[0:02] The Committee of Adjustment Hearing for August 27, 2026. If
[0:05] you are attending virtually any technical assistance during the meeting,
[0:08] please email virtual meeting. help at mississaga. ca. And members
[0:13] of the public will be given five minutes to speak
[0:15] to the item on the agenda. Those attending virtually will
[0:18] be introduced by staff and staff will turn your microphone
[0:19] on. Those attending in person will be called upon by
[0:22] the chair to approach the podium if they wish to
[0:23] address the committee. The committee may ask you questions at
[0:25] the end of your presentation, an agent may be given
[0:27] a chance to respond to comments made by members of
[0:29] the public. We ask that everyone maintain respectful conduct at
[0:32] all times. If anything inappropriate is said, your microphone may
[0:34] be turned off and you may be removed from the
[0:35] meeting. Once all presentations are made, we move into the
[0:38] decision - making process and no further input from agents
[0:40] or members of the public will be permitted. Requests for
[0:43] deferrals will be handled at the beginning of today's hearing,
[0:45] and no evidence will be heard today on those files.
[0:48] The Committee may or may not assign new hearing dates
[0:49] for items deferred at today's hearing. Once deferred hearing dates
[0:52] are finalised, everyone in the original circulation area, as well
[0:55] as those that have written in, registered speak, or place
[0:57] their name on the sign - in sheet located beside
[0:58] the podium, will be notified. If you are an applicant
[1:01] and you wish to defer your application, please raise your
[1:03] hand now, whether in person or using the virtual hand
[1:05] raise feature to let us know. Members, do you have
[1:07] any declarations of conflict of interest on today's agenda? No
[1:10] chair. No. Thanks, Alexander. Welcome to the Committee of Adjustment
[1:13] meeting for Thursday, August 27th. We're going to start off
[1:17] by seeing if anybody wishes to defer withdrawn applications. Is
[1:20] there anybody in the audience that wishes to defer with
[1:22] drawn application on today's agenda. No. Alexander, any. Mr. Chair,
[1:31] yes, we do a few hands raised. First up, I
[1:34] have Tony DeFranco. Tony, you've been unmuted. You can go
[1:37] ahead. Thank you, and good afternoon. I'm the agent representing
[1:42] the owner on behalf of 21, 21 Rappern. It's file
[1:46] number A247. And we would ask for a deferral, given
[1:52] the staff report with that came forward. Yeah, I'm not
[1:57] even sure. I think staff's suggesting that it needs to
[1:59] go through rezoning application. Is that correct, Stath. Thank you,
[2:05] Mr. Chair. Yes. That's correct. We'd be recommending the rezoning
[2:08] process as opposed to the Committee of Adjustment. Mr. Page.
[2:14] Well, just if it did, for some reason, come back
[2:17] to us. I'm very uncomfortable with any of the setbacks
[2:21] being asked for their existing residential. The low density stuff.
[2:25] Mrs. Robinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look at this
[2:30] proposal, and to me, it's a rezoning, not something that
[2:34] with this number of variances, and it's not just a
[2:37] number of variances. It's an introducing a different land use,
[2:40] which is quite different than what's immediately across from it.
[2:45] The residential low rise residential neighbourhood. Thank you. Mr. De
[2:51] Franko, I guess this is almost, weren't you here last
[2:52] week for a similar application. Yes, yes, chair. I was
[2:57] here last week for 1055 War Street. Look, you know
[3:00] what, I think whoever's giving you the advice to go
[3:03] through Committee of Adjustment versus zoning is probably not giving
[3:08] you the best advice. My suggestion is we will defer
[3:11] it. But I think you're going to have a hard
[3:14] uphill climb if you come back to the committee with
[3:17] the way it is. I think you probably want to
[3:20] listen to staff and have a conversation with them. You
[3:23] know, it doesn't hurt us deferring it for now. But
[3:26] again, if you come back to this committee, I think
[3:29] you're going to have an uphill climb as far as
[3:31] that the application goes. So why don't we just defer,
[3:35] leave it open - ended when you're ready to go.
[3:36] You can just come back to the committee, or sorry,
[3:39] contact Mr. Alexander, he'll put you on new agenda if
[3:44] you come back. If you don't, and you go through
[3:45] the rezoning, then you just withdraw the application. Thanks very
[3:49] much. Committee members are satisfied to withdraw. Very, sorry, to
[3:52] defer. I know, I'm not sure if the audience have
[3:56] an interest in this application. I think, yeah, so we're
[4:00] deferring it. Staff's comments are basically they should go through
[4:03] rezoning application. We're not sure how that's going to occur.
[4:06] But if you were circulated on it, you'll be recirculated
[4:09] on again if we do have a hearing here, or
[4:11] they may go through the rezonin, and then it gets
[4:13] withdrawn. And the more hearing date. So we'll keep you
[4:16] posted when we do have a new date. If you've
[4:19] signed your name up to the sheet there, you'll make
[4:20] sure that it's just on at the bottom of the
[4:22] stairs on the counter there. And then you're more than
[4:28] welcome to come back on the near hearing date, okay?
[4:30] Committee member satisfied to defer. So application's been deferred. Alexander,
[4:36] anybody else wished to defer with drawn application? Yes, Mr.
[4:39] Chair. Next up, we have Paul Demchak registered. Paul, you've
[4:42] been unmuted. You can go ahead. Good afternoon, members of
[4:45] the committee. Um, I'm here as the Landy's Planning Consultant
[4:49] on behalf of the applicant for 660 Kennedy Road. This
[4:53] is file. A237 - 26. We receive city recommendation to
[5:01] defer the application. This included some by - law, um,
[5:06] comments associated with the parking spaces and storage on site,
[5:10] which the client intends to rectify. There's also transportation services
[5:16] staff comments, which we intended to update our transportation study
[5:20] to address those comments. Do you have a date in
[5:24] mind, or did you just want to leave it open
[5:25] - ended, then just come back? Yeah, okay, we'll just
[5:28] leave it open - ended. Is there anybody in the
[5:29] eyes has an interest in application A. 237. It's 6560
[5:33] Kennedy Road. Now Committee member satisfied to defer. So, sir,
[5:38] your application's been deferred when you're ready to go. Just
[5:40] contact the Committee Office and the Plitch on Neagenda, okay?
[5:43] Thank you, members. Thank you. Alexander, anybody else. Yes, Mr.
[5:50] Chair, we have Chizang registered, his hand - up. Gee,
[5:54] you've been unmuted, you can go ahead. Hi. Um, I
[5:58] speak for my dad, Keda. My name is Villing for
[6:01] the file number is A. 251. 26, address 3152 Content
[6:08] Crash. Applying for the driveway. Yeah, do you want to
[6:14] defer the app? You wanted to further the application. I'm
[6:19] not sure I got the common. I'm a little bit
[6:22] confused. Yeah, so the comment - staff. So the comments
[6:25] are that they want you to defer and sit with
[6:27] staff and look at potentially redesigning the driveway. So your
[6:30] two options is you can defer it now, or you
[6:33] can wait till your turn, and you can present. It's
[6:37] up to you on what you want to do. Um,
[6:41] sorry. So the option one is differ, and then the
[6:44] second one. So can you repeat one more time? Do
[6:47] you want to defer or do you want to present.
[6:53] Kanai's plane to met that first. Right now, you're not
[6:58] on turn. If you wanted to present to the committee,
[7:01] we'll call you when it's your turn. If you want
[7:03] to defer, now's the time to defer it. Sorry, can
[7:08] I just explain to my dad first? And then I
[7:11] ask him. No, you can't do that. Do you want
[7:13] to defer the application or do you want to present
[7:14] it? I'm not sure if I can be any more
[7:16] clearer than that. Okay. Um, yeah, yes. So what, you
[7:21] know what, just why don't you wait until we call
[7:23] your applications up, talk to your dad, and then you
[7:25] can come back and tell us what you want to
[7:27] do, okay? Okay, so when I will get the call
[7:30] back? No, no, just stay on the line. We'll call
[7:32] your application, okay? Okay, no problem, yeah, sorry. No problem.
[7:36] Alexander, anybody else. Three you, Mr. Chair, no, we don't
[7:42] have any of the further hands raised. All right, so
[7:44] we'll start at the top. The agenda will call application
[7:46] B28 at 1840 and 1850 Blur Street. Is there anybody
[7:50] in the aids has an interest in this application? No?
[7:53] Okay. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. If you just want
[8:03] to introduce yourself for the record. Yep, my name is
[8:06] Stephanie Cost, planner with Bosefields addresses three church streets, suite
[8:10] 200 Toronto M5E, 1M2. Okay, so it looks like you
[8:14] have favorable planning staff comments. There's nobody in the audience
[8:17] nor online that wishes to address committee on this application.
[8:19] So if you just want to give us a brief
[8:21] presentation on what you're looking at doing. Sure, thank you,
[8:24] Mr. Chair, and good afternoon to all. As you mentioned,
[8:28] we do have a positive staff report. And so what
[8:30] we are essentially seeking to do today is a severance
[8:33] that will facilitate financing for the construction of new purpose
[8:37] - built rental housing that has already been approved on
[8:39] this site. Perhaps we could go to the next slide,
[8:42] and I could show you where the site is. So
[8:45] you can see here, the site's located on the south
[8:48] side of Blur Street, approximately 200 metres west of the
[8:51] Etobico Creek. You can see that it has existing 14
[8:56] - story buildings on it, and the approval that we
[8:58] recently received through an official plan and zoning bylawmen application
[9:02] is to add two additional rental buildings to the southerly
[9:06] portion of the site, and those are at 18 stories,
[9:09] each, and will facilitate the construction of about 450 new
[9:12] rental dwelling units. For the next slide, please. We have
[9:20] a site plan application currently underway. That is nearing completion,
[9:24] so now is the time to be before the committee
[9:26] requesting the severance of the property. As I said this
[9:30] severance is required by CMHC to enable the funding for
[9:34] the rental units, the new rental units on the southernly
[9:37] portion of the property. If we could go to the
[9:40] next slide. So here you can see the severance that
[9:44] we are contemplating. So the existing buildings are in the
[9:46] orange to the north and the new approved rental buildings
[9:50] are to the south there. Um, importantly, no variances are
[9:54] required to facilitate this severance. And in order to ensure
[9:57] that the sites continue to operate as one seamless vehicular
[10:01] access, shared amenities, shared servicing as they are today, there
[10:05] will be blanket reciprocal easements put on the property. The
[10:09] details of which are being sorted out through an agreement,
[10:13] and in the development engineering comments, um, uh, 43R plan
[10:18] will be provided along with the agreement to satisfy that
[10:21] department. Perfect. Um, have you seen the draft conditions? Are
[10:26] you satisfied with them? Correct, no problem. You got no
[10:28] problem with them? Through you, Mr. Chair. Unfortunately, an incorrect
[10:31] version of the conditions was published online. Apologies for that.
[10:34] Two conditions were left out. One was for zoning clearance,
[10:38] and the other was for the region of Peel. So
[10:42] did you just want to maybe... So their comments from
[10:45] those departments were included in the comment report. We just
[10:47] didn't list them in the actual list of conditions, so
[10:50] those would need to be added to the list of
[10:53] conditions. So there's two conditions that we need to add,
[10:56] just with regards to getting clearance from zoning in the
[10:58] region appeal. And I guess based on the comments that
[11:00] they made in the package, so are you okay with
[11:05] that? Three of you. Yeah, they didn't put them on
[11:08] there yet. They missed them, so we've got to amend
[11:12] the draft conditions and add two more conditions to it.
[11:15] So one is to receive clearance from the zoning department.
[11:19] With regards to their comments that they've made in your
[11:22] package. And the second one is with regards to the
[11:25] region of peel comments that were made. You just need
[11:27] to get clearance from them on that. So through you,
[11:32] Mr. Chair, fundamentally, I don't think there's a concern, but
[11:35] I just haven't seen... Could you direct me to where
[11:38] these are in the staff report? Yeah, so the region
[11:41] appeal comments are an appendix 4, and then the zoning
[11:44] comments are an appendix 2. Okay, so this report I
[11:48] have doesn't have appendix 4. An appendix 2. I have
[11:53] the zoning. And that's fine, no issue with the zoning
[11:55] complaints, but I am... So I can just read it
[11:57] off quickly, what zonings, sorry, what the region appeal is
[12:00] asking for is arrangement satisfactory to the region of shall
[12:03] be made with respect to the location of existing and
[12:05] installation of new services and or possible required municipal or
[12:08] municipal easements. No problem, that's fine. So you're okay with
[12:11] those? Yes. Committee members, so I do amend the conditions,
[12:13] okay? Alexander, comments, please. Yes, Mr. Chair, the city has
[12:19] no objections to the application, no written submissions are received,
[12:21] no members of the public kept pre - registered speak.
