife,
I'm the owner occupant or myself and my wife are
the only occupant of 1366 Madigan's Lane. This is a
view of the back of our property. In this summer.
Next slide, please. This is a condition that we created.
The dark hatch section is Madigan's Lane. The brown section
is city property with the catch base involved. That white,
the green hatched area is the subject property 751. And
the purple hatch property is our property. Next slide, please.
This is a spring view of the flooding that occurs
in these areas. Um, we are, we have an easement
over Madigan's land. We do not own Madigan's lane. And
we cannot at one point because this flooding became so
significant. We attempted to connect to city sanitary service and
water. And we could not do that because we don't
have an easement beneath the land. Next slide, please. More
of the flooding that is evident in the springtime. Next.
Recently five years ago we had to relocate our septic
system weeping tile because of the flooding that was occurring
and increasingly every year. So we, we had to extend
it back to the rear of the property. In order
to dispose of sanitary sewers and household water. Um, next
slide, please. Subsequently two years later, this did not alleviate
all our problems. And we had to create an additional
drainage ditch within our property and a catch base to
pump water from the back of our property. To Madigan's
lane to keep the house inhabitable. And serviced. Next slide,
please. This is the subject property. A number of years
ago, the owner applied to Billet a swimming pool, as
you'll see in the slide. The areas were pointing out
here as a drainage swell that was required in order
to build the swimming pool. The proposed property will be
directly on top of this drain its will. Next slide,
please. This is a letter that was sent to between
works and retired councillor Mullen. 35 years ago. Uh, dealing
with these drainage issues. And outlining the fact that the
drainage in Madden's lane is severe. But our property is
a natural drainage swell that runs from Terran Boulevard to
the catch base and recently installed on Madison Lane to
evacuate water from the adjoining properties. Next slide, please. The
proposed consent application fails to satisfy the criteria set out
in 5124 of the Ontario Planning Act, natural assets, conservation,
natural resources, flood control and environmental protection. Next. The proposed
minor variants application fails to meet the four tests under
sexual. Sorry, sir. Yeah. There is no minor variances. So,
um, because they've drawn the saw we're dealing with is
the severance, which is we can only adjudicate under section
5124. So if you want to continue speaking about the
flooding and so forth, under that section, that's fine. But
this is not, we can't take this into consideration because
we're not, the variance and we can't look at the
four tests under 5124. Okay. Next slide, please. Mrs. Sago
official plan. As designated Clarkson and Lauren Park of low
density generous front and reside yards designated for local communities.
The application represents a departure from the existing Lanti Fabric
in the established neighbourhood creates undersized uniquely shaped loss that
do not exist in the neighbourhood is a significant deviation
from the lighting pattern in the immediate neighbourhood, which is
characterized predominantly by narrower, deeper lots with large rear yards.
Next slide. Mrs. Salga official plan requires infill development in
the neighbourhood to be compatible with the surrounding area. It
is not. Proposal creates a condition where lots with uncharacteristically
shallow love dabs interface with adjacent properties to the west
and to the north. The proposed shallow rear yard depths
will result in a dwelling that will overlook the rear
and side yards of adjacent properties to the west and
decide yard of the property to the north. Next slide,
please. As our position that the consent should be denied
because serious flooding concerns in the property and adjoining properties
does not meet the criteria set up in the Ontario
planning act does not be conformed with the Mississauga official
plan. And there exists at 3. 3 metre reserve at
the proposed entry to the new lot, which is there
specifically to prevent this type of development. We ask that
that reserve be kept. Thank you. Thank you. Um, just
a couple things. Number one is the condition with regards
to the existing 0. 3 metre reserve. It's part of,
uh, staff's comments that that has to be lifted by
staff. So they've got to deal with this planning department
and or sorry, uh, transition works and deal with that
reserve being lifted. So it's up to them staff to
do that. Um, with regards to the official plan and
missaga plan staff, planning staff had reviewed it. They feel
that the lots do not need any zoning. They don't
need any variances. They meet the zorning requirements and official
plan. So they feel comfortable that it meets that. Your
flooding concerns are, uh, you know, I mean, showing the
pitchers that you've shown. The only thing that I can
tell you, I'm not sure how this is going to
go, but if it does get approved, um, or even
if it doesn't, I'm going to suggest to the Secretary
of Treasure that he has the, um, individuals that are
in charge of the, uh, development and construction down in
the south reach out to you, um, we send them
a copy of what you've got so that if they
are going to evaluate this application, um, when the, uh,
owner, the agent, um, presents them with trainage plans and
so forth that they can see what the issues are.
So it's not like, because if you go down now,
it's probably nice and dry. Whereas in the spring or
the fall or whenever it rains, it becomes a different
story. Or when the snow melts or whatever it is.
So, um, if we do move forward with it, I'm
going to suggest that they do, we pass your information
on to them. And then they can reach out to
you. You can have a discussion with them to give
them the lay of the land. No pun intended of
what's occurring down there. Okay. Committee members, do you have
any questions for the neighbour. No. Thank you for your
comments. We appreciate it. Thank you. Sir, if you want
to come back to the podium. So, I mean, you've
got drainage. It seems like you may potentially have drainage
issues. You see, or I don't know if you can
overcome them or not. I mean, but obviously, um, comments
from development and construction, um, and the conditions that you've
agreed to, you're going to have to get those things
signed off. You're going to have to get signed off
the release of the 0. 3 metre reserve. So the
homework that you have to do, uh, I'm going to,
as I said, if we do move forward with this,
I'm going to suggest to the Secretary Treasurer that the
contact, you contact the neighbour, maybe Alexander, give them the
contact information of who's ever in charge with whoever made
the comments on this so that they can, um, get
in contact with them and see the whole lay of
the line. To you, Mr. Chair, I can provide development
engineering construction with these materials. They would already have access
to them anyways through the internal system. And they're contact
information is in their comment. Okay. Um, so my recommendation
to you is when you do your drainage plan, I
think you need to take into consideration the property to
the north or wherever, you know, properties around you and
how it drains and not to impact. Because what we've
seen on the slide here, um, if you're not going
to be able to resolve that, I'm not sure you're
going to be getting your severance, your certificate for approval,
if this goes through. So just so you're aware of
that. Okay. Uh, yes, of course, sir. And yeah, just
for the neighbour, I don't know if you have comments
from, uh, development and construction. In the individual's contact information
should be on there. If you don't have it, call
a Committee of Adjustment Office tomorrow and they'll give it
to you. And then you can reach out to them
and just have a conversation with them to let them
know. And we'll share this stuff with them. But I
think it's a good idea if you reach out to
them. Okay. Um, Community members, any questions or comments. Ready
for a motion that Mr. Page. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Move
approval of the severance application. The run ovariance applications. But,
uh, with due regard to section 5124, I think it's
appropriate to approve subject to the, uh, draft conditions that
have been discussed. I think it's appropriate. Um, you know,
it is in conformance of the official plan, which is
a consideration of 5124. It's a single family residence in
a single family residence neighbourhood. The new official plan accommodates
changes. And it's, you know, the zoning by - law
backs that up. So I think it's appropriate, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Do you have a sector, Mr. Rowan. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman. I'll second the motion. Discussion on the
motion, Mrs. Robinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm not going
to support the motion. And I think that the not,
if the drainage edition wasn't there, I'd be fine with
it. No other issues with it. But I'm, what my
concern is that it can't properly be dealt with. And
then he has an approval in his hand that cannot
be properly addressed. And I can see that there's some
pretty extreme flooding there. And the applicants themselves, they've looked
at everything else and they had no answer as to
what they've looked at for the drainage to prepare for
this hearing. And like no answers at all. And so
I think it's premature. And so I don't support the
motion. Mr. Page. Thank you. I appreciate Mrs. Robinson's comments.