[12:23] Thank you again. Is there anybody in the audience has
[12:25] an interest application A, B28, located 1840, 1850 Blur Street.
[12:31] No? Oh, yep. Do you want to have seat for
[12:34] a moment? Thank you. Sir, yeah, if you want to
[12:36] come forward. Do you want to give us your name
[12:43] and address for the record, please? My name is Dino
[12:45] Balakhesko, and I'm a resident at 80 - 40 Blue
[12:49] Street. And I'm here today to strongly object to this
[12:54] application for consent to several. Well, and the sender, the
[12:59] zoning for the 218 - story towers was previously approved.
[13:03] Severing this lot into two independent parcels right now is
[13:07] entirely premature and creates massive unresolved planning failures for the
[13:13] existing community. I urge the committee to deny or defer
[13:17] this application based on several critical issues. First one, severe
[13:22] gridlock and traffic safety. Sorry, sir, what you're doing now
[13:27] is you're relitigating the zoning application. That's not what's before
[13:31] us. No, no, no, no, no, no. Yes, I'm illegal
[13:35] that. What we're dealing with is a severance line. You're
[13:39] talking about gridlock that has nothing to do with what's
[13:41] here today with regards to the severance. So we're not
[13:45] going to litigate the approval of the - White me
[13:48] speaking, what's the problem? Sorry, you know, we've got, a
[13:51] lot of people in the audience, we need to hear
[13:54] comments that are relative to our decision today, not on
[13:57] something else that was already made somewhere else. So if
[14:00] you want to stick to why the severance is premature,
[14:03] but if you start talking about gridlock and about all
[14:06] this other stuff, I'm going to cut you off, and
[14:07] then I'm going to tell you to sit down. Let
[14:10] me tell you. Severing this lot now creates a chaotic
[14:14] scenario where two completely separate independently owned properties are forced
[14:20] to share congested, overlapping driveway layout. The site plan review
[14:26] files, SP25. 8W3 has not finalised how these two independent
[14:33] owners will manage safe. Daily, vaguely grass without spilling traffic
[14:39] onto Blurs. So just to answer that one, before they,
[14:43] so if they're here today for the severance, there's conditions
[14:46] that we had mentioned to them, the five conditions. What
[14:49] they have to do is they have to go through
[14:51] those conditions and satisfy comments with regards to traffic flow
[14:55] easements and all that other stuff. They have to get
[14:57] those signed off by the departments. If they get them
[15:00] signed off to the satisfaction of the departments after they've
[15:03] reviewed them, then they'll get their severance. If they don't,
[15:06] then they're going to have to meet the requirements that
[15:08] the department's are asking them for. So whatever severeds we
[15:11] do today, if it gets approved, there are conditions that
[15:13] they have to go through and meet. And some of
[15:18] the comments that you've made will be reviewed at that
[15:20] point. With the comments? Sorry? Would you let me make
[15:27] the comments? You had a comment about the traffic, and
[15:31] you said that there was going to be a problem
[15:32] with it, and it wasn't being reviewed. So I was
[15:35] just telling you what's going on. Okay, so I understand
[15:47] will take care of it. It's not a variance, it's
[15:50] a severance. So let me clarify two things. The approval
[15:54] for the zoning and all that stuff with the high
[15:56] - rise condyles and so forth. That has gone through
[15:59] that process. No, no, let me finish. They will have
[16:02] spoke, they would have dealt with the traffic in the
[16:04] area and so forth. This process here with the severance,
[16:08] they'll have to deal with the circulation of traffic within
[16:12] those boundaries. So those will have to be met before
[16:14] any severed certificate is given. Okay. Under Mrs. Oga zoning
[16:20] by - law, the existing 14 - story buildings are
[16:23] legally required to maintain a minimum amount of outdoor amenity
[16:28] area per unit, for the health and well - being
[16:31] of the tenants. By slicing this property in health, the
[16:35] developer is permanently stripping the existing towers of the green
[16:38] space, open lawn, and mature trees that fulfill that legal
[16:43] requirement. Sir, to stop you there. There's going to be
[16:47] reciprocal agreements that both properties can use, that's going to
[16:53] be treated pretty much as one property. So there is
[16:56] going to be reciprocal agreements that they're going to be
[16:57] working out through the planning department that will allow this
[17:00] to function as one property. The proposed property lines cut
[17:07] directly to the surface parking space. It's currently relied upon
[17:11] by the residents at 1840 and 1850 Blue Street. If
[17:15] you subvert this land today, you create an immediate and
[17:19] illegal parking deficit for the existing buildings before any replacement
[17:25] underground parking structures are even dug. The developer has not
[17:29] secured an official legally binding shared parking agreement that guarantees
[17:35] where current residents will park during and after construction. That'll
[17:40] be up to them to figure that out. And the
[17:44] project is currently frozen in the middle of a highly
[17:47] technical site plan review under application SP25. A. W3. The
[17:53] final location of fire access routes, underground plumbing infrastructure and
[17:59] legal tree preservation hoarding lines have not been finalised or
[18:03] signed off by city engineers. Severing the cut you off
[18:09] there, those are conditions that they'll have to meet before
[18:11] they get the severance. Hopefully, yes. Well, they're the conditions
[18:16] that she's agreed to so that they'll have to meet
[18:18] them. Because B. 18. 185 has removed our communities democratic
[18:25] right to appeal the wrong decision to the OLT. The
[18:28] burden falls entirely on this committee today to protect the
[18:33] existing tenants. You are our only line of defence. If
[18:38] you are proven in complete severance layout today, the residents
[18:42] have no legal safety net to fix it later. For
[18:45] these reasons, I ask the committee denied this severance, or
[18:51] at very least the issue of formal deferral until the
[18:54] side plan approval process is a hundred percent complete can
[18:59] prove the existing towers remain fully zoning compliant. Okay, thank
[19:03] you. Committee members, has any questions? Thank you, sir, for
[19:07] your comments. Thanks. Ms. Quest, do you want to come
[19:10] back up to the... Where are you? Just to confirm,
[19:18] this property is going to act as one property, even
[19:20] though you've got two, you're going to have a severance
[19:22] line in there. Tenants from both locations will be able
[19:25] to use everything that's on either property, parking, and all
[19:29] that other stuff is going to act as one. Exactly.
[19:32] This is just solely for CMHC purposes in order to
[19:34] get the finances. Thank you. Committee members. Questions or comments?
[19:37] Ready for a motion. Mr. Dale. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[19:41] I believe this application meets the criteria set out in
[19:45] section 5124, the Planning Act, and I'll move approval subject
[19:49] to the provisional conditions as amended. Do I have a
[19:53] second, Mrs. Robinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll second the
[19:56] motion. This process is not incomplete, and this consent is
[20:01] not premature. Any discussion on the motion? All those in
[20:05] favor. Any opposed? It's cross your application has been approved
[20:09] by the committee and subject to the draft conditions that
[20:12] you agree to, okay? Thank you. Next application is B224
[20:18] at 751 Indian Road. Is there anybody in the it's
[20:21] has an interest in this application? Good afternoon, sir. If
[20:27] you want to give us your name and address, and
[20:29] there is someone in the audience who wants to address
[20:31] committee, so if you just give us a presentation, please.
[20:34] Sure. My name, Oris Steenowski. I'm an agent on this
[20:38] application. Stenosky architects 194 earlier croat, Tron Ontario. Good of
[20:46] thin Charmand Committee. I'm here to present revised application. Originally
[20:51] we submitted proposed severance for three lots. And then, uh,
[20:58] as per comments from planning department, we revised our application.
[21:02] And now we are proposing only two lots. One lot
[21:06] to remain and one new severed lot. Uh, as per
[21:09] planning comments, uh, it's clear we are within the 4plex,
[21:15] 4 desks of the committee. And the variant seems to
[21:19] be minor, as well as we don't need any variances
[21:22] for nearly created lots there within the zoning bylaw. And
[21:27] similar to what's in the neighbourhood. Uh, so we think
[21:30] it's really minor in nature and would like to ask
[21:33] for your approval. There is some letters from the neighbours,
[21:37] and I guess some of the concerns are with regards
[21:39] to some drainage and so forth. So just to confirm,
[21:45] you do have to provide, I think one of the
[21:46] conditions from TNW are development in engineering construction, as they
[21:50] call themselves now. You do have to provide an overall
[21:53] grading plan before you can get your severance done, correct?
[21:56] Like that's part of the conditions that if you agree
[21:58] to that, that will be part of what you need
[22:01] to do before you get your certificate? Uh, yes, absolutely.
[22:04] Uh, there is a number of conditions from various departments.
[22:08] And this is what we would be looking into. And
[22:11] we can satisfy all of those conditions. So when I
[22:14] look at this, uh, these drawings, you've got the, uh,
[22:19] the new house being built away from the, let's say,
[22:22] the left side of the, uh, the property line. Is
[22:25] that because you're trying to create some amenity space there?
[22:28] Is that because the issues with drainage on that side?
[22:31] Or how did you, how did you go about citing
[22:33] this property or the house where it got it sitting
[22:36] on the lot. Um, sure. Uh, I would be glad
[22:40] to explain. Um, we had a number of discussions with
[22:44] traffic department and the key point was for the traffic
[22:48] to keep the entrance to the lot directly across the
[22:53] entrance to the lot on the other side of Medigane.
[22:58] Uh, so on our sideline, we are showing that we
[23:01] are centring the driveway right in the centre of the
[23:04] driveway opposite to this proposed a lot. And basically this
[23:11] is the main element that kind of set the severance
[23:15] line on the lot to have an access, as well
[23:19] as for region of fuel connections, uh, there is an
[23:22] existing connection. So for two houses across mitigance lane that
[23:27] was several two years ago and as well, we are
[23:30] lining up with those connections to make a possible connection
[23:33] in the best easiest way. Thank you. Mrs. Robinson. Thank
[23:38] you Mr. Chairman. I didn't hear you mention anything about
[23:42] the drainage. And we have letters in our file. In
[23:47] our package here from neighbours that talk about the drainage
[23:51] that comes and the evidence even from other official documents
[23:55] from years ago about drainage that comes from those lots
[23:58] through this and kind of right through, if we could
[24:02] go, I don't know how to do the page number.
[24:05] I think it's page 58. If whoever's, who was on
[24:10] the. Yeah, Evan, if you could go to, it's appendix
[24:15] 4A, that's it. That's it. That's the one I'm looking
[24:18] at. So that drainage is going to come down and
[24:23] through this lot. And there is no storm sewer. So
[24:28] I see the catch base in there, but that is,
[24:32] and they showed us pictures of a lot of standing
[24:35] water. So, and I know that it sounds like it
[24:40] didn't get flagged by engineering, but I have a serious
[24:43] concern about how you're going to deal with this. And
[24:46] so maybe you've studied it. Can you tell us how
[24:49] you're going to deal with that stormwater that's going to
[24:52] come down to this lot. Well, uh, we were planning
[24:57] to address it by our grading plan working with engineering
[25:01] department. And if there is an existing condition, as we
[25:05] see on the screen right now, I think it's a
[25:07] perfect opportunity to fix it and get the drainage corrected
[25:12] to the way it should be to prevent from flooding
[25:15] any adjacent properties. Uh, this is the condition of grading
[25:19] approval not to have any impact on the neighbours. And
[25:22] that's exactly what we are planning to do. And as
[25:25] well as there is an existing condition, which is not
[25:28] satisfactory. I think it's a perfect opportunity to address it
[25:32] and regrade the site properly that would satisfy the departments.
[25:40] The problem is when I look at this, that blue
[25:43] area that's on the, the big blue area on the
[25:46] neighbor's property as well. So they have low lying land
[25:50] there. So this, it's not that easy for you to
[25:52] just independently on your lot. Deal with it. Janice, this
[25:56] is the neighbour that provided this. It's not from an
[25:59] engineer. So at the end of the day, we've got
[26:01] comments in our file. And I'm going to read them
[26:03] out so the neighbour realised in everybody else does. The
[26:06] applicants consultant engineer will be required to prepare an overall
[26:09] grading service and drainage plans, which contain sufficient details to
[26:12] ensure grading compatibility with the adjacent lands and submit the
[26:16] grading and drainage proposal to this department for review and
[26:18] approval. That's prior to the certificate being issued. And then
[26:22] there's another lock grading and drainage where we advise the
[26:25] applicant that issuance of any building permits for the new
[26:29] dolland will be subject to the owner submitting a certified
[26:31] lock rating and drainage plan of this department for review
[26:34] and approval. So it's going to be looked at twice.
[26:36] So at the end of the day, we've got the
[26:38] engine, the professionals in our building and they're going to
[26:40] have to get their own engineers. If they don't meet
[26:42] it and it does cause these problems, then they're not
[26:45] going to get their severance application. My suggestion would be
[26:48] that, um, Alexander, if we can send these documents to
[26:53] Mr. Jacobice or whomever is down there. So they've got
[26:56] that so that when they do review it, they've got
[26:59] some information from some of the neighbours of what has
[27:02] occurred. And then they can take a look at it.
[27:03] Uh, any other questions, Mr. Page. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Clarification
[27:08] may be in favor of one of the residents letters
[27:11] that we saw. So even based on this sketch here,
[27:15] the access to the drive is two city right -
[27:20] of - way, correct? Not Madigan's Lane, private owned or
[27:22] any of that stuff. It's all owned by the city.
[27:24] Is that correct? Yes, correct. Thank you very much. Any
[27:27] other questions. Alexander Comments, please. City has no objections to
[27:31] the application. Uh, two letters of objection, one letter of
[27:35] concern we received as a result of this circulation, as
[27:37] this is a deferred file. And you know, previous emissions
[27:39] that have not been amended remain enforced and effect. One
[27:41] member of the public has pre - registered speak. Thank
[27:43] you. Have you seen the draft conditions you satisfied with
[27:46] them? Yes, sir. Okay. So you've gone over a seat
[27:49] for a moment. We'll see if the neighbours want to
[27:51] speak. If you want to speak, just come up, give
[27:52] us your name and address and comments. Good afternoon, sir.
[28:02] Good afternoon. Um, I have submitted a PowerPoint presentation that,
[28:07] yeah, we go to the next one, please. My wife,
[28:13] I'm the owner occupant or myself and my wife are
[28:15] the only occupant of 1366 Madigan's Lane. This is a
[28:19] view of the back of our property. In this summer.
[28:22] Next slide, please. This is a condition that we created.
[28:28] The dark hatch section is Madigan's Lane. The brown section
[28:31] is city property with the catch base involved. That white,
[28:37] the green hatched area is the subject property 751. And
[28:42] the purple hatch property is our property. Next slide, please.
[28:46] This is a spring view of the flooding that occurs
[28:50] in these areas. Um, we are, we have an easement
[28:54] over Madigan's land. We do not own Madigan's lane. And
[28:57] we cannot at one point because this flooding became so
[29:00] significant. We attempted to connect to city sanitary service and
[29:06] water. And we could not do that because we don't
[29:10] have an easement beneath the land. Next slide, please. More
[29:16] of the flooding that is evident in the springtime. Next.
[29:22] Recently five years ago we had to relocate our septic
[29:27] system weeping tile because of the flooding that was occurring
[29:30] and increasingly every year. So we, we had to extend
[29:33] it back to the rear of the property. In order
[29:36] to dispose of sanitary sewers and household water. Um, next
[29:41] slide, please. Subsequently two years later, this did not alleviate
[29:47] all our problems. And we had to create an additional
[29:49] drainage ditch within our property and a catch base to
[29:53] pump water from the back of our property. To Madigan's
[29:56] lane to keep the house inhabitable. And serviced. Next slide,
[30:02] please. This is the subject property. A number of years
[30:06] ago, the owner applied to Billet a swimming pool, as
[30:09] you'll see in the slide. The areas were pointing out
[30:11] here as a drainage swell that was required in order
[30:14] to build the swimming pool. The proposed property will be
[30:18] directly on top of this drain its will. Next slide,
[30:22] please. This is a letter that was sent to between
[30:27] works and retired councillor Mullen. 35 years ago. Uh, dealing
[30:33] with these drainage issues. And outlining the fact that the
[30:38] drainage in Madden's lane is severe. But our property is
[30:43] a natural drainage swell that runs from Terran Boulevard to
[30:46] the catch base and recently installed on Madison Lane to
[30:49] evacuate water from the adjoining properties. Next slide, please. The
[30:57] proposed consent application fails to satisfy the criteria set out
[31:01] in 5124 of the Ontario Planning Act, natural assets, conservation,
[31:05] natural resources, flood control and environmental protection. Next. The proposed
[31:14] minor variants application fails to meet the four tests under
[31:17] sexual. Sorry, sir. Yeah. There is no minor variances. So,
[31:20] um, because they've drawn the saw we're dealing with is
[31:23] the severance, which is we can only adjudicate under section
[31:26] 5124. So if you want to continue speaking about the
[31:29] flooding and so forth, under that section, that's fine. But
[31:32] this is not, we can't take this into consideration because
[31:35] we're not, the variance and we can't look at the
[31:37] four tests under 5124. Okay. Next slide, please. Mrs. Sago
[31:44] official plan. As designated Clarkson and Lauren Park of low
[31:49] density generous front and reside yards designated for local communities.
[31:54] The application represents a departure from the existing Lanti Fabric
[31:57] in the established neighbourhood creates undersized uniquely shaped loss that
[32:00] do not exist in the neighbourhood is a significant deviation
[32:04] from the lighting pattern in the immediate neighbourhood, which is
[32:07] characterized predominantly by narrower, deeper lots with large rear yards.
[32:12] Next slide. Mrs. Salga official plan requires infill development in
[32:18] the neighbourhood to be compatible with the surrounding area. It
[32:20] is not. Proposal creates a condition where lots with uncharacteristically
[32:26] shallow love dabs interface with adjacent properties to the west
[32:30] and to the north. The proposed shallow rear yard depths
[32:34] will result in a dwelling that will overlook the rear
[32:36] and side yards of adjacent properties to the west and
[32:39] decide yard of the property to the north. Next slide,
[32:42] please. As our position that the consent should be denied
[32:47] because serious flooding concerns in the property and adjoining properties
[32:50] does not meet the criteria set up in the Ontario
[32:53] planning act does not be conformed with the Mississauga official
[32:56] plan. And there exists at 3. 3 metre reserve at
[33:00] the proposed entry to the new lot, which is there
[33:04] specifically to prevent this type of development. We ask that
[33:07] that reserve be kept. Thank you. Thank you. Um, just
[33:11] a couple things. Number one is the condition with regards
[33:14] to the existing 0. 3 metre reserve. It's part of,
[33:17] uh, staff's comments that that has to be lifted by
[33:19] staff. So they've got to deal with this planning department
[33:23] and or sorry, uh, transition works and deal with that
[33:27] reserve being lifted. So it's up to them staff to
[33:30] do that. Um, with regards to the official plan and
[33:33] missaga plan staff, planning staff had reviewed it. They feel
[33:36] that the lots do not need any zoning. They don't
[33:38] need any variances. They meet the zorning requirements and official
[33:41] plan. So they feel comfortable that it meets that. Your
[33:44] flooding concerns are, uh, you know, I mean, showing the
[33:48] pitchers that you've shown. The only thing that I can
[33:50] tell you, I'm not sure how this is going to
[33:51] go, but if it does get approved, um, or even
[33:54] if it doesn't, I'm going to suggest to the Secretary
[33:58] of Treasure that he has the, um, individuals that are
[34:02] in charge of the, uh, development and construction down in
[34:05] the south reach out to you, um, we send them
[34:08] a copy of what you've got so that if they
[34:10] are going to evaluate this application, um, when the, uh,
[34:14] owner, the agent, um, presents them with trainage plans and
[34:19] so forth that they can see what the issues are.
[34:22] So it's not like, because if you go down now,
[34:24] it's probably nice and dry. Whereas in the spring or
[34:27] the fall or whenever it rains, it becomes a different
[34:29] story. Or when the snow melts or whatever it is.
[34:32] So, um, if we do move forward with it, I'm
[34:34] going to suggest that they do, we pass your information
[34:37] on to them. And then they can reach out to
[34:39] you. You can have a discussion with them to give
[34:40] them the lay of the land. No pun intended of
[34:43] what's occurring down there. Okay. Committee members, do you have
[34:46] any questions for the neighbour. No. Thank you for your
[34:49] comments. We appreciate it. Thank you. Sir, if you want
[34:52] to come back to the podium. So, I mean, you've
[35:02] got drainage. It seems like you may potentially have drainage
[35:05] issues. You see, or I don't know if you can
[35:06] overcome them or not. I mean, but obviously, um, comments
[35:11] from development and construction, um, and the conditions that you've
[35:15] agreed to, you're going to have to get those things
[35:17] signed off. You're going to have to get signed off
[35:19] the release of the 0. 3 metre reserve. So the
[35:22] homework that you have to do, uh, I'm going to,
[35:24] as I said, if we do move forward with this,
[35:26] I'm going to suggest to the Secretary Treasurer that the
[35:30] contact, you contact the neighbour, maybe Alexander, give them the
[35:33] contact information of who's ever in charge with whoever made
[35:36] the comments on this so that they can, um, get
[35:40] in contact with them and see the whole lay of
[35:43] the line. To you, Mr. Chair, I can provide development
[35:45] engineering construction with these materials. They would already have access
[35:48] to them anyways through the internal system. And they're contact
[35:50] information is in their comment. Okay. Um, so my recommendation
[35:54] to you is when you do your drainage plan, I
[35:56] think you need to take into consideration the property to
[35:58] the north or wherever, you know, properties around you and
[36:01] how it drains and not to impact. Because what we've
[36:04] seen on the slide here, um, if you're not going
[36:06] to be able to resolve that, I'm not sure you're
[36:08] going to be getting your severance, your certificate for approval,
[36:12] if this goes through. So just so you're aware of
[36:14] that. Okay. Uh, yes, of course, sir. And yeah, just
[36:17] for the neighbour, I don't know if you have comments
[36:20] from, uh, development and construction. In the individual's contact information
[36:25] should be on there. If you don't have it, call
[36:27] a Committee of Adjustment Office tomorrow and they'll give it
[36:30] to you. And then you can reach out to them
[36:31] and just have a conversation with them to let them
[36:33] know. And we'll share this stuff with them. But I
[36:35] think it's a good idea if you reach out to
[36:37] them. Okay. Um, Community members, any questions or comments. Ready
[36:41] for a motion that Mr. Page. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Move
[36:45] approval of the severance application. The run ovariance applications. But,
[36:50] uh, with due regard to section 5124, I think it's
[36:54] appropriate to approve subject to the, uh, draft conditions that
[36:59] have been discussed. I think it's appropriate. Um, you know,
[37:03] it is in conformance of the official plan, which is
[37:05] a consideration of 5124. It's a single family residence in
[37:09] a single family residence neighbourhood. The new official plan accommodates
[37:13] changes. And it's, you know, the zoning by - law
[37:16] backs that up. So I think it's appropriate, Mr. Chair.
[37:19] Thank you. Do you have a sector, Mr. Rowan. Thank
[37:22] you, Mr. Chairman. I'll second the motion. Discussion on the
[37:25] motion, Mrs. Robinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm not going
[37:29] to support the motion. And I think that the not,
[37:33] if the drainage edition wasn't there, I'd be fine with
[37:35] it. No other issues with it. But I'm, what my
[37:40] concern is that it can't properly be dealt with. And
[37:43] then he has an approval in his hand that cannot
[37:46] be properly addressed. And I can see that there's some
[37:52] pretty extreme flooding there. And the applicants themselves, they've looked
[37:58] at everything else and they had no answer as to
[38:01] what they've looked at for the drainage to prepare for
[38:04] this hearing. And like no answers at all. And so
[38:09] I think it's premature. And so I don't support the
[38:12] motion. Mr. Page. Thank you. I appreciate Mrs. Robinson's comments.
[38:17] Um, I took that into consideration. There's a catch base
[38:20] in there. Excuse me very close by that says that
[38:24] the city probably has, uh, some capability already of dealing
[38:28] with that water. The rest is quite frankly in Mississauga,
[38:32] Toronto. It's very common to have these kinds of issues.
[38:35] Uh, it's an engineering issue. And, uh, it's a condition
[38:39] from the city. I think if they thought it was
[38:41] irresolvable, I would take it. And we've seen it before
[38:43] that they would comment on that. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Yeah.