Um, I took that into consideration. There's a catch base
in there. Excuse me very close by that says that
the city probably has, uh, some capability already of dealing
with that water. The rest is quite frankly in Mississauga,
Toronto. It's very common to have these kinds of issues.
Uh, it's an engineering issue. And, uh, it's a condition
from the city. I think if they thought it was
irresolvable, I would take it. And we've seen it before
that they would comment on that. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Yeah.
I'm going to support the motion as well for those
same reasons. I think I'm not an expert on drainage.
I'm not an expert on any of that stuff. I
do have obviously some concerns with the drainage or the
presentation that the neighbour gave. But again, we have professionals
here that are going to review those. There's two cases
where they have to be reviewed before they get their
severance application certificate. And number two is when they apply
for their building permit. As Mr. Page has said that
typically if there's issues that they don't think can be
resolved. They would have put a comment in there that
they couldn't support the application. And that's not what we
see. So, um, I think I am going to support
the motion subject to the draft conditions. All those in
favor. Any opposed. So your application has been approved by
the committee. It's in accordance with the draft conditions. Um,
that you presented today. Okay. Thank you. And as I
said for the neighbours, if you don't have the number
from development construction, just call the committee tomorrow. They'll give
it to you. Then I would reach out to them.
And they're going to have to do thorough review. And
I think having the documentation that you've shown, I think
is going to help them make that review. And at
the end of the day, they may think that it's
not possible to provide drainage. That isn't going to impact
other properties. And then the severance won't be approved. So
or won't, they won't get the certificate. Okay. Um, Community
members, no, I think the next application is number A228
located at 5140 artist Lane. Is there anybody in the
eyes as an interest in this application? Now Alexander, if
you'd like to introduce the agent of the applicant place.
Yes, Mr. Chair for this application. We have Ravi Patel.
Ravi, you've been unmuted. You can go ahead. Robbie, you've
been unmuted. You can go ahead.
Can you hear me now? Yep, we can hear you.
Hey, Mr. Chair, I really Patilla and designated by Jane
Street. We are architect for the project. So Mr. Pat,
you don't have any, uh, there's nobody in the audience
nor as anybody online that wish to address committee on
this application. So if you want to give us a
brief presentation on what you're looking at doing, please. Uh,
sure. So we have this SP application approved houses under
construction. We had a previous manner whereon supplication regarding the
setbacks from the DAC and the stairs to the greenland
zone. It's more of a technicality. It was left over
at the zoning application. Uh, which was dealt through the
last minute variance application, but there were hundreds of number
and somehow was just one unit was missed for that.
So we are just back for that one unit that
was left over. Community members, any questions or comments. Alexander
Comments, please. The city has no objections to the application.
The applicant may wish you defer the application to ensure
all variances have been identified. Staff are recommending an amendment.
It's sort of breaking the variance into two and just
noting that there's also, um, a deck inclusive of stairs
at the same setback. No written submissions were received, no
members of the public have pre - registered speak. Thank
you. Mr. Patel, you satisfied to mend the application reflect
planning staff's comments. Yes. Community members, that's why I do
men. Application has been amended. Questions or comments? No. Ready
for a motion then? Mrs. Robinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'll move approval of this application. It's a technical variance,
really just something that got overlooked. And it meets the
four tests. And as amended. And I think it's going
through the process. So I don't think we need to
make it subject to the plans. Thank you, Dove Seconder.
Mr. Dale. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll second the motion.
Committee members, any discussion on the motion? All those in
favor. Any opposed? Sir, your application has been approved as
amended. In general coins with the plants, did you say
that? Didn't know. Okay. No, no, no. Um, so it's
been approved as amended. Thank you, Mr. Have a good
day. Next application is A235 located 878 Silver Birch Trails.
Is there any in the aids has an interest in
this application? Are you the neighbours? Okay. Alexander, if you
want to introduce the age in the applicant, please. Yes.
Mr. Chair, for this application, we have MUBARA Canazoe Mubarak.
You've been unmuted. You can go ahead. Yes, thank you
very much. Uh, dear Mr. Schirr and the Committee member.
My name is Mubarakano Zoei from M. Kana's architecture. Have
you seen planning staff's comments. Yes. Yes. So they're suggesting
to refusal. So I'm going to give you one or
two options. You can either defer the application and sit
down with planning staff. And look at, um, redesigning this.
I know it's been built, but that's not a reason
for us to even approve the application. You can't ask
for forgiveness. And or you can present today knowing that,
um, staff's asking to refusal. I'm not supportive of. I'm
not sure what the rest of the committee members think.
Um, let me take a quick poll and then give
you some more information. You can decide what you want
to do, Mr. Page? Yeah, I'm not in favor. This
needs to be deferred, please. Mr. Rowan. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I agree. It should be deferred. It's too wide.
Too many cars across. And then the landscaping is the
soft landscaping as this G minimal. Same thing. Too wide.
Mr. Dale. Yeah, it's far too excessive. Mr. Ellis. Yes,
I can support this app. So sir, having known that,
what do you want to do. Uh, yeah, I, um,
let me know upset about, uh, the, uh, the refusal,
but, uh, if the chance that we can, uh, we
can talk about that to CTF Committee to get approval.
You want to have a promo for driveway. Do you
want to defer it or do you want to present
today and get refused. Um. I was deferring. Do you
want to give us a date, please? Yes, Mr. Chair.
Uh, I would suggest we could bring this back on
the 19th of November. That would give the applicant until
October 9th to submit any revisions and pay the deferral
fee. So sir, are you able to come back on
November the 19th. Is any close I did? You can
have the, Mr. Chair. I would suggest we can leave
this on the 19th if the applicant is ready to
go sooner. Um, we can bring them back on a
sooner date. That's not an issue. Um, but I would
suggest leaving on the 19th just as like a sort
of a backs up. And again, to any neighbours who
are here, if you've been notified the first time or
if you've written in, you'll get another notice for the
next hearing date. So what we're going to do is
we'll leave it on the 19th. If you're able to
sit with staff and come up to some conclusion and
come back to the committee earlier, we'll get you on
an earlier agenda. If not, it's the 19th. My suggestion
is to reach out to the planner. Uh, I don't
know if you know who they are. If you don't
call committee office tomorrow, they'll give you the planner's name.
And, um, I would, um, yeah, look at, you know,
you heard the committee. If you come back with the
exact same application, you're going to get turned down. Um,
I would sit with staff and see if the may
still need a variance. But not to the same extent
that you've applied for today. Okay. Committee member satisfied to
defer. So application has been deferred for the neighbours. Um,
if you want to sign the sheet on the, uh,
on that table there, we'll make sure that we renodify
it. It's for the 19th. If it's earlier, you'll get,
if you've signed up, we'll give you a notice. And
you're more than welcome to come back. Um, they're going
to look at redesigning it. So we'll see what happens
when they come back to the committee and what they,
what they're going to do. Okay. So in 19th November
19th. Okay. Okay. Committee members, so that's why I did
defer. But the hearing dates on November 19th, you got
to do your homework over the next two to three
weeks. So don't think you're just coming back on the
19th with outdoing some stuff beforehand. So contact the committee
office, get the planner's number and sit down with them
and meet with them and then go through the, uh,
you know, discussion and see where you end up. Okay.
And through you, Mr. Chair, our office will send an
email to the applicant either today or tomorrow with step
by step instructions on what to do. Okay. Great. Thanks,
Alexander. So application has been deferred to November the 19th.
Uh, anybody that has come in later online 8237 at
6660 Kennedy Road has been deferred. There is no date
that, uh, has been set up for that one. So
then the next application is A241 located at 7 Elmwood
Avenue North. Is there anybody in the eye that says
an interest in this application? Okay. Sir. We're going to
have them present. And then you can come up and
make your comments. Okay. Good afternoon.
Good afternoon. Glenn Brohl from Glenn Schnarn Associates here representing
the owners of 7 Elmwood Avenue north. Um, you do
have favorable planning staff comments, but there are members in
the audience. I think they may be some people online
that wish to address committees. So if you can give
us a fullsome presentation, please. I will. Thank you very
much. Um, I have a presentation up. Um, just an
opening remarks. We're here for a 25 unit purpose built
rental building. Um, the owners of the property of partnered
with a nonprofit housing provider. And the units that I'm
going to talk about today have been designed to serve
aging tenants, an older demographic who are seeking long -
term housing stability on the lance. So there are four
minor variances that I will walk through for you today.
If we can go to the next slide. Next slide,
please. Perfect. Uh, outlined in turquoise blue. Oops, we lost.
Mr. Bro, sorry. Can you just maybe, um, pull your
mic up a little bit, just so that you can
be heard a little bit better. Yeah. Sorry about that.
Is that better? Okay. And turquoise blue on the east
side of Almwood Avenue just north of Lake Shore Road
east, which is just east of here, Ontario. You'll see
the property. It's, uh, about 0. 17 acres, a 50
foot lot. Uh, that abuts a city of Mississaugan Municipal
parking lot. Although it doesn't look like a parking lot
at the moment, um, as it's being used for some
construction. The next slide, please.
I have a paper copy. I'm happy to walk through
if that's, uh, if that's easier. Yeah. You know what
guys, can you just switch it to the overhead, please?
Mr. Bro, if you want to grab the other mic.
Are located with the arrow, it shows that it's in
a main, a mixed use designation within the poor credit
plan. The lands are, again, aligned in turquoise. The main
street neighbourhood. This is, uh, height schedule within the official
plan that notes permission for land uses between two and
four stories in height. The subject property is zoned C4.
- 66, which is a Main Street commercial zoning. The
Main Street Commercial Zoning does allow for, uh, on apartment
building to be located on these lands. And as I
move into the individual minor variances. The first variance that's
before you today is to vary the height permission in
the C4 zoning. C4 zoning today allows for three stories
and 12. 5 metres of height. The proposal is to
stay within the 12. 5 metres of height, but add
an additional story. It's a B4 stories underneath the 12.
5 metre height limit. The second variance is the north
property line. And that's on the left side of the
drawing. It's a landscape buffer of 0. 9 metres. Where
4. 5 metres is required. Now the point nine where
my arrow is illustrating is showing where the, uh, actual
limit of the landscape buffer is. It actually narrows, as
you move in further to the site. We have a
0. 9 located in this area. If we were to
look at the organisation of the site, we have vehicular
access off of Elmoid and the building that fronts Elmwood.
The entrance driveway into access three parking spaces. Means there's
only so much land left to accommodate the landscape buffer.
As you move beyond the parking spaces, there is areas
for bikes to be parked. And then there's a 4.
7 metre setback between the property line and the building.
That's not all landscape buffer. It's actually amenity area and
a combination of planting and hard surface material. The 3rd
minor variants is an adjustment to the, uh, accessible parking
spaces. Committee would be aware the type A and a
type B type of parking to accommodate accessible. Um, access
into spaces. Rather than, uh, well, the proposal is for
a total of one type B parking space, which is
essentially 2. 4 metres wide with a 1. 5 metre
IL access for access into the handicap parking space. This
will allow two additional regular spaces to be accommodated on
the site. Um, it's frankly not a variance that we
ask for often, but the way that this site lays
out, it does provide for an accessible parking space and
gives the opportunity for two additional spaces. If the accommodation
was to meet the one type A parking space, then
it could be accommodated, but there'd be one less, uh,
additional space on the surface. So, uh, we have worked
with staff for the, I'd say slightly unusual ask for
an adjustment to the accessible spaces. Um, but you'll see
that it is being supported by staff. And we'd ask
for your approval on that as well. The final minor
variants is with respect to the Main Street commercial zoning
anticipates commercial on a ground floor with residential units up
above. It then asks that the residential component of the
ground floor be minimized, but doesn't occupy all of the
frontage, given that this is an apartment building and there
is no commercial. It's logical to think that, uh, for
residential. We've worked with zoning to understand the interpretation of
the exact percentage. And the final variance is to ask
for 46 percent of the frontage to be accommodating the
front entrance to the building rather than the 25 percent
that would be set. We do believe that these four
variances are minor in nature. They will facilitate this application
being continued through the site plant approval process. There have
been multiple submissions that have been made. And, uh, with
the approval of these variances, they can move to site
plant approval. The building permit is, uh, underway in process.
Uh, we think the location is appropriate for this type
of use. It's 25 units. And it's appropriate in this
location. So with that, I'd ask for your approval today.
And of course, happy to answer, he questions. Thanks, Mr.
Bolt. Mr. Page. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Mr. Bro, I know
that staff confirms that the 12 and a half metres
meets a zoning bylaw. No variances required. Um, but maybe
a bit of clarification for the benefit of, uh, neighbours.
Uh, what's the required setback from that North property line
to the building. Do you know. Four and a half
metres. Four and a half and you're giving them what?
4. 7. Thank you very much. Mr. Ellis, is your
hand up or was that from before? Yes, it is.
That was just how many parking spaces are there in
total for this facility. I think the three parking spaces
in total. My understanding, uh, Stephen, if I'm not mistaken,
I think they don't require any parking here. They, do
they fall within that catch basin of massive transit hubs?
No, it's not that they fall within the catch basin
of the of the transit hub per se. It said,
well, we're creating affordable housing units. They have relief with
regards to the parking requirements. So, so technically they do
not require any parking spaces if they wanted to do
that. Not because of the transit, but because of the
affordable housing, that is correct. That is correct. Okay. Committee
members, any other questions or comments. Um, Mr. Bro, just
to confirm that the height at 12 and a half,
you're allowed. And I guess, um, because it's on commercial,
they used to, three stories was because they wanted the
first story to be a little bit taller for commercial.
And then two above that. Correct? That's right. Does this
have a, uh, does this building have a basement. When
I was looking at the floor plan, I didn't see
any. So there's some stuff that's on the basement, or
sorry, on the 1st flow that I guess you could
theoretically put on the basement. And go to three stories
and create more, um, housing units on the first floor,
which you're really not going to change the mix of
the housing units that you're looking for. Like the enough
here, uh, on your square footage that you're still able
to get into that, uh, 20 unit amount. Yeah. There
actually is a residential unit on that first floor as
well. And yeah, the 25 units, um, fit on this
property makes sense, putting other facilities, if you will, in
the lower level. Um, certainly parking wouldn't work in the
lower level because the room to have, uh, an underground,
um, ramp to get there. Um, this was the best
layout to have slab on grade, if you will. And
then the four stories above. And, you know, the main
street commercial properties, and it's, it's evident throughout the city
and all the villages, if you will. It's, it's the
idea of having 12. 5 metres, you're right. It's, it's
a higher commercial ground floor level, but it could be
higher office on the next levels. Um, this seems to
be, um, appropriate when you're dealing with residential to have
ceilings that aren't super high to fit that. But a
logical size that fits within the 12 and a half
metres. And I think there's a, is a bit of
a conflict between what the official plan suggests for the
Main Street commercial, which actually does allow you to go
up to four stories. And the C4 zoning that would
suggest its three stories. So we're just trying to sort
of marry the two together. Thank you. Committee members, any
questions? If not, Alexander Comments, please. The city is no
objections to the application as amended. Um, zoning Sephard just
noting that variants 3 should actually be reversed. One type
of B is being provided. Whereas one type A is
required. It was circulated the other way around. Six letters
of concern, five letters of objection were received. Three members
of the public have preregistered to speak. Mr. Bro, you're
wishing to amend the applications planning staff's comments with regards
to the, um, handicap parking? Yes, we are. Committee member
satisfied domain. So application has been amended. If you want
to have a seat for a moment, I know the
neighbours that may wish to address committee. Funding neighbours wish
to address committee. Please just come up. Give us your
name, your address and any concerns that you may have.