[38:46] I'm going to support the motion as well for those
[38:47] same reasons. I think I'm not an expert on drainage.
[38:50] I'm not an expert on any of that stuff. I
[38:51] do have obviously some concerns with the drainage or the
[38:55] presentation that the neighbour gave. But again, we have professionals
[38:59] here that are going to review those. There's two cases
[39:01] where they have to be reviewed before they get their
[39:04] severance application certificate. And number two is when they apply
[39:07] for their building permit. As Mr. Page has said that
[39:10] typically if there's issues that they don't think can be
[39:14] resolved. They would have put a comment in there that
[39:17] they couldn't support the application. And that's not what we
[39:19] see. So, um, I think I am going to support
[39:21] the motion subject to the draft conditions. All those in
[39:24] favor. Any opposed. So your application has been approved by
[39:29] the committee. It's in accordance with the draft conditions. Um,
[39:32] that you presented today. Okay. Thank you. And as I
[39:36] said for the neighbours, if you don't have the number
[39:39] from development construction, just call the committee tomorrow. They'll give
[39:42] it to you. Then I would reach out to them.
[39:44] And they're going to have to do thorough review. And
[39:46] I think having the documentation that you've shown, I think
[39:50] is going to help them make that review. And at
[39:51] the end of the day, they may think that it's
[39:53] not possible to provide drainage. That isn't going to impact
[39:56] other properties. And then the severance won't be approved. So
[39:59] or won't, they won't get the certificate. Okay. Um, Community
[40:03] members, no, I think the next application is number A228
[40:08] located at 5140 artist Lane. Is there anybody in the
[40:12] eyes as an interest in this application? Now Alexander, if
[40:16] you'd like to introduce the agent of the applicant place.
[40:18] Yes, Mr. Chair for this application. We have Ravi Patel.
[40:20] Ravi, you've been unmuted. You can go ahead. Robbie, you've
[40:29] been unmuted. You can go ahead.
[40:40] Can you hear me now? Yep, we can hear you.
[40:43] Hey, Mr. Chair, I really Patilla and designated by Jane
[40:47] Street. We are architect for the project. So Mr. Pat,
[40:51] you don't have any, uh, there's nobody in the audience
[40:53] nor as anybody online that wish to address committee on
[40:56] this application. So if you want to give us a
[40:58] brief presentation on what you're looking at doing, please. Uh,
[41:01] sure. So we have this SP application approved houses under
[41:06] construction. We had a previous manner whereon supplication regarding the
[41:10] setbacks from the DAC and the stairs to the greenland
[41:12] zone. It's more of a technicality. It was left over
[41:15] at the zoning application. Uh, which was dealt through the
[41:18] last minute variance application, but there were hundreds of number
[41:22] and somehow was just one unit was missed for that.
[41:25] So we are just back for that one unit that
[41:27] was left over. Community members, any questions or comments. Alexander
[41:32] Comments, please. The city has no objections to the application.
[41:35] The applicant may wish you defer the application to ensure
[41:36] all variances have been identified. Staff are recommending an amendment.
[41:40] It's sort of breaking the variance into two and just
[41:42] noting that there's also, um, a deck inclusive of stairs
[41:45] at the same setback. No written submissions were received, no
[41:48] members of the public have pre - registered speak. Thank
[41:50] you. Mr. Patel, you satisfied to mend the application reflect
[41:53] planning staff's comments. Yes. Community members, that's why I do
[41:57] men. Application has been amended. Questions or comments? No. Ready
[42:00] for a motion then? Mrs. Robinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[42:03] I'll move approval of this application. It's a technical variance,
[42:07] really just something that got overlooked. And it meets the
[42:09] four tests. And as amended. And I think it's going
[42:13] through the process. So I don't think we need to
[42:14] make it subject to the plans. Thank you, Dove Seconder.
[42:18] Mr. Dale. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll second the motion.
[42:22] Committee members, any discussion on the motion? All those in
[42:25] favor. Any opposed? Sir, your application has been approved as
[42:30] amended. In general coins with the plants, did you say
[42:33] that? Didn't know. Okay. No, no, no. Um, so it's
[42:36] been approved as amended. Thank you, Mr. Have a good
[42:42] day. Next application is A235 located 878 Silver Birch Trails.
[42:48] Is there any in the aids has an interest in
[42:49] this application? Are you the neighbours? Okay. Alexander, if you
[42:54] want to introduce the age in the applicant, please. Yes.
[42:56] Mr. Chair, for this application, we have MUBARA Canazoe Mubarak.
[43:00] You've been unmuted. You can go ahead. Yes, thank you
[43:04] very much. Uh, dear Mr. Schirr and the Committee member.
[43:08] My name is Mubarakano Zoei from M. Kana's architecture. Have
[43:12] you seen planning staff's comments. Yes. Yes. So they're suggesting
[43:17] to refusal. So I'm going to give you one or
[43:20] two options. You can either defer the application and sit
[43:23] down with planning staff. And look at, um, redesigning this.
[43:27] I know it's been built, but that's not a reason
[43:29] for us to even approve the application. You can't ask
[43:33] for forgiveness. And or you can present today knowing that,
[43:37] um, staff's asking to refusal. I'm not supportive of. I'm
[43:40] not sure what the rest of the committee members think.
[43:42] Um, let me take a quick poll and then give
[43:44] you some more information. You can decide what you want
[43:46] to do, Mr. Page? Yeah, I'm not in favor. This
[43:48] needs to be deferred, please. Mr. Rowan. Thank you, Mr.
[43:51] Chairman. I agree. It should be deferred. It's too wide.
[43:54] Too many cars across. And then the landscaping is the
[43:57] soft landscaping as this G minimal. Same thing. Too wide.
[44:02] Mr. Dale. Yeah, it's far too excessive. Mr. Ellis. Yes,
[44:06] I can support this app. So sir, having known that,
[44:10] what do you want to do. Uh, yeah, I, um,
[44:15] let me know upset about, uh, the, uh, the refusal,
[44:19] but, uh, if the chance that we can, uh, we
[44:23] can talk about that to CTF Committee to get approval.
[44:27] You want to have a promo for driveway. Do you
[44:30] want to defer it or do you want to present
[44:31] today and get refused. Um. I was deferring. Do you
[44:40] want to give us a date, please? Yes, Mr. Chair.
[44:43] Uh, I would suggest we could bring this back on
[44:45] the 19th of November. That would give the applicant until
[44:49] October 9th to submit any revisions and pay the deferral
[44:53] fee. So sir, are you able to come back on
[44:56] November the 19th. Is any close I did? You can
[45:01] have the, Mr. Chair. I would suggest we can leave
[45:05] this on the 19th if the applicant is ready to
[45:07] go sooner. Um, we can bring them back on a
[45:10] sooner date. That's not an issue. Um, but I would
[45:12] suggest leaving on the 19th just as like a sort
[45:14] of a backs up. And again, to any neighbours who
[45:16] are here, if you've been notified the first time or
[45:17] if you've written in, you'll get another notice for the
[45:19] next hearing date. So what we're going to do is
[45:21] we'll leave it on the 19th. If you're able to
[45:24] sit with staff and come up to some conclusion and
[45:29] come back to the committee earlier, we'll get you on
[45:31] an earlier agenda. If not, it's the 19th. My suggestion
[45:33] is to reach out to the planner. Uh, I don't
[45:35] know if you know who they are. If you don't
[45:37] call committee office tomorrow, they'll give you the planner's name.
[45:40] And, um, I would, um, yeah, look at, you know,
[45:44] you heard the committee. If you come back with the
[45:46] exact same application, you're going to get turned down. Um,
[45:48] I would sit with staff and see if the may
[45:51] still need a variance. But not to the same extent
[45:53] that you've applied for today. Okay. Committee member satisfied to
[45:57] defer. So application has been deferred for the neighbours. Um,
[46:00] if you want to sign the sheet on the, uh,
[46:04] on that table there, we'll make sure that we renodify
[46:07] it. It's for the 19th. If it's earlier, you'll get,
[46:10] if you've signed up, we'll give you a notice. And
[46:11] you're more than welcome to come back. Um, they're going
[46:13] to look at redesigning it. So we'll see what happens
[46:16] when they come back to the committee and what they,
[46:18] what they're going to do. Okay. So in 19th November
[46:24] 19th. Okay. Okay. Committee members, so that's why I did
[46:28] defer. But the hearing dates on November 19th, you got
[46:31] to do your homework over the next two to three
[46:32] weeks. So don't think you're just coming back on the
[46:34] 19th with outdoing some stuff beforehand. So contact the committee
[46:38] office, get the planner's number and sit down with them
[46:41] and meet with them and then go through the, uh,
[46:45] you know, discussion and see where you end up. Okay.
[46:48] And through you, Mr. Chair, our office will send an
[46:50] email to the applicant either today or tomorrow with step
[46:52] by step instructions on what to do. Okay. Great. Thanks,
[46:54] Alexander. So application has been deferred to November the 19th.
[46:58] Uh, anybody that has come in later online 8237 at
[47:04] 6660 Kennedy Road has been deferred. There is no date
[47:07] that, uh, has been set up for that one. So
[47:10] then the next application is A241 located at 7 Elmwood
[47:15] Avenue North. Is there anybody in the eye that says
[47:17] an interest in this application? Okay. Sir. We're going to
[47:23] have them present. And then you can come up and
[47:25] make your comments. Okay. Good afternoon.
[47:35] Good afternoon. Glenn Brohl from Glenn Schnarn Associates here representing
[47:38] the owners of 7 Elmwood Avenue north. Um, you do
[47:42] have favorable planning staff comments, but there are members in
[47:46] the audience. I think they may be some people online
[47:48] that wish to address committees. So if you can give
[47:50] us a fullsome presentation, please. I will. Thank you very
[47:53] much. Um, I have a presentation up. Um, just an
[47:57] opening remarks. We're here for a 25 unit purpose built
[48:03] rental building. Um, the owners of the property of partnered
[48:07] with a nonprofit housing provider. And the units that I'm
[48:10] going to talk about today have been designed to serve
[48:13] aging tenants, an older demographic who are seeking long -
[48:17] term housing stability on the lance. So there are four
[48:20] minor variances that I will walk through for you today.
[48:24] If we can go to the next slide. Next slide,
[48:31] please. Perfect. Uh, outlined in turquoise blue. Oops, we lost.
[48:38] Mr. Bro, sorry. Can you just maybe, um, pull your
[48:42] mic up a little bit, just so that you can
[48:44] be heard a little bit better. Yeah. Sorry about that.
[48:47] Is that better? Okay. And turquoise blue on the east
[48:51] side of Almwood Avenue just north of Lake Shore Road
[48:55] east, which is just east of here, Ontario. You'll see
[48:58] the property. It's, uh, about 0. 17 acres, a 50
[49:02] foot lot. Uh, that abuts a city of Mississaugan Municipal
[49:06] parking lot. Although it doesn't look like a parking lot
[49:08] at the moment, um, as it's being used for some
[49:11] construction. The next slide, please.
[49:28] I have a paper copy. I'm happy to walk through
[49:30] if that's, uh, if that's easier. Yeah. You know what
[49:36] guys, can you just switch it to the overhead, please?
[49:39] Mr. Bro, if you want to grab the other mic.
[49:52] Are located with the arrow, it shows that it's in
[49:56] a main, a mixed use designation within the poor credit
[50:01] plan. The lands are, again, aligned in turquoise. The main
[50:08] street neighbourhood. This is, uh, height schedule within the official
[50:11] plan that notes permission for land uses between two and
[50:15] four stories in height. The subject property is zoned C4.
[50:23] - 66, which is a Main Street commercial zoning. The
[50:27] Main Street Commercial Zoning does allow for, uh, on apartment
[50:30] building to be located on these lands. And as I
[50:35] move into the individual minor variances. The first variance that's
[50:40] before you today is to vary the height permission in
[50:45] the C4 zoning. C4 zoning today allows for three stories
[50:50] and 12. 5 metres of height. The proposal is to
[50:54] stay within the 12. 5 metres of height, but add
[50:57] an additional story. It's a B4 stories underneath the 12.