Good afternoon, sir. Good afternoon. My name is David Hammond.
I live at 17 Elamod Avenue North. My first concern
is the, uh. It's already zoned. For commercial. C. 466.
The first issue I'm concerned about is that increasing it
from three stories to four stories in the same height.
Obviously you're losing ceiling space. The other thing I'm concerned
about is the depths of the landscape buffer. It's.
Approximately. I'm old school. At three feet. Versus 14
feet. That's quite a difference. I don't think that's a
minor variance. Um, with regard to the parking. I
can see why they might want three parking spots versus
the one. I'm not too objecting on that one. The
streetwall story. They're wanting to, first of all.
It's, the first story is required at 25 percent by
the bylaw. They want to increase it to 46 percent.
That's a pretty narrow hundred percent increase. I'm not in
agreement with that one. An apartment building in the area,
there is none. In the immediate area. This would be
definitely setting a precedent. The lot is 50 feet by
150. That lot is the only one that's 150 feet
on the street. The 25
units, uh, on a single lot. It's a little bit
excessive. There's lots only 50 feet wide.
Please bear with me. I'm just looking at my notes.
With regard to all these things I commented on. I
don't agree that any of them are what you would
call a minor variance. They're excessive. There already is no
parking on Elamout Avenue. So where would, uh, visitors park,
where would delivers take place. Caregivers, support workers, taxis. And
moving trucks, waste collection. All these kinds of things. And
any emergency that would arise as a result of 25
units. On one piece of property. It's more or less,
in my opinion. And I understand that other people have
submitted similar things. 25 units is not appropriate.
There is also a concern that right across the street.
On the west side of Ellenwood. There is a new
proposal. Being put in place. I'm not sure the story
of the number of stories because it's indescription. It's not,
it has not been decided of what they're going to
do. And then I ask the committee to respectfully decline
this. Application as proposed today. I have no objection. To
a senior facility. I think it's a good idea. For
these types of people. As I said before, it's setting
a precedent in the area. That is not existing. And
you ask the question of the other fella. About a
basement. There's no basement. Um. I don't quite understand how
they would be able to support a four story building.
With no basement. Is the ground stable enough? Has that
been taken? Well, those are, those are, those are things
I'll have to get past that the building permit stage.
That's got nothing to do with us. But just to
address some of your points, first of all, the 25
units are not asking for, uh, they're not here for
approval for that. They're allowed to do that as of
right. Um, as far as the setback, like when you,
you're talking about percentage points, percentage numbers, from a committee
perspective, when we, when we adjudicate an application, it's the
intent of the bylaw, um, so when you look at
this, because this is on commercial, we have to look
at what the intent of the bylight four and a
half metre setback was. So if this was more of
an office building, you'd want that four and a half
metre setback because you've got surface parking, et cetera, up
against residential houses, or you want sight lines at corners
and so forth, where we don't have that here. The
other thing too is you're right. Across the street, I
think it's a 12 or 15 story building that's going
on. Um, right here, you've got the LCBO, I think
the house is commercial. And so is the parking lot
that the city owns at some point, um, sometimes you've
got to look at what could happen versus what is
happening. Someone could accumulate those properties and build a massive
building there. You know, this has taken away from that.
Um, it is affordable housing that's needed. It's for seniors.
Um, and so at the end of the day, as
a committee, we need to look at, um, the variances
that are requested adjudicate them versus the four tests and
then make a decision based on that. And, um, so
sometimes at the end of the day, when you look
at something like this, if it does go through, it
almost. In the long run can create a better situation
for the neighbourhood because you're not going to have someone
the ability to build a massive building using this property
as well. Because now you've got like a transition zone
if the other two properties ever get developed. So those
are things that we, you know, we'll have to look
at. But, uh, we'll take those comments into consideration your
comments into consideration. I think Mr. Page has a question
for you, Mr. Page. Thanks, Mr. Chair. I initially want
to just first all what the proposal was. I thought
about this street wall as well. Um, I think the
intent of that was for much larger buildings and not
have the mass and go all the way down. So
just for me, IRV strikes you just for me. It's
a very narrow building. Um, so I think that kind
of helped, but I had a similar thought, I think,
to you as well. But I resolved it with it.
That's just not a very wide building. Thank you, Mr.
Chair. Mediums, any other questions or comments. Thank you, sir.
We appreciate your comments. We'll take those into consideration when
we adjudicate the application. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for
your time. Thank you. Is there anybody else that wishes
to address committee on this application? Yeah. If so, please
come forward. Just give us your name and address and
comments, please. Hi, Mary
Simpson with the town of Port Credit. Good afternoon. And
I live at 61 Wesley Avenue import credit. Um, I
just, I don't want to speak against the residents because
they live with this. And that particular enclave of homes
has been absolutely inundated with oversized, in full development. So
I respect their concerns and frustration. We attended a meeting.
We were invited to attend a meeting that was held
by Andwell. Who is the operator back in June, 2025?
And that included Francia Noni. It included the BIA. And
Michael Spatziani, the architect. And we were, they, they presented
to us, uh, and asked for feedback. And then it
went quiet. And a couple of weeks ago, we were
invited to attend an update meeting. And I think a
lot of the issues that we had raised at the
time were addressed. And for us, a big issue specifically
in that area is the permeability. We've got so much
flooding and poor drainage in our area in South Mississauga
that have something else come in that's on a large
footprint would just. Would just tip the boat. It's, it's
a lot. What they've brought is a buffer zone that
has permeability. Um, the parking, we're not as concerned about
you have a parking lot in front of it. People
on a limited income aren't looking for a place to
park their car. They will have guests. They will have
caregivers. There is a parking lot that's available for it
plus the two parking spaces. Um, there is a buffer.
There's a buffer. Um, they had shown us that the
windows at the back of the, of the building were
smaller for more privacy on, on yards in the back.
That's not privacy. Trees are privacy and they have, they
have introduced trees that they will be maintaining to create
a natural buffer. Um, the height is in line with
what the maximum is. For once we're not seeing something
that's being overbuilt. We're not looking at, um, the planet
organic site directly across the street that's coming in at
12 stories, which is insanity for an established neighbourhood. Um,
so in that regard, we support what they're trying to
do. Um, the need is there. The lack of need
for parking for once is there. And the ability for
the lands around it to be populated with trees, green
space, amenity space and the permeable pavers, um, is, is,
is a win in our books. Now, like I said,
I don't want to detract the neighbor's live beside it.
And we all know what happens when you're sitting beside
or backing onto a high rise building that's being parachuted
in. And we're, poor credit is under siege in that
regard. Um, so people are understandably, um, concerned. It's quality
of life. And I think in this instance, I think
it can be done. And as you say, you've got
a parking lot in front, an LCBO that may or
may not last. And that site is very vulnerable to
having a lot more come in. So we, we do
support this. Um, again, it's the neighbours will speak. Um,
but from what we've seen and the actions taken to
try and mediate the impact, uh, we were impressed and
we were pleased to see that, uh, steps were taken.
Well, thank you, Mr. Simpson. That means a lot because
I know how involved yarn in the community and you
have been for many years and involved in poor credit
and dealing with a lot of these redevelopments and so
forth. So it's, it's, um, it's your comments are, you
know, will be taken and will be taken into consideration
and are meaningful because you have experienced the different many
things that have happened in part credit over the years.
Um, sorry, do you have any questions for the, no,
Steven, did you want to make a comment. Thanks, Mr.
Chair. Maybe just to highlight, I know the comments already
with regards to concerns with regarding grading and drainage and
so far with regards to the project. I just want
to direct the committee's attention to the appendices with the
report where development engineering has specifically stated that their concerns
regarding this project will be handled through the site plant
approval process. So it's not like it's not being heard
or noticed. It's, it is being handled through a separate
process to this. Great. Thanks, Steven. Um, is there anybody
else in the audience that wishes address committee. No, Alexander,
the one online that wishes to address committee. Yes, Mr.
Chair. We have David Bailey online. David, you've been unmuted.
You can go ahead. Right. Oh. Bye bye. Hello, Mr.
Bailey. Mr. Bailey. Yeah. Hold on. I'm holding.
It. That's okay. My apologies. No, no problem. Don't worry.
Hey, listen stuff happens. Um, I'm not sure if you've
heard some of the comments that were made. So just
give us your address. And then just any new comments
that maybe weren't covered by the residents. That'd be greatly
appreciated. Thank you. Uh, good afternoon, share. And Committee members,
my apologies for my entrance. I had a, I had
a call right at the time that, uh, I knew
my name would likely be called, uh, like Ms. Simpson.
I am with top town of Poor Credit. I have
been listening carefully to the, uh, residents comments and to
Ms. Simpsons. I concur with Ms. Simpson's views. Uh, and,
uh, I have also spoken with a number of the
residents. So, uh, at this time, I'm going to thank
you for calling me and also, uh, your indulgence. And,
uh, I will, uh, move past any questions at this
time. Thank you very much. Thanks, Mr. Bailey. Guess well,
if you have any questions, I think he's gone. So
that's anybody else, Alexander. Through you, Mr. Chair, we did
have one other name registered here. Um, but I don't
see them online. I'm not sure if the audience that
wanted to speak on this application, but they don't appear
to be online. I'll ask again. Is there anybody in
the audience that has an interest in application A241 located
at seven Elwood Avenue. No. Mr. Brawl. Any comments. Last
parting words. Um, I think, and I'd appreciate the resident
coming out speaking to the matter and the, the percentage
of variances. And I do think Mr. Page, you outlined
the width of the entrance. And it is an arrow
building in order for us to comply to the 25
percent. We'd actually be taking a window out of the
front. And I think we want to portray a residential
character. So the 46 percent, I think hopefully the resident
we'll see when it's built, it is a logical entrance.
Um, and I get the depth of the buffer looks
like three feet instead of 15 feet, it is a
portion of that. We're trying to plant it, but we're
also trying to provide an amenity area so that it's
used for somebody to sit outside. Um, so while it
looks like the entire buffer is being removed, it's actually
part hard and part soft, uh, soft skate. So I'm
hopeful that, um, this type of, uh, development is we're
hearing it is needed in the community. We hope you
see favor in the application. Uh, I think it's worth
mentioning about drainage. Drainages obviously a concern that's raised all
the time. We have looked at pre - development flows
post development flows. There is a storage facility in the
underground of this site that will accommodate drainage. And that
can actually be used for irrigation on the property. So,
um, as planning and development engineering or reviewing the application,
those are the types of things that are being incorporated
into the plan to protect the community. So with that,
um, I'm happy to answer any other questions, but I
hope, uh, that you see this application in a favorable
way. Thanks, Mr. Rowe. Committee members, any questions for Mr.
Brawl. Uh, if not, ready for a motion, Mr. Rowan.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to move a motion
for approval for the four variances. I can run through
my logistics behind it. Um, the official plan, the property
is designating mixed use in the poor credit area, which
does permit apartment dwelling uses itself. And it does indicate
that they could go up to four stories. And this
is the official plan I'm speaking of. And when I
look at this property, in my opinion, it's like an
island within the commercial corridor. It is the only residential
property right now that's within it. You go right from
highway 10 over to Oakwood Avenue North. It's commercial right
across. So I do feel that it is an island.
And I feel that it shouldn't be incorporated. So in
regarding the zoning permits, the apartment use, the design meets
the maximum permitted height. And there is no change to
the, to the massing of the original building, because my
understanding is the story. He's reducing the Florida ceiling height,
which you'll be building within the same. So the massing
won't change at all. Um, so your logistically, you can
accommodate the four stories within the three stories that was
originally proposed. Um, parking is an issue in this, in
this instance. And I think it's minor the type A
to type B. Um, aesthetically, like directly across the street
on Elmwood is a building that's the kitchen for the
existing wingporium restaurant. You know, also the properly currently has
a rezoning, which was mentioned, I think, maybe the 15
stories, I think was mentioned for mixed use commercial. Um,
that's being proposed right there right now under a resouring
official plan amendment. Um, the proposed footprint from the site
plan is located as far south to me to help
minimize the impacts to the property of the North. The
reduction in the street, well, from my understanding, it's really
a way to for the commercial doing to force commercial.
But I have no problem with the increase in that
percentage. Um, like over, I do, I do sympathize and
I do relate with the residents when what I've heard
and what I've listened to. Like I live in this
area and it's personal to me as well. Um, except
overall, in my opinion, when we just apply the four
tests in the planning act. They satisfy and meet the
pot has. So I would have to move that as
amended and as per the drawings presented today. Thank you.
Do you have a second, Mrs. Robinson? Thank you Mr.
Chairman. I'll second the motion. To me, this proposal meets
all of four tests. It definitely is desirable for the
appropriate development of the land. It's in the lake shore
corridor. I mean, it does front on the side street,
but it's on the Lake Shore Corridor. And that fits
right into the context. The planned context for the Lakeshore
corridor. And the height increase, um, it's not much higher
than what some of the detached dwellings we see come
in. But and otherwise, the variances are all their minor
van with respect to impact. And. Just, Mr. Ron, I
think it's going through a site plan process. So if
we tie it to the plans, it might frustrate the
process. Are you okay with that? I agree. If it's
going through the site plan process, we can that can
be that way. Okay. So it's not tied to any
plans. Um, any further discussion. All those in favor. Any
opposed. Mr. Burley, your application has been approved by the
committee as amended. Thank you very much. Thank you. Have
a good day. And thank you neighbours for coming out.
We appreciate your comments. Uh, next application is A246 at
3094 Orleans Road. Is there anybody in the audience that
has an interest in this application? You know what? No.
Are you the agent. Yeah. Come on up. Just introduce
yourself. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and the members. My name
is Sendib Grover. I'm the owner of 3094, Orleans Road.
I'm here to talk about the two minor variances that
have been built for a long period of time. Number
one is the canopy roof on top of the side
entrance. And number two is the concrete patio that has
been built. One thing to note here, the canopy roof
was built. On or before 2011. That's when we purchased
the house with the canopy roof. It was pointed out
by the inspector when he came to visit the concrete
patio that's been built to accommodate the safe walking as
the surface was uneven. He pointed out that while we're
doing the minor application for this, we should also include
the canopy roof that's been set on the right hand
side of the entrance. The variance is 0. 1 metre.
For the canopy roof and point 3 for the patio.
The setback requirements are 1. 2 and 1 metres respectively.
The canopy has been built for the, um, winter safety
as ice and snow can accumulate. I'm sure it was
built for that purpose. It was built before we procured
the house, but we would like to bring it to
compliance. And that's the reason I'm here. Community members questions,
Mr. Page. Yeah. Mr. Chair. You know, on the surface,
it looks like one thing that under investigation, it looks
to me from the photos that we've seen and, you
know, site visit that the downspout, or sorry, the Yves
trough overhangs at least the fence of the neighbour. Um,
you know, that kind of bothers me. I think maybe
still getting a decent maintenance and stuff. But, you know,
we're approving something. I think, uh, including the, uh, Yves
trough is a bit close. Then when you look at
that, you also have the column that's holding up the
roof that pinches off that space there. I don't know
how you're going to get any emergency services through there.