[51:02] 5 metre height limit. The second variance is the north
[51:08] property line. And that's on the left side of the
[51:11] drawing. It's a landscape buffer of 0. 9 metres. Where
[51:17] 4. 5 metres is required. Now the point nine where
[51:21] my arrow is illustrating is showing where the, uh, actual
[51:25] limit of the landscape buffer is. It actually narrows, as
[51:31] you move in further to the site. We have a
[51:34] 0. 9 located in this area. If we were to
[51:37] look at the organisation of the site, we have vehicular
[51:41] access off of Elmoid and the building that fronts Elmwood.
[51:46] The entrance driveway into access three parking spaces. Means there's
[51:51] only so much land left to accommodate the landscape buffer.
[51:56] As you move beyond the parking spaces, there is areas
[52:00] for bikes to be parked. And then there's a 4.
[52:03] 7 metre setback between the property line and the building.
[52:06] That's not all landscape buffer. It's actually amenity area and
[52:10] a combination of planting and hard surface material. The 3rd
[52:18] minor variants is an adjustment to the, uh, accessible parking
[52:23] spaces. Committee would be aware the type A and a
[52:26] type B type of parking to accommodate accessible. Um, access
[52:31] into spaces. Rather than, uh, well, the proposal is for
[52:35] a total of one type B parking space, which is
[52:39] essentially 2. 4 metres wide with a 1. 5 metre
[52:43] IL access for access into the handicap parking space. This
[52:49] will allow two additional regular spaces to be accommodated on
[52:53] the site. Um, it's frankly not a variance that we
[52:58] ask for often, but the way that this site lays
[53:01] out, it does provide for an accessible parking space and
[53:04] gives the opportunity for two additional spaces. If the accommodation
[53:08] was to meet the one type A parking space, then
[53:12] it could be accommodated, but there'd be one less, uh,
[53:16] additional space on the surface. So, uh, we have worked
[53:19] with staff for the, I'd say slightly unusual ask for
[53:23] an adjustment to the accessible spaces. Um, but you'll see
[53:27] that it is being supported by staff. And we'd ask
[53:29] for your approval on that as well. The final minor
[53:36] variants is with respect to the Main Street commercial zoning
[53:41] anticipates commercial on a ground floor with residential units up
[53:45] above. It then asks that the residential component of the
[53:50] ground floor be minimized, but doesn't occupy all of the
[53:54] frontage, given that this is an apartment building and there
[53:57] is no commercial. It's logical to think that, uh, for
[54:04] residential. We've worked with zoning to understand the interpretation of
[54:08] the exact percentage. And the final variance is to ask
[54:12] for 46 percent of the frontage to be accommodating the
[54:16] front entrance to the building rather than the 25 percent
[54:20] that would be set. We do believe that these four
[54:24] variances are minor in nature. They will facilitate this application
[54:29] being continued through the site plant approval process. There have
[54:32] been multiple submissions that have been made. And, uh, with
[54:36] the approval of these variances, they can move to site
[54:40] plant approval. The building permit is, uh, underway in process.
[54:45] Uh, we think the location is appropriate for this type
[54:47] of use. It's 25 units. And it's appropriate in this
[54:53] location. So with that, I'd ask for your approval today.
[54:57] And of course, happy to answer, he questions. Thanks, Mr.
[55:02] Bolt. Mr. Page. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Mr. Bro, I know
[55:05] that staff confirms that the 12 and a half metres
[55:08] meets a zoning bylaw. No variances required. Um, but maybe
[55:12] a bit of clarification for the benefit of, uh, neighbours.
[55:16] Uh, what's the required setback from that North property line
[55:20] to the building. Do you know. Four and a half
[55:24] metres. Four and a half and you're giving them what?
[55:26] 4. 7. Thank you very much. Mr. Ellis, is your
[55:30] hand up or was that from before? Yes, it is.
[55:33] That was just how many parking spaces are there in
[55:35] total for this facility. I think the three parking spaces
[55:39] in total. My understanding, uh, Stephen, if I'm not mistaken,
[55:45] I think they don't require any parking here. They, do
[55:49] they fall within that catch basin of massive transit hubs?
[55:52] No, it's not that they fall within the catch basin
[55:55] of the of the transit hub per se. It said,
[55:58] well, we're creating affordable housing units. They have relief with
[56:01] regards to the parking requirements. So, so technically they do
[56:04] not require any parking spaces if they wanted to do
[56:06] that. Not because of the transit, but because of the
[56:09] affordable housing, that is correct. That is correct. Okay. Committee
[56:13] members, any other questions or comments. Um, Mr. Bro, just
[56:17] to confirm that the height at 12 and a half,
[56:21] you're allowed. And I guess, um, because it's on commercial,
[56:24] they used to, three stories was because they wanted the
[56:27] first story to be a little bit taller for commercial.
[56:29] And then two above that. Correct? That's right. Does this
[56:32] have a, uh, does this building have a basement. When
[56:35] I was looking at the floor plan, I didn't see
[56:36] any. So there's some stuff that's on the basement, or
[56:40] sorry, on the 1st flow that I guess you could
[56:42] theoretically put on the basement. And go to three stories
[56:46] and create more, um, housing units on the first floor,
[56:50] which you're really not going to change the mix of
[56:52] the housing units that you're looking for. Like the enough
[56:54] here, uh, on your square footage that you're still able
[56:58] to get into that, uh, 20 unit amount. Yeah. There
[57:04] actually is a residential unit on that first floor as
[57:07] well. And yeah, the 25 units, um, fit on this
[57:11] property makes sense, putting other facilities, if you will, in
[57:16] the lower level. Um, certainly parking wouldn't work in the
[57:19] lower level because the room to have, uh, an underground,
[57:24] um, ramp to get there. Um, this was the best
[57:28] layout to have slab on grade, if you will. And
[57:31] then the four stories above. And, you know, the main
[57:33] street commercial properties, and it's, it's evident throughout the city
[57:38] and all the villages, if you will. It's, it's the
[57:42] idea of having 12. 5 metres, you're right. It's, it's
[57:45] a higher commercial ground floor level, but it could be
[57:49] higher office on the next levels. Um, this seems to
[57:53] be, um, appropriate when you're dealing with residential to have
[57:57] ceilings that aren't super high to fit that. But a
[58:01] logical size that fits within the 12 and a half
[58:04] metres. And I think there's a, is a bit of
[58:07] a conflict between what the official plan suggests for the
[58:10] Main Street commercial, which actually does allow you to go
[58:12] up to four stories. And the C4 zoning that would
[58:15] suggest its three stories. So we're just trying to sort
[58:19] of marry the two together. Thank you. Committee members, any
[58:23] questions? If not, Alexander Comments, please. The city is no
[58:26] objections to the application as amended. Um, zoning Sephard just
[58:29] noting that variants 3 should actually be reversed. One type
[58:31] of B is being provided. Whereas one type A is
[58:34] required. It was circulated the other way around. Six letters
[58:38] of concern, five letters of objection were received. Three members
[58:41] of the public have preregistered to speak. Mr. Bro, you're
[58:46] wishing to amend the applications planning staff's comments with regards
[58:50] to the, um, handicap parking? Yes, we are. Committee member
[58:53] satisfied domain. So application has been amended. If you want
[58:56] to have a seat for a moment, I know the
[58:57] neighbours that may wish to address committee. Funding neighbours wish
[59:00] to address committee. Please just come up. Give us your
[59:02] name, your address and any concerns that you may have.
[59:15] Good afternoon, sir. Good afternoon. My name is David Hammond.
[59:18] I live at 17 Elamod Avenue North. My first concern
[59:24] is the, uh. It's already zoned. For commercial. C. 466.
[59:36] The first issue I'm concerned about is that increasing it
[59:40] from three stories to four stories in the same height.
[59:44] Obviously you're losing ceiling space. The other thing I'm concerned
[59:49] about is the depths of the landscape buffer. It's.
[59:58] Approximately. I'm old school. At three feet. Versus 14
[1:00:08] feet. That's quite a difference. I don't think that's a
[1:00:11] minor variance. Um, with regard to the parking. I
[1:00:21] can see why they might want three parking spots versus
[1:00:24] the one. I'm not too objecting on that one. The
[1:00:29] streetwall story. They're wanting to, first of all.
[1:00:40] It's, the first story is required at 25 percent by
[1:00:44] the bylaw. They want to increase it to 46 percent.
[1:00:48] That's a pretty narrow hundred percent increase. I'm not in
[1:00:53] agreement with that one. An apartment building in the area,
[1:01:03] there is none. In the immediate area. This would be
[1:01:07] definitely setting a precedent. The lot is 50 feet by
[1:01:12] 150. That lot is the only one that's 150 feet
[1:01:16] on the street. The 25
[1:01:25] units, uh, on a single lot. It's a little bit
[1:01:31] excessive. There's lots only 50 feet wide.
[1:01:42] Please bear with me. I'm just looking at my notes.
[1:01:48] With regard to all these things I commented on. I
[1:01:51] don't agree that any of them are what you would
[1:01:54] call a minor variance. They're excessive. There already is no
[1:02:03] parking on Elamout Avenue. So where would, uh, visitors park,
[1:02:11] where would delivers take place. Caregivers, support workers, taxis. And
[1:02:19] moving trucks, waste collection. All these kinds of things. And
[1:02:29] any emergency that would arise as a result of 25
[1:02:33] units. On one piece of property. It's more or less,
[1:02:40] in my opinion. And I understand that other people have
[1:02:44] submitted similar things. 25 units is not appropriate.
[1:02:55] There is also a concern that right across the street.
[1:02:59] On the west side of Ellenwood. There is a new
[1:03:03] proposal. Being put in place. I'm not sure the story
[1:03:08] of the number of stories because it's indescription. It's not,
[1:03:14] it has not been decided of what they're going to
[1:03:16] do. And then I ask the committee to respectfully decline
[1:03:23] this. Application as proposed today. I have no objection. To
[1:03:31] a senior facility. I think it's a good idea. For
[1:03:35] these types of people. As I said before, it's setting
[1:03:39] a precedent in the area. That is not existing. And
[1:03:45] you ask the question of the other fella. About a
[1:03:49] basement. There's no basement. Um. I don't quite understand how
[1:03:56] they would be able to support a four story building.
[1:04:00] With no basement. Is the ground stable enough? Has that
[1:04:06] been taken? Well, those are, those are, those are things
[1:04:08] I'll have to get past that the building permit stage.
[1:04:11] That's got nothing to do with us. But just to
[1:04:13] address some of your points, first of all, the 25
[1:04:16] units are not asking for, uh, they're not here for
[1:04:19] approval for that. They're allowed to do that as of
[1:04:21] right. Um, as far as the setback, like when you,
[1:04:25] you're talking about percentage points, percentage numbers, from a committee
[1:04:29] perspective, when we, when we adjudicate an application, it's the
[1:04:32] intent of the bylaw, um, so when you look at
[1:04:35] this, because this is on commercial, we have to look
[1:04:38] at what the intent of the bylight four and a
[1:04:40] half metre setback was. So if this was more of
[1:04:43] an office building, you'd want that four and a half
[1:04:45] metre setback because you've got surface parking, et cetera, up
[1:04:47] against residential houses, or you want sight lines at corners
[1:04:52] and so forth, where we don't have that here. The
[1:04:55] other thing too is you're right. Across the street, I
[1:04:57] think it's a 12 or 15 story building that's going
[1:04:59] on. Um, right here, you've got the LCBO, I think
[1:05:05] the house is commercial. And so is the parking lot
[1:05:09] that the city owns at some point, um, sometimes you've
[1:05:13] got to look at what could happen versus what is
[1:05:15] happening. Someone could accumulate those properties and build a massive
[1:05:20] building there. You know, this has taken away from that.
[1:05:25] Um, it is affordable housing that's needed. It's for seniors.
[1:05:28] Um, and so at the end of the day, as
[1:05:30] a committee, we need to look at, um, the variances
[1:05:33] that are requested adjudicate them versus the four tests and
[1:05:36] then make a decision based on that. And, um, so
[1:05:39] sometimes at the end of the day, when you look
[1:05:40] at something like this, if it does go through, it
[1:05:43] almost. In the long run can create a better situation
[1:05:46] for the neighbourhood because you're not going to have someone
[1:05:48] the ability to build a massive building using this property
[1:05:53] as well. Because now you've got like a transition zone
[1:05:56] if the other two properties ever get developed. So those
[1:05:58] are things that we, you know, we'll have to look
[1:05:59] at. But, uh, we'll take those comments into consideration your
[1:06:03] comments into consideration. I think Mr. Page has a question
[1:06:06] for you, Mr. Page. Thanks, Mr. Chair. I initially want
[1:06:09] to just first all what the proposal was. I thought
[1:06:12] about this street wall as well. Um, I think the
[1:06:15] intent of that was for much larger buildings and not
[1:06:18] have the mass and go all the way down. So
[1:06:20] just for me, IRV strikes you just for me. It's
[1:06:22] a very narrow building. Um, so I think that kind
[1:06:25] of helped, but I had a similar thought, I think,
[1:06:28] to you as well. But I resolved it with it.