Maybe you can fit a lawnmower or something, but I
don't know how to get a stretcher through there. And
listen, I'm sorry to do it. I know it's not
a variance in front of us, but I don't see
how that below grade entrance at the closest point to
the property line. Um, I don't see how that did
generate some sort of a notion of a variance. But
I'm, I'm just, it's just too closed off there. Um,
Mr. Chair, I'm not in favor of this. If you
go to the next slide, that'll probably show you a
little bit more visibility. You know what, just let me
ask, let Mrs. Robinson ask a question. Then you can
respond to. Well, actually, you know what? Yeah. Why don't
you respond to that. Maybe it might answer your question.
Yeah. Go ahead. So if you look at the canopy,
are you talking about the canopy on the right hand
side of the Mr. Page, just to clarify your question?
Are you talking about the canopy that's on the right
hand side of the corner there. The closest point of
the canopy to the property line, which I assume has
something correlative to the fence. So it's where it's at
the closest, which is the variance, I believe that you're
asking for. Correct. So it looks like it's to the,
uh. Fascia of the, uh, of the canopy measured from
the fascia. Um, but then you've got the Yves Shroff,
which is frequently four inches. Um, on top of that,
which looks like it's directly over by the photograph, uh,
and just by looking at it, uh, photograph right above
the fence and the property line. It's 0. 1 metre
from the fence property line. To the face of the
canopy. Correct. Yeah. But not the trough. Okay. So the
trough looks to me like it's overhanging a bit. Plus
the downspout is projected onto the neighbor's property in a
very narrow space. But then on top of that, the
column that's holding up the canopy is pinching off that
space between the column and the fence. And it just
based on the numbers that you're using, you know, that
doesn't look sufficient to get emergency services back there. That's
what concerns me. As I noted, this was built prior
to us. I understand. And we would want to bring
it to compliance. So. Well, I know you have, you
have, uh, staff support. But I just think it's, it's
dimensionally problematic. And. You know, I mean, I'm willing, if
I were to, if this was, if I was supportive
of this for the canopy, I wouldn't belabor the billogated
insurance, but it's all very, very close there. And I
don't think you have access to the rear yard on
the other side, do you? No. Yes. So you can't,
you know, it's a wood structure. I don't know. It
might be fairly easy to modify a little bit. The
downspout, just, you know, if you could redirect that or
something like that. But I almost wish he would defer
that. If you really believed in what I was saying
and the rest of the committee did, uh, deferral might
be in order in just a bit of a modification
there. But that's just me. I appreciate you very calmly
trying to answer my question. Thank you very much. I
appreciate that. Likewise. Mrs. Robinson. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I
agree with the concerns that Mr. Page has. And, um,
but I don't support this. Canopy. That's too close to
the lot line. Um, I know that, now this is
one of those situations where we have engineering saying they
don't have a drainage concern, but then we've got a
neighbour telling us the water just runs right off. And
I know when you have, uh, a really strong rain
event, an evestrog is never enough. They over top thieves
troughs when you have these big storm events. And that's
what we're hearing. Part of the issue here is we
don't have a proper site plan really showing where all
of these setbacks are. Like this is really not telling
us very much. Um, but I don't support the canopy.
So it's the point one. I don't support that. And
I realise you bought the property. That's the way it
was. But sometimes that's what happens. I mean, we have
people coming in here and they built it. It doesn't
really matter. We have it in front of us today.
And I think it probably is in front of us
because your neighbour probably called and said gee, that looks
close. And he's getting impacted. And we do have a
letter from him. But I'm not in support of what's
proposed today. Let's requested. Evan, can you do me a
favor? Can you go to the next photograph. Yeah, maybe
one more. No, keep going down. Sorry. Maybe it's the
next one. Keep going. Yeah. So when I look at
that, if you can just zoom in on that post
at the corner there. See, so when I look at
this, sir, I think, like, I think you're going to
need a variance for a setback to your canopy. And
I don't have particular concern with a canopy, not as
it stands today, I do, but potentially, um, as Mr.
Page has said, when you put that. Yeah, so leave
it there. Don't worry about it, Evan. Just leave it
like that. See, with that post of that canopy there,
you reduce the mobility of getting into the backyard. And
you probably can't even put a stretcher back there, especially
when you don't have, you don't, you can't get in
from the other side. So to me, I mean, if
that post was removed and put where the railing is,
I think it does a couple things. One, it gets
you the ability to get into the backyard with, you
know, fire and stretcher and so forth. And I don't
know if you're able to, maybe it might cut the
canopy back a little bit. And then you can rearrange
the downspout away from the neighbour because, as Mrs. Robinson
said, we do have a letter on fall with regards
to some of that drainage and so forth. So I
think you're going to need a variance, but I think
you might be able to do some work here that
you can come back with something that kind of addresses
some of our concerns and still get what you want.
So, um, I mean, as Mr. Page has said my
recommendation, we be to defer it and try to, and
staff, who's at Shyvani's. So Sivani understands where we're coming
from. And maybe she can work with you on something
that, like the dude. It's not like a complete no,
but I think we need to, you know, there's some
misogyne you can do to it that I think you
can then come back and get some approval, uh, that,
you know, that you need. So. Do you want to
do that? Yes. All right. So why don't we defer
it. Alexander, we don't need to put a date on
this, do we? Or do you want to? I mean,
this is an existing condition. We do normally put dates
on the existing conditions, but I'll leave that up to
the community. So do you, November 19th. Yeah. We could
make the November 19th work for this as well. That
would maintain the same due date of, I believe it
was October the 9th. Yeah. So we'll get you back
on November the 19th. You've got till October the 9th
to, you don't have to make changes on October the
9th, but at least deal with Schiavoni and get those
things changed and then come back to the committee. Like
I said, I think the support for what you want
to do. But if we can tweak a little bit
and then it'll just be a better development for everybody.
Okay, Committee member satisfied to defer. So application's been deferred
November tonight. Thanks so much for your cooperation. Really appreciate
it. Thank you. 19th or the ninth. 19th. Got a.
Battle for you. Uh, okay. Next application A246
at 2121 Rathborn Road for anybody that came in later,
anybody online, it's been deferred. There's no date. We'll, you'll
get recirculated. Next application is A248 at 3960 Eglinton Avenue
West unit number 18. Is there anybody in the ion
has an interest in this application. No Alexander, if you'd
like to introduce the agent of the applicant, please. Yes.
Mr. Chair, for this application, we have Ramon Kumar registered.
Ramon, you've been unmuted. You can go ahead. Go down
the chairman committee member. And my name is Roman Khmar
from MEM Engineering. And, uh, we have the applicant for
this application. And we are requesting a minor variance to
a loan. Sorry, before you start off, have you seen
planning stops comments. Yes, sir. We saw that. So they're
asking for a deferral. Yes. We are, we are okay
with that. You're OK. So you want to defer it.
Yes. We've been that friend about with planning style. Sorry.
So we'll, for the application for you. Yeah. If we
could refer to earliest date, that would be really helpful.
So. I didn't pick that up. What he's asking for
a committee chair is he's requesting. Yes. We had opened.
Early state. What's the earliest state that we can get
him back. Um, it really depends on if they're going
to be any changes. Because if they're going to be.
Sir, you know what we'll do. Why don't we do
this? Um, Alexander, do you want to pick a like,
we can pick a for you. And then what happens
is if you can get it done earlier, then he'll
just put you on a new agenda. I would just
suggest we could leave this open ended as soon as
the applicant is ready to come in. We will put
them on the first available date. Like we're not going
to hold them back for any reason. So leaving it
open - ended is the fastest way to get back
on an agenda. Yeah. And it's not, it's not an
existing condition. So we're okay. Yeah. Sir. So what we're
going to do is we'll just defer it. I would
reach out to Shivani and just deal with her. And
then as soon as you're ready to go, just contact
Alexander. He'll put you on the next available agenda. Thank
you, sir. Okay. Committee member satisfied to defer. So application
A. 248 has been deferred. Next application is A249 at
665 Meadowwood Road. Is there an interest in this application?
Good afternoon, sir. Good afternoon. Chairperson Committee members and the
planning staff. I'm the applicant on the Mala from Blueprints
Permit. And I have read to all the recommendations from
the Planning Staff. I completely aligned with it. And the
outstanding dues for the CVC. And the forestry department would
be paid right after the Apple World. So I'm requesting
for the approval of all the variances listed out by
the staff. And as well, the variations recognised by the
zoning review application as well. So is the existing driveway,
the existing condition of that, what's there now? That's what
you're asking for. There's no changes to be made, making
it bigger or anything like that. It's what it is.
Yes, that's what the homeowner has done. And we requesting
the approval of the same. Committee members, any questions or
comments. No, Alexander. The city is no objections to the
application as amended. Uh, the first and third variances are
recommended for amendment. The first one is just a technical
rewording. The second one, they're noting the driveway width should
be measured as 17. 2. And that actually within 6
metres of the garage, they're allowed 10. 5. Uh, and
then Forestry is requesting a condition. Nowhere in submissions received,
no members of the public have pre - registered to
speak. Thank you. Um, again, is there anybody in the
INS has an interest application A249 at 665 Meadowwood Road.
No, Alexander, or no, sorry, Mr. Page. Ready for a
motion? Thanks, Mr. Chair. Move approval of the application. It
does meet the four tests. Um, subject to general conformance
of the drawings, please. And as amended, um, you know,
I mean, we're able to see it as it stands.
I don't think it's inappropriate. And there's no landscape, uh,
coverage issues. Sorry, before I go to a second, do
you wish to amend the application or reflect planning staff's
comments? That's correct. Committee member satisfied domenica. Okay. Second, Mr.
Ellis. Thank you, Mr. Chair, second. Uh, Mr. Chair, just
to clarify for Mr. Page, is that subject to forestry's
conditioner? Is that without forestry's condition? No condition. Ken, are
you okay with that without the four street condition? Yep.
Okay. Uh, any discussion, all those in favor. Any opposed?
So sir, your application additive has been approved by the
committee. In general coins of the drawing, you presented today.
Really appreciate you. Thank you. Have a good day. Uh,
next application is A250 at 2943 rainwater drive. Is there
anybody in the Irons has an interest in this application?
No, Alexander, if you'd like to introduce the agent of
the applicant, please. Yes. Mr. Chair, for this application, we
have Michael Galley registered. Michael, you've been unmuted. You can
go ahead. Uh, thank you. And members of the committee.
I have reviewed the staff comments, uh, the report originally
commented deferral to allow redesign of the driveway. And I
have been working with the, uh, planning team to add
those concerns before two days of hearing. Following our discussion,
we have revised the proposer for the existing 9. 6
metre driveway to a maximum width of 7. 2 metres.
The revised design also provides a require soft landscaping and
address the concern identified by planning. Staff have confirmed their
support for this revised proposer. Accordingly rather than proceeding with
the original application or a deferred. We asked the committee
to consider the application as amended to permit the maximum
driveway with of 7. 2 metre in a coordinates with
revoice side plans submitted today. We believe the voice proposal
represent an appropriate compromise to maintain the residential character of
the property. And address the intent behind the city driveway
and landscaping requirements. I would appreciate the committee approval of
the application as amended. Thank you. So just to confirm,
when we're looking at these drawings, the drawing on the
left is a current state and the drawing on the
right is going to be the, uh, reduction in the,
uh, in the driveway width as it stands today, correct?
Correct. So the left side has, uh, interlock, uh, just
zero metre from the left side of the property line
as well as covering some area in front of the
planter. And the proposal now is to have two feet
on the left side as well as three user interlock
on the right to end up with 7. 2 metre
for the driveway. The ashfeld and interlock and increase the
endskip area. To be 33 percent of the front setback
where the buyer ask only for 30 percent landscape. Do
you, Mr. Chair, I'd like to confirm we've worked with
the applicant to reduce it down to 7. 2 metres.
They're meeting the soft yard landscaping requirement and the hardscaping
setbacks. I have no concerns. Community members satisfied to amend
the application to 7. 2 metre driveway width. So that's
been amended. Alexander, I guess the comments are irrelevant. Planning
has updated their comment as noted. I will just add
that one letter of concern was received and no members
of the public have pre - registered speak. Thank you
again. Has there anybody in the INS has an interesting
application A250 located 2943 rainwater drive. No. Ready for a
motion, Mrs. Robinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll move approval
of the application as amended in general conformits with the
plan that revised plan that was submitted. And this is
exactly the kind of thing we like owners to do
to work with staff before the hearing comes. Um, get
the application revised to be acceptable. And it now meets
the four tests. Thank you. Do you have a second?
Mr. Dill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll Second of Motion.
Communs. Any discussion on the motion. All those in favor.
Any opposed. Um, sir, your application has been approved by
the committee. Uh, as amended in general Corrin to Round,
you presented to the committee today. Thank you. Thank you.
Have a good day. Next application is A. 251 located
3152. Countless Crescent is, I guess, their online. Is there
anybody in the audience that has an interest in this
application. No, Alexander, if you'd like to introduce the agent,
the applicant, please. Uh, yes, Mr. Chair, for this application,
we have Kizang again. You've been on muted. You can
go ahead. With me right now, I just need help
him to translate. So, um, sorry, Mishang, is that, yeah,
so, um, I think we had a conversation before. So
you've got planning staffs, um, suggested at the FERL. They
want you to redesign it. So did you want to
defer the application? Because I think if you move forward
today, you're not going to get an approval. So I
understand. Yeah. Do you want to defer it. Yes. But
can I ask you one question? So for now, I
just, I think I need doing the zoning review first,
right? I'm sorry. Repeat that again. So from the comments,
it says, I need to do the zooming review. Yeah.
So what I would suggest you do is contact Sarah.
She's the planner on this site. If you don't have
her contact information, call the committee tomorrow and they'll give
it to you. And then just, um, just speak with
her. She'll guide you through the process of what they
want you to do. And then you can, um, deal
with her on that. And when then once you guys
have come up to an agreement, then you can come
back to the committee. Okay. Okay. Thank you so much.
You're welcome. For the date. We can do November 19th
again. Okay. So are you able to come back on
November the 19th. November 19. Okay. No problem. So you
have until October the 9th to hand in any new
drawings or anything. So I would recommend that you contact
Sarah in the next day or two, uh, and try
to have a meeting with her and then just go
through that process. Okay. Okay. Thank you so much. Committee
member satisfied the defer. So application has been deferred November
19th. Okay. Next application is A253 at 440 Celsi drive.
Is there anybody in the ionites has an interest in
this application? Are you the neighbours. Or sorry? Okay. Is
there anybody? Are you the owner. Neighbours? Okay. The agents
online I take it. Three you, Mr. Chair. I don't
see them online at the moment. We have reached out
to see. If we can get them, but they don't,
doesn't appear they've joined the meeting. Is there anybody in
the audience besides the people that have raised their hands
on this application as the agent here, the owner. No?
Okay. Well, I think we were probably going to defer
this application anyhow just because of the fact that, um,
it's not. Mr. Chair, we've got them. Okay. Good. All
right. So, uh, we have Abish Shock Rezgor. Abishek, you've
been unmuted. You can go ahead. I wish I
might need to click the Unmute button on your end.
One second, Mr. Chair.
Abisha, can you please push the unmute button on your
side if you can? Oh, there we go. Hello. Hi,
how are you? Good, how are you? Good, not that.
Have you seen planning stops comments. Yes. That's correct. So
do you wish to defer the application. Yes, Mr. Chair.