[1:06:30] That's just not a very wide building. Thank you, Mr.
[1:06:32] Chair. Mediums, any other questions or comments. Thank you, sir.
[1:06:38] We appreciate your comments. We'll take those into consideration when
[1:06:40] we adjudicate the application. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for
[1:06:43] your time. Thank you. Is there anybody else that wishes
[1:06:45] to address committee on this application? Yeah. If so, please
[1:06:48] come forward. Just give us your name and address and
[1:06:50] comments, please. Hi, Mary
[1:07:00] Simpson with the town of Port Credit. Good afternoon. And
[1:07:04] I live at 61 Wesley Avenue import credit. Um, I
[1:07:09] just, I don't want to speak against the residents because
[1:07:11] they live with this. And that particular enclave of homes
[1:07:16] has been absolutely inundated with oversized, in full development. So
[1:07:21] I respect their concerns and frustration. We attended a meeting.
[1:07:26] We were invited to attend a meeting that was held
[1:07:28] by Andwell. Who is the operator back in June, 2025?
[1:07:32] And that included Francia Noni. It included the BIA. And
[1:07:36] Michael Spatziani, the architect. And we were, they, they presented
[1:07:40] to us, uh, and asked for feedback. And then it
[1:07:43] went quiet. And a couple of weeks ago, we were
[1:07:46] invited to attend an update meeting. And I think a
[1:07:49] lot of the issues that we had raised at the
[1:07:51] time were addressed. And for us, a big issue specifically
[1:07:55] in that area is the permeability. We've got so much
[1:07:59] flooding and poor drainage in our area in South Mississauga
[1:08:04] that have something else come in that's on a large
[1:08:06] footprint would just. Would just tip the boat. It's, it's
[1:08:11] a lot. What they've brought is a buffer zone that
[1:08:16] has permeability. Um, the parking, we're not as concerned about
[1:08:21] you have a parking lot in front of it. People
[1:08:23] on a limited income aren't looking for a place to
[1:08:26] park their car. They will have guests. They will have
[1:08:29] caregivers. There is a parking lot that's available for it
[1:08:32] plus the two parking spaces. Um, there is a buffer.
[1:08:36] There's a buffer. Um, they had shown us that the
[1:08:39] windows at the back of the, of the building were
[1:08:42] smaller for more privacy on, on yards in the back.
[1:08:46] That's not privacy. Trees are privacy and they have, they
[1:08:50] have introduced trees that they will be maintaining to create
[1:08:54] a natural buffer. Um, the height is in line with
[1:08:57] what the maximum is. For once we're not seeing something
[1:09:01] that's being overbuilt. We're not looking at, um, the planet
[1:09:05] organic site directly across the street that's coming in at
[1:09:08] 12 stories, which is insanity for an established neighbourhood. Um,
[1:09:13] so in that regard, we support what they're trying to
[1:09:16] do. Um, the need is there. The lack of need
[1:09:21] for parking for once is there. And the ability for
[1:09:25] the lands around it to be populated with trees, green
[1:09:30] space, amenity space and the permeable pavers, um, is, is,
[1:09:36] is a win in our books. Now, like I said,
[1:09:38] I don't want to detract the neighbor's live beside it.
[1:09:41] And we all know what happens when you're sitting beside
[1:09:43] or backing onto a high rise building that's being parachuted
[1:09:47] in. And we're, poor credit is under siege in that
[1:09:50] regard. Um, so people are understandably, um, concerned. It's quality
[1:09:57] of life. And I think in this instance, I think
[1:09:59] it can be done. And as you say, you've got
[1:10:02] a parking lot in front, an LCBO that may or
[1:10:05] may not last. And that site is very vulnerable to
[1:10:09] having a lot more come in. So we, we do
[1:10:11] support this. Um, again, it's the neighbours will speak. Um,
[1:10:17] but from what we've seen and the actions taken to
[1:10:20] try and mediate the impact, uh, we were impressed and
[1:10:24] we were pleased to see that, uh, steps were taken.
[1:10:27] Well, thank you, Mr. Simpson. That means a lot because
[1:10:29] I know how involved yarn in the community and you
[1:10:32] have been for many years and involved in poor credit
[1:10:35] and dealing with a lot of these redevelopments and so
[1:10:38] forth. So it's, it's, um, it's your comments are, you
[1:10:42] know, will be taken and will be taken into consideration
[1:10:46] and are meaningful because you have experienced the different many
[1:10:50] things that have happened in part credit over the years.
[1:10:52] Um, sorry, do you have any questions for the, no,
[1:10:54] Steven, did you want to make a comment. Thanks, Mr.
[1:10:57] Chair. Maybe just to highlight, I know the comments already
[1:11:00] with regards to concerns with regarding grading and drainage and
[1:11:03] so far with regards to the project. I just want
[1:11:06] to direct the committee's attention to the appendices with the
[1:11:09] report where development engineering has specifically stated that their concerns
[1:11:16] regarding this project will be handled through the site plant
[1:11:19] approval process. So it's not like it's not being heard
[1:11:21] or noticed. It's, it is being handled through a separate
[1:11:25] process to this. Great. Thanks, Steven. Um, is there anybody
[1:11:29] else in the audience that wishes address committee. No, Alexander,
[1:11:33] the one online that wishes to address committee. Yes, Mr.
[1:11:37] Chair. We have David Bailey online. David, you've been unmuted.
[1:11:41] You can go ahead. Right. Oh. Bye bye. Hello, Mr.
[1:11:46] Bailey. Mr. Bailey. Yeah. Hold on. I'm holding.
[1:11:57] It. That's okay. My apologies. No, no problem. Don't worry.
[1:12:00] Hey, listen stuff happens. Um, I'm not sure if you've
[1:12:03] heard some of the comments that were made. So just
[1:12:05] give us your address. And then just any new comments
[1:12:08] that maybe weren't covered by the residents. That'd be greatly
[1:12:11] appreciated. Thank you. Uh, good afternoon, share. And Committee members,
[1:12:17] my apologies for my entrance. I had a, I had
[1:12:19] a call right at the time that, uh, I knew
[1:12:22] my name would likely be called, uh, like Ms. Simpson.
[1:12:26] I am with top town of Poor Credit. I have
[1:12:29] been listening carefully to the, uh, residents comments and to
[1:12:35] Ms. Simpsons. I concur with Ms. Simpson's views. Uh, and,
[1:12:39] uh, I have also spoken with a number of the
[1:12:41] residents. So, uh, at this time, I'm going to thank
[1:12:44] you for calling me and also, uh, your indulgence. And,
[1:12:49] uh, I will, uh, move past any questions at this
[1:12:52] time. Thank you very much. Thanks, Mr. Bailey. Guess well,
[1:12:55] if you have any questions, I think he's gone. So
[1:12:58] that's anybody else, Alexander. Through you, Mr. Chair, we did
[1:13:05] have one other name registered here. Um, but I don't
[1:13:10] see them online. I'm not sure if the audience that
[1:13:13] wanted to speak on this application, but they don't appear
[1:13:17] to be online. I'll ask again. Is there anybody in
[1:13:19] the audience that has an interest in application A241 located
[1:13:24] at seven Elwood Avenue. No. Mr. Brawl. Any comments. Last
[1:13:32] parting words. Um, I think, and I'd appreciate the resident
[1:13:37] coming out speaking to the matter and the, the percentage
[1:13:40] of variances. And I do think Mr. Page, you outlined
[1:13:46] the width of the entrance. And it is an arrow
[1:13:48] building in order for us to comply to the 25
[1:13:51] percent. We'd actually be taking a window out of the
[1:13:53] front. And I think we want to portray a residential
[1:13:56] character. So the 46 percent, I think hopefully the resident
[1:14:00] we'll see when it's built, it is a logical entrance.
[1:14:04] Um, and I get the depth of the buffer looks
[1:14:07] like three feet instead of 15 feet, it is a
[1:14:11] portion of that. We're trying to plant it, but we're
[1:14:13] also trying to provide an amenity area so that it's
[1:14:17] used for somebody to sit outside. Um, so while it
[1:14:21] looks like the entire buffer is being removed, it's actually
[1:14:24] part hard and part soft, uh, soft skate. So I'm
[1:14:28] hopeful that, um, this type of, uh, development is we're
[1:14:33] hearing it is needed in the community. We hope you
[1:14:35] see favor in the application. Uh, I think it's worth
[1:14:39] mentioning about drainage. Drainages obviously a concern that's raised all
[1:14:43] the time. We have looked at pre - development flows
[1:14:47] post development flows. There is a storage facility in the
[1:14:51] underground of this site that will accommodate drainage. And that
[1:14:56] can actually be used for irrigation on the property. So,
[1:14:59] um, as planning and development engineering or reviewing the application,
[1:15:05] those are the types of things that are being incorporated
[1:15:07] into the plan to protect the community. So with that,
[1:15:11] um, I'm happy to answer any other questions, but I
[1:15:13] hope, uh, that you see this application in a favorable
[1:15:17] way. Thanks, Mr. Rowe. Committee members, any questions for Mr.
[1:15:20] Brawl. Uh, if not, ready for a motion, Mr. Rowan.
[1:15:26] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to move a motion
[1:15:28] for approval for the four variances. I can run through
[1:15:31] my logistics behind it. Um, the official plan, the property
[1:15:35] is designating mixed use in the poor credit area, which
[1:15:38] does permit apartment dwelling uses itself. And it does indicate
[1:15:41] that they could go up to four stories. And this
[1:15:43] is the official plan I'm speaking of. And when I
[1:15:45] look at this property, in my opinion, it's like an
[1:15:49] island within the commercial corridor. It is the only residential
[1:15:55] property right now that's within it. You go right from
[1:15:58] highway 10 over to Oakwood Avenue North. It's commercial right
[1:16:01] across. So I do feel that it is an island.
[1:16:06] And I feel that it shouldn't be incorporated. So in
[1:16:09] regarding the zoning permits, the apartment use, the design meets
[1:16:14] the maximum permitted height. And there is no change to
[1:16:18] the, to the massing of the original building, because my
[1:16:21] understanding is the story. He's reducing the Florida ceiling height,
[1:16:25] which you'll be building within the same. So the massing
[1:16:29] won't change at all. Um, so your logistically, you can
[1:16:33] accommodate the four stories within the three stories that was
[1:16:37] originally proposed. Um, parking is an issue in this, in
[1:16:40] this instance. And I think it's minor the type A
[1:16:43] to type B. Um, aesthetically, like directly across the street
[1:16:47] on Elmwood is a building that's the kitchen for the
[1:16:50] existing wingporium restaurant. You know, also the properly currently has
[1:16:55] a rezoning, which was mentioned, I think, maybe the 15
[1:16:58] stories, I think was mentioned for mixed use commercial. Um,
[1:17:02] that's being proposed right there right now under a resouring
[1:17:04] official plan amendment. Um, the proposed footprint from the site
[1:17:08] plan is located as far south to me to help
[1:17:12] minimize the impacts to the property of the North. The
[1:17:17] reduction in the street, well, from my understanding, it's really
[1:17:20] a way to for the commercial doing to force commercial.
[1:17:23] But I have no problem with the increase in that
[1:17:25] percentage. Um, like over, I do, I do sympathize and
[1:17:30] I do relate with the residents when what I've heard
[1:17:33] and what I've listened to. Like I live in this
[1:17:35] area and it's personal to me as well. Um, except
[1:17:41] overall, in my opinion, when we just apply the four
[1:17:45] tests in the planning act. They satisfy and meet the
[1:17:49] pot has. So I would have to move that as
[1:17:52] amended and as per the drawings presented today. Thank you.
[1:17:57] Do you have a second, Mrs. Robinson? Thank you Mr.