Okay. Um, there's two neighbours in the audience and I
wish you had a deferred at earlier. So they didn't
have to commit. But unfortunately, we're going to have, we're
going to get it deferred so that they can work
with planning staff on reducing the driveway with. I think
it's a bit too excessive. There's some comments from transfer
station works with regard to some sight lines as well
that they wish to deal with. So. Uh, we're going
to give them an opportunity to do that. Um, then
they'll come back. Um, Alexander, do we want to? Yeah,
we could do November 19th again deadline for the deferral
fee and resubmission October 9th. Sir, are you able to
come back on November the 19th. Yes. Mr. Chairman. Okay.
So, um, you've gotten until October the 9th to present
any new drawings or anything that you wish to do.
My suggestion to you is to contact. Shivani. Oh Sarah.
Um, if you don't have a contact information, Sarah, is
your planner reach out to the Committee of Adjustment Office
tomorrow. They'll give it to you. I'd sit down with
comments not only from planning department, but from development and
construction, they have some concerns with regards to sight lines
and offencing and so forth. So I think those are
very serious concerns. So at the end of the day,
please sit down with them, uh, we'll have you back
on November the 19th. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The
owner is again as well. We both will be working
with the planning. Okay. Thank you. Committee members, Ici, I
did defer. Uh, application has been deferred. I apologise. I
have to come in and sit through this. But, um,
it is going to be heard on November the 19th.
You will be recirculated if you did receive the, uh,
first circulation. There may change the variances. They may not.
You can come to the committee. You don't have to
come in person. You can do it virtually if you
want. If that saves you some time or write a
lettering, whatever you prefer. So it's just giving them an
opportunity to hopefully to fix it so that when they
come back, they'll be dealing with it. Okay. Um, we've
deferred it. So we're not going to hear any thing.
Is there anything that you want to hand in or
whatever you can, uh, but anything else. Why didn't you
want it back? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No problem. Yeah. Sure.
You're welcome. Um, so application's been deferred to November 19th.
As I said, you're more than welcome to come back
or even register online if that saves you some time.
Okay. Thank you. Next application is A254 located 422 Dixie
Road Unit 160. Is there anybody in the aids as
an interest in this application? No. Alexander. Yes. Mr. Chair
for this application. We have Oscar Manias registered. Oscar, you've
been unmuted. You can go ahead. Good afternoon. And members.
My name is Oscar Mannius. I'm the representative and partner
of the owner, uh, Miss Rossi at 4222 Dixon Road.
So you, uh, yeah, yeah, just give me a sec.
So you have favorable planning staff comments. So if you
want to give us a brief presentation on what you're
looking at doing, that'd be great. Okay. So, um, the,
uh, there's two variants. I guess that we were in
question. So there was the exterior side yard setback. Which
was, uh, the requirement is 4. 5 metres. And we
were asking for 4. 25, and, uh, which is pretty
minimal difference. And, um, the, uh, encroachment, the backyard encroachment
was one metre. And we were asking for 3. 23
metres. And, um, this encroachment for the backyard is, well,
I feel it's well within the, uh, limits of other
balcony encroachments in the same development. So we're just, uh,
requesting the, uh, approval of those two variances. Thank you.
Committee members, any questions or comments? Alexander comments, please. The
city has no objections to the application as amended. Um,
they're recommending amendments to both variances. The first one is
just technical noting that the setback is to the balcony.
The second one is noting that the encroachment is 3.
34 rather than the circulated 3. 23. And the bit
of a rewarding there as well. No written submissions receive
no members of the public kept pre - registered to
speak. Thank you. Um, sir, did you want to amend
the application to reflect planning stops comments? No, okay. Yes,
Sarah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sorry for the confusion. I
just want to make a note here. Not a zoning
bylaw examiner. I don't know that I can explain exactly
how zoning has gotten to this measurement. But essentially they
take it from the setback. And then that's, or take
it from the required rear yard setback and measure the
difference in the balcony. As you see on the drawings
that are noted, it's dashed out and it notes of
3. 23 metre setback variants. In order for this to
not have issues when it comes to the building permit
process, I'm worried about tying this to the drawings because
of that, those, that minor change in numbers could cause
it to, to not be approved through what was approved
for the committee. I'm okay with the 3. 66 metres
versus the 3. 23. I'd rather them not tie it
to drawings if possible. Just because of that issue that
could be created if there's a technical issue that's owning
has. I don't have an issue with either setback. Just
want to make sure the wording is too zoning satisfaction.
Alexander, what do you think? Um, the amendments that are
written on the staff comments are provided by zoning. Um,
I would suggest that would probably be the safest route
to go just because that is being provided by them.
Uh, they're noting the, uh, encroachment of 3. 34, however,
which is a third number that I'm not sure exactly
where that's coming from. Through you, Mr. Chair. My understanding
is there could be just a difference in the drawings
that were submitted to BP versus the C of A.
So the 3. 66 is what was submitted to the
building permit, which is why I'm urging not to tie
it to the, to the drawings and just keep the
variance as it's worded as that's what's been reviewed by
zoning. And that's what I've confirmed informally. Good zoning that
would be the correct variance. The 3. 66 is the
one that you think should be instead of 3. 34.
No, sorry. The variance should be word at 3. 34
as zonings noted. It's just that the drawings. Oh, okay.
Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Right. Okay. Yeah. That's fine. You don't
yet. That's okay. Yeah. I mean, sometimes I think we
try to figure out what zoning stealing too. So it's
been amended, Sarah spoken. I think Alexander needs to speak.
Um, cities and objections to the application as amended. No
written submissions received no members of the public. If you
register to speak. Again, is anybody in the audience has
an interest in application A254 at 4222 Dixie Road Unit
160. Oscar, is anything else you wish to add or
are you good to go? I think that's, that's great.
That's great. It's fine. Okay. Uh, ready for a motion,
Mr. Page. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Move approval the amended application
meets a four tests. Um, not in conformance of the
drawings. Do I have a second, Mrs. Robinson? Thank you,
Mr. Chairman. I'll second the motion. Committee members, any discussion
on the motion. All those in favor. Sir, your application
has been approved by the committee as amended. Thank you.
Thank you. Have a good day. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Next application is A257 located 5218 Fallingbrook Drive.
Is there anybody in the United States and interest in
this application? Are you the applicant or a neighbour. You're
the neighbour? Okay. Um, Alexander, do you wish to? Yes,
Mr. Chair for this application. We have Ahmad Khan registered.
Ahmad, you've been unmuted. You can go ahead. Good afternoon
to Mr. Chair and Committee members, miners are. And if
you're new, Mr. Kat, have you seen planning staff's comments.
Yes, I have. And what are you going to do?
You're going to defer, or do you want to get
turned down today? I will differ. Yeah. That's, is that
a question or is that a statement. Is that, can
I present and get deferred if is needed. No. You
want to present it and then deferred if you don't
think it's going in the right direction. Yes. Yeah. Well,
I'm going to tell you it's not going in the
right direction. So I don't think you need to make
any comments. So I think that your best bet is
to defer. There's like you can't, we've got a pitcher
on site that you've got a car parked parallel to
the street. I mean, that's not what, you know, parking
in the city of Mississauga has intended to do so.
My suggestion to use deferred sit down with staff and
work something out, um, can't talk for the rest of
the committee, but I'm going to talk for the rest
of the committee. I don't think you're going to approve
today. Okay. November 19th work for you. Yes. Okay. So
application will be deferred to November 19th. Do you know
who you're, Sarah? Is your planner? If you don't have
a contact information, reach out to Alexander tomorrow or the
committee. They'll give it to you. Uh, you have to
till October the 9th at hand in documents. And then
we'll see you back on the 19th. Okay. Committee satisfied
to defer? Satisfy. Applications ready for, sir. I'm sorry you
have to wait through this, but we're going to defer
it. And hopefully they'll be able to reduce this when
they come back. They may need some variances. And then,
but hopefully it won't look like this after we're done
with them. Okay. All right. Thank you. That ends our
agenda for today. Thanks, everybody.