[1:17:59] Chairman. I'll second the motion. To me, this proposal meets
[1:18:04] all of four tests. It definitely is desirable for the
[1:18:07] appropriate development of the land. It's in the lake shore
[1:18:12] corridor. I mean, it does front on the side street,
[1:18:16] but it's on the Lake Shore Corridor. And that fits
[1:18:19] right into the context. The planned context for the Lakeshore
[1:18:25] corridor. And the height increase, um, it's not much higher
[1:18:29] than what some of the detached dwellings we see come
[1:18:32] in. But and otherwise, the variances are all their minor
[1:18:39] van with respect to impact. And. Just, Mr. Ron, I
[1:18:45] think it's going through a site plan process. So if
[1:18:47] we tie it to the plans, it might frustrate the
[1:18:49] process. Are you okay with that? I agree. If it's
[1:18:51] going through the site plan process, we can that can
[1:18:53] be that way. Okay. So it's not tied to any
[1:18:55] plans. Um, any further discussion. All those in favor. Any
[1:19:01] opposed. Mr. Burley, your application has been approved by the
[1:19:03] committee as amended. Thank you very much. Thank you. Have
[1:19:05] a good day. And thank you neighbours for coming out.
[1:19:10] We appreciate your comments. Uh, next application is A246 at
[1:19:15] 3094 Orleans Road. Is there anybody in the audience that
[1:19:18] has an interest in this application? You know what? No.
[1:19:24] Are you the agent. Yeah. Come on up. Just introduce
[1:19:28] yourself. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and the members. My name
[1:19:31] is Sendib Grover. I'm the owner of 3094, Orleans Road.
[1:19:35] I'm here to talk about the two minor variances that
[1:19:40] have been built for a long period of time. Number
[1:19:42] one is the canopy roof on top of the side
[1:19:47] entrance. And number two is the concrete patio that has
[1:19:50] been built. One thing to note here, the canopy roof
[1:19:54] was built. On or before 2011. That's when we purchased
[1:19:58] the house with the canopy roof. It was pointed out
[1:20:00] by the inspector when he came to visit the concrete
[1:20:04] patio that's been built to accommodate the safe walking as
[1:20:08] the surface was uneven. He pointed out that while we're
[1:20:11] doing the minor application for this, we should also include
[1:20:14] the canopy roof that's been set on the right hand
[1:20:17] side of the entrance. The variance is 0. 1 metre.
[1:20:22] For the canopy roof and point 3 for the patio.
[1:20:28] The setback requirements are 1. 2 and 1 metres respectively.
[1:20:32] The canopy has been built for the, um, winter safety
[1:20:37] as ice and snow can accumulate. I'm sure it was
[1:20:40] built for that purpose. It was built before we procured
[1:20:43] the house, but we would like to bring it to
[1:20:44] compliance. And that's the reason I'm here. Community members questions,
[1:20:49] Mr. Page. Yeah. Mr. Chair. You know, on the surface,
[1:20:54] it looks like one thing that under investigation, it looks
[1:20:57] to me from the photos that we've seen and, you
[1:20:59] know, site visit that the downspout, or sorry, the Yves
[1:21:03] trough overhangs at least the fence of the neighbour. Um,
[1:21:08] you know, that kind of bothers me. I think maybe
[1:21:10] still getting a decent maintenance and stuff. But, you know,
[1:21:12] we're approving something. I think, uh, including the, uh, Yves
[1:21:16] trough is a bit close. Then when you look at
[1:21:18] that, you also have the column that's holding up the
[1:21:21] roof that pinches off that space there. I don't know
[1:21:24] how you're going to get any emergency services through there.
[1:21:28] Maybe you can fit a lawnmower or something, but I
[1:21:30] don't know how to get a stretcher through there. And
[1:21:32] listen, I'm sorry to do it. I know it's not
[1:21:35] a variance in front of us, but I don't see
[1:21:37] how that below grade entrance at the closest point to
[1:21:40] the property line. Um, I don't see how that did
[1:21:45] generate some sort of a notion of a variance. But
[1:21:47] I'm, I'm just, it's just too closed off there. Um,
[1:21:50] Mr. Chair, I'm not in favor of this. If you
[1:21:53] go to the next slide, that'll probably show you a
[1:21:55] little bit more visibility. You know what, just let me
[1:21:59] ask, let Mrs. Robinson ask a question. Then you can
[1:22:02] respond to. Well, actually, you know what? Yeah. Why don't
[1:22:04] you respond to that. Maybe it might answer your question.
[1:22:06] Yeah. Go ahead. So if you look at the canopy,
[1:22:10] are you talking about the canopy on the right hand
[1:22:12] side of the Mr. Page, just to clarify your question?
[1:22:16] Are you talking about the canopy that's on the right
[1:22:18] hand side of the corner there. The closest point of
[1:22:23] the canopy to the property line, which I assume has
[1:22:27] something correlative to the fence. So it's where it's at
[1:22:32] the closest, which is the variance, I believe that you're
[1:22:34] asking for. Correct. So it looks like it's to the,
[1:22:38] uh. Fascia of the, uh, of the canopy measured from
[1:22:42] the fascia. Um, but then you've got the Yves Shroff,
[1:22:45] which is frequently four inches. Um, on top of that,
[1:22:50] which looks like it's directly over by the photograph, uh,
[1:22:53] and just by looking at it, uh, photograph right above
[1:22:57] the fence and the property line. It's 0. 1 metre
[1:23:01] from the fence property line. To the face of the
[1:23:05] canopy. Correct. Yeah. But not the trough. Okay. So the
[1:23:10] trough looks to me like it's overhanging a bit. Plus
[1:23:13] the downspout is projected onto the neighbor's property in a
[1:23:17] very narrow space. But then on top of that, the
[1:23:19] column that's holding up the canopy is pinching off that
[1:23:22] space between the column and the fence. And it just
[1:23:26] based on the numbers that you're using, you know, that
[1:23:29] doesn't look sufficient to get emergency services back there. That's
[1:23:32] what concerns me. As I noted, this was built prior
[1:23:36] to us. I understand. And we would want to bring
[1:23:40] it to compliance. So. Well, I know you have, you
[1:23:43] have, uh, staff support. But I just think it's, it's
[1:23:48] dimensionally problematic. And. You know, I mean, I'm willing, if
[1:23:53] I were to, if this was, if I was supportive
[1:23:56] of this for the canopy, I wouldn't belabor the billogated
[1:23:59] insurance, but it's all very, very close there. And I
[1:24:02] don't think you have access to the rear yard on
[1:24:04] the other side, do you? No. Yes. So you can't,
[1:24:10] you know, it's a wood structure. I don't know. It
[1:24:12] might be fairly easy to modify a little bit. The
[1:24:15] downspout, just, you know, if you could redirect that or
[1:24:18] something like that. But I almost wish he would defer
[1:24:20] that. If you really believed in what I was saying
[1:24:23] and the rest of the committee did, uh, deferral might
[1:24:25] be in order in just a bit of a modification
[1:24:27] there. But that's just me. I appreciate you very calmly
[1:24:30] trying to answer my question. Thank you very much. I
[1:24:32] appreciate that. Likewise. Mrs. Robinson. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I
[1:24:39] agree with the concerns that Mr. Page has. And, um,
[1:24:43] but I don't support this. Canopy. That's too close to
[1:24:48] the lot line. Um, I know that, now this is
[1:24:52] one of those situations where we have engineering saying they
[1:24:56] don't have a drainage concern, but then we've got a
[1:24:59] neighbour telling us the water just runs right off. And
[1:25:03] I know when you have, uh, a really strong rain
[1:25:07] event, an evestrog is never enough. They over top thieves
[1:25:11] troughs when you have these big storm events. And that's
[1:25:15] what we're hearing. Part of the issue here is we
[1:25:17] don't have a proper site plan really showing where all
[1:25:19] of these setbacks are. Like this is really not telling
[1:25:23] us very much. Um, but I don't support the canopy.
[1:25:31] So it's the point one. I don't support that. And
[1:25:34] I realise you bought the property. That's the way it
[1:25:37] was. But sometimes that's what happens. I mean, we have
[1:25:40] people coming in here and they built it. It doesn't
[1:25:43] really matter. We have it in front of us today.
[1:25:45] And I think it probably is in front of us
[1:25:48] because your neighbour probably called and said gee, that looks
[1:25:50] close. And he's getting impacted. And we do have a
[1:25:53] letter from him. But I'm not in support of what's
[1:25:59] proposed today. Let's requested. Evan, can you do me a
[1:26:05] favor? Can you go to the next photograph. Yeah, maybe
[1:26:11] one more. No, keep going down. Sorry. Maybe it's the
[1:26:17] next one. Keep going. Yeah. So when I look at
[1:26:24] that, if you can just zoom in on that post
[1:26:27] at the corner there. See, so when I look at
[1:26:32] this, sir, I think, like, I think you're going to
[1:26:34] need a variance for a setback to your canopy. And
[1:26:39] I don't have particular concern with a canopy, not as
[1:26:43] it stands today, I do, but potentially, um, as Mr.
[1:26:47] Page has said, when you put that. Yeah, so leave
[1:26:52] it there. Don't worry about it, Evan. Just leave it
[1:26:53] like that. See, with that post of that canopy there,
[1:26:56] you reduce the mobility of getting into the backyard. And
[1:26:59] you probably can't even put a stretcher back there, especially
[1:27:02] when you don't have, you don't, you can't get in
[1:27:04] from the other side. So to me, I mean, if
[1:27:06] that post was removed and put where the railing is,
[1:27:10] I think it does a couple things. One, it gets
[1:27:12] you the ability to get into the backyard with, you
[1:27:15] know, fire and stretcher and so forth. And I don't
[1:27:18] know if you're able to, maybe it might cut the
[1:27:20] canopy back a little bit. And then you can rearrange
[1:27:23] the downspout away from the neighbour because, as Mrs. Robinson
[1:27:28] said, we do have a letter on fall with regards
[1:27:30] to some of that drainage and so forth. So I
[1:27:33] think you're going to need a variance, but I think
[1:27:35] you might be able to do some work here that
[1:27:37] you can come back with something that kind of addresses
[1:27:40] some of our concerns and still get what you want.
[1:27:42] So, um, I mean, as Mr. Page has said my
[1:27:46] recommendation, we be to defer it and try to, and
[1:27:49] staff, who's at Shyvani's. So Sivani understands where we're coming
[1:27:53] from. And maybe she can work with you on something
[1:27:55] that, like the dude. It's not like a complete no,
[1:27:59] but I think we need to, you know, there's some
[1:28:03] misogyne you can do to it that I think you
[1:28:04] can then come back and get some approval, uh, that,
[1:28:08] you know, that you need. So. Do you want to
[1:28:10] do that? Yes. All right. So why don't we defer
[1:28:13] it. Alexander, we don't need to put a date on
[1:28:15] this, do we? Or do you want to? I mean,
[1:28:18] this is an existing condition. We do normally put dates
[1:28:20] on the existing conditions, but I'll leave that up to
[1:28:21] the community. So do you, November 19th. Yeah. We could
[1:28:27] make the November 19th work for this as well. That
[1:28:28] would maintain the same due date of, I believe it
[1:28:30] was October the 9th. Yeah. So we'll get you back
[1:28:33] on November the 19th. You've got till October the 9th
[1:28:35] to, you don't have to make changes on October the
[1:28:38] 9th, but at least deal with Schiavoni and get those
[1:28:40] things changed and then come back to the committee. Like
[1:28:42] I said, I think the support for what you want
[1:28:44] to do. But if we can tweak a little bit
[1:28:46] and then it'll just be a better development for everybody.
[1:28:49] Okay, Committee member satisfied to defer. So application's been deferred
[1:28:53] November tonight. Thanks so much for your cooperation. Really appreciate
[1:28:56] it. Thank you. 19th or the ninth. 19th. Got a.
[1:29:05] Battle for you. Uh, okay. Next application A246
[1:29:15] at 2121 Rathborn Road for anybody that came in later,
[1:29:18] anybody online, it's been deferred. There's no date. We'll, you'll
[1:29:22] get recirculated. Next application is A248 at 3960 Eglinton Avenue
[1:29:29] West unit number 18. Is there anybody in the ion
[1:29:31] has an interest in this application. No Alexander, if you'd
[1:29:35] like to introduce the agent of the applicant, please. Yes.
[1:29:37] Mr. Chair, for this application, we have Ramon Kumar registered.
[1:29:40] Ramon, you've been unmuted. You can go ahead. Go down
[1:29:44] the chairman committee member. And my name is Roman Khmar
[1:29:47] from MEM Engineering. And, uh, we have the applicant for
[1:29:51] this application. And we are requesting a minor variance to
[1:29:55] a loan. Sorry, before you start off, have you seen
[1:29:58] planning stops comments. Yes, sir. We saw that. So they're
[1:30:02] asking for a deferral. Yes. We are, we are okay
[1:30:08] with that. You're OK. So you want to defer it.
[1:30:12] Yes. We've been that friend about with planning style. Sorry.
[1:30:17] So we'll, for the application for you. Yeah. If we
[1:30:21] could refer to earliest date, that would be really helpful.
[1:30:28] So. I didn't pick that up. What he's asking for
[1:30:30] a committee chair is he's requesting. Yes. We had opened.
[1:30:36] Early state. What's the earliest state that we can get
[1:30:38] him back. Um, it really depends on if they're going
[1:30:42] to be any changes. Because if they're going to be.
[1:30:44] Sir, you know what we'll do. Why don't we do
[1:30:46] this? Um, Alexander, do you want to pick a like,
[1:30:49] we can pick a for you. And then what happens
[1:30:51] is if you can get it done earlier, then he'll
[1:30:53] just put you on a new agenda. I would just
[1:30:55] suggest we could leave this open ended as soon as
[1:30:57] the applicant is ready to come in. We will put
[1:30:59] them on the first available date. Like we're not going
[1:31:01] to hold them back for any reason. So leaving it
[1:31:03] open - ended is the fastest way to get back
[1:31:04] on an agenda. Yeah. And it's not, it's not an
[1:31:07] existing condition. So we're okay. Yeah. Sir. So what we're
[1:31:10] going to do is we'll just defer it. I would
[1:31:12] reach out to Shivani and just deal with her. And
[1:31:16] then as soon as you're ready to go, just contact
[1:31:18] Alexander. He'll put you on the next available agenda. Thank
[1:31:23] you, sir. Okay. Committee member satisfied to defer. So application
[1:31:27] A. 248 has been deferred. Next application is A249 at
[1:31:35] 665 Meadowwood Road. Is there an interest in this application?
[1:31:47] Good afternoon, sir. Good afternoon. Chairperson Committee members and the
[1:31:51] planning staff. I'm the applicant on the Mala from Blueprints
[1:31:55] Permit. And I have read to all the recommendations from
[1:32:00] the Planning Staff. I completely aligned with it. And the
[1:32:04] outstanding dues for the CVC. And the forestry department would
[1:32:07] be paid right after the Apple World. So I'm requesting
[1:32:11] for the approval of all the variances listed out by
[1:32:14] the staff. And as well, the variations recognised by the
[1:32:19] zoning review application as well. So is the existing driveway,
[1:32:24] the existing condition of that, what's there now? That's what
[1:32:27] you're asking for. There's no changes to be made, making
[1:32:30] it bigger or anything like that. It's what it is.
[1:32:32] Yes, that's what the homeowner has done. And we requesting
[1:32:34] the approval of the same. Committee members, any questions or
[1:32:38] comments. No, Alexander. The city is no objections to the
[1:32:44] application as amended. Uh, the first and third variances are
[1:32:47] recommended for amendment. The first one is just a technical
[1:32:49] rewording. The second one, they're noting the driveway width should
[1:32:52] be measured as 17. 2. And that actually within 6
[1:32:57] metres of the garage, they're allowed 10. 5. Uh, and
[1:32:59] then Forestry is requesting a condition. Nowhere in submissions received,
[1:33:03] no members of the public have pre - registered to
[1:33:05] speak. Thank you. Um, again, is there anybody in the
[1:33:07] INS has an interest application A249 at 665 Meadowwood Road.
[1:33:13] No, Alexander, or no, sorry, Mr. Page. Ready for a
[1:33:16] motion? Thanks, Mr. Chair. Move approval of the application. It
[1:33:19] does meet the four tests. Um, subject to general conformance
[1:33:22] of the drawings, please. And as amended, um, you know,
[1:33:27] I mean, we're able to see it as it stands.
[1:33:29] I don't think it's inappropriate. And there's no landscape, uh,
[1:33:32] coverage issues. Sorry, before I go to a second, do
[1:33:35] you wish to amend the application or reflect planning staff's
[1:33:38] comments? That's correct. Committee member satisfied domenica. Okay. Second, Mr.
[1:33:42] Ellis. Thank you, Mr. Chair, second. Uh, Mr. Chair, just
[1:33:48] to clarify for Mr. Page, is that subject to forestry's
[1:33:52] conditioner? Is that without forestry's condition? No condition. Ken, are
[1:33:57] you okay with that without the four street condition? Yep.
[1:33:59] Okay. Uh, any discussion, all those in favor. Any opposed?
[1:34:05] So sir, your application additive has been approved by the
[1:34:07] committee. In general coins of the drawing, you presented today.
[1:34:10] Really appreciate you. Thank you. Have a good day. Uh,
[1:34:12] next application is A250 at 2943 rainwater drive. Is there
[1:34:18] anybody in the Irons has an interest in this application?
[1:34:22] No, Alexander, if you'd like to introduce the agent of
[1:34:24] the applicant, please. Yes. Mr. Chair, for this application, we
[1:34:27] have Michael Galley registered. Michael, you've been unmuted. You can
[1:34:30] go ahead. Uh, thank you. And members of the committee.
[1:34:35] I have reviewed the staff comments, uh, the report originally
[1:34:39] commented deferral to allow redesign of the driveway. And I
[1:34:43] have been working with the, uh, planning team to add
[1:34:47] those concerns before two days of hearing. Following our discussion,
[1:34:51] we have revised the proposer for the existing 9. 6
[1:34:55] metre driveway to a maximum width of 7. 2 metres.
[1:35:00] The revised design also provides a require soft landscaping and
[1:35:03] address the concern identified by planning. Staff have confirmed their
[1:35:09] support for this revised proposer. Accordingly rather than proceeding with
[1:35:14] the original application or a deferred. We asked the committee
[1:35:18] to consider the application as amended to permit the maximum
[1:35:22] driveway with of 7. 2 metre in a coordinates with
[1:35:26] revoice side plans submitted today. We believe the voice proposal
[1:35:30] represent an appropriate compromise to maintain the residential character of
[1:35:35] the property. And address the intent behind the city driveway
[1:35:38] and landscaping requirements. I would appreciate the committee approval of
[1:35:42] the application as amended. Thank you. So just to confirm,
[1:35:46] when we're looking at these drawings, the drawing on the
[1:35:49] left is a current state and the drawing on the
[1:35:51] right is going to be the, uh, reduction in the,
[1:35:54] uh, in the driveway width as it stands today, correct?
[1:35:59] Correct. So the left side has, uh, interlock, uh, just
[1:36:05] zero metre from the left side of the property line
[1:36:09] as well as covering some area in front of the
[1:36:12] planter. And the proposal now is to have two feet
[1:36:16] on the left side as well as three user interlock
[1:36:19] on the right to end up with 7. 2 metre
[1:36:22] for the driveway. The ashfeld and interlock and increase the
[1:36:27] endskip area. To be 33 percent of the front setback
[1:36:33] where the buyer ask only for 30 percent landscape. Do
[1:36:41] you, Mr. Chair, I'd like to confirm we've worked with
[1:36:44] the applicant to reduce it down to 7. 2 metres.
[1:36:46] They're meeting the soft yard landscaping requirement and the hardscaping
[1:36:49] setbacks. I have no concerns. Community members satisfied to amend
[1:36:53] the application to 7. 2 metre driveway width. So that's
[1:36:57] been amended. Alexander, I guess the comments are irrelevant. Planning
[1:37:04] has updated their comment as noted. I will just add
[1:37:07] that one letter of concern was received and no members
[1:37:09] of the public have pre - registered speak. Thank you
[1:37:11] again. Has there anybody in the INS has an interesting
[1:37:13] application A250 located 2943 rainwater drive. No. Ready for a
[1:37:20] motion, Mrs. Robinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll move approval
[1:37:23] of the application as amended in general conformits with the
[1:37:28] plan that revised plan that was submitted. And this is
[1:37:31] exactly the kind of thing we like owners to do
[1:37:34] to work with staff before the hearing comes. Um, get
[1:37:39] the application revised to be acceptable. And it now meets
[1:37:43] the four tests. Thank you. Do you have a second?
[1:37:46] Mr. Dill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll Second of Motion.
[1:37:49] Communs. Any discussion on the motion. All those in favor.
[1:37:54] Any opposed. Um, sir, your application has been approved by
[1:37:57] the committee. Uh, as amended in general Corrin to Round,
[1:38:00] you presented to the committee today. Thank you. Thank you.
[1:38:03] Have a good day. Next application is A. 251 located
[1:38:09] 3152. Countless Crescent is, I guess, their online. Is there
[1:38:13] anybody in the audience that has an interest in this
[1:38:15] application. No, Alexander, if you'd like to introduce the agent,
[1:38:19] the applicant, please. Uh, yes, Mr. Chair, for this application,
[1:38:25] we have Kizang again. You've been on muted. You can
[1:38:28] go ahead. With me right now, I just need help
[1:38:36] him to translate. So, um, sorry, Mishang, is that, yeah,
[1:38:42] so, um, I think we had a conversation before. So
[1:38:46] you've got planning staffs, um, suggested at the FERL. They
[1:38:51] want you to redesign it. So did you want to
[1:38:53] defer the application? Because I think if you move forward
[1:38:55] today, you're not going to get an approval. So I
[1:38:59] understand. Yeah. Do you want to defer it. Yes. But
[1:39:02] can I ask you one question? So for now, I
[1:39:05] just, I think I need doing the zoning review first,
[1:39:09] right? I'm sorry. Repeat that again. So from the comments,
[1:39:15] it says, I need to do the zooming review. Yeah.
[1:39:18] So what I would suggest you do is contact Sarah.
[1:39:22] She's the planner on this site. If you don't have
[1:39:24] her contact information, call the committee tomorrow and they'll give
[1:39:27] it to you. And then just, um, just speak with
[1:39:30] her. She'll guide you through the process of what they
[1:39:33] want you to do. And then you can, um, deal
[1:39:35] with her on that. And when then once you guys
[1:39:37] have come up to an agreement, then you can come
[1:39:39] back to the committee. Okay. Okay. Thank you so much.
[1:39:42] You're welcome. For the date. We can do November 19th
[1:39:45] again. Okay. So are you able to come back on
[1:39:47] November the 19th. November 19. Okay. No problem. So you
[1:39:52] have until October the 9th to hand in any new
[1:39:55] drawings or anything. So I would recommend that you contact
[1:39:59] Sarah in the next day or two, uh, and try
[1:40:01] to have a meeting with her and then just go
[1:40:03] through that process. Okay. Okay. Thank you so much. Committee
[1:40:05] member satisfied the defer. So application has been deferred November
[1:40:08] 19th. Okay. Next application is A253 at 440 Celsi drive.
[1:40:16] Is there anybody in the ionites has an interest in
[1:40:17] this application? Are you the neighbours. Or sorry? Okay. Is
[1:40:22] there anybody? Are you the owner. Neighbours? Okay. The agents
[1:40:27] online I take it. Three you, Mr. Chair. I don't
[1:40:32] see them online at the moment. We have reached out
[1:40:33] to see. If we can get them, but they don't,
[1:40:36] doesn't appear they've joined the meeting. Is there anybody in
[1:40:40] the audience besides the people that have raised their hands
[1:40:44] on this application as the agent here, the owner. No?
[1:40:48] Okay. Well, I think we were probably going to defer
[1:40:50] this application anyhow just because of the fact that, um,
[1:40:53] it's not. Mr. Chair, we've got them. Okay. Good. All
[1:40:57] right. So, uh, we have Abish Shock Rezgor. Abishek, you've
[1:41:01] been unmuted. You can go ahead. I wish I
[1:41:11] might need to click the Unmute button on your end.
[1:41:22] One second, Mr. Chair.
[1:41:34] Abisha, can you please push the unmute button on your
[1:41:36] side if you can? Oh, there we go. Hello. Hi,
[1:41:45] how are you? Good, how are you? Good, not that.
[1:41:47] Have you seen planning stops comments. Yes. That's correct. So
[1:41:51] do you wish to defer the application. Yes, Mr. Chair.
[1:41:54] Okay. Um, there's two neighbours in the audience and I
[1:41:58] wish you had a deferred at earlier. So they didn't
[1:42:01] have to commit. But unfortunately, we're going to have, we're
[1:42:04] going to get it deferred so that they can work
[1:42:05] with planning staff on reducing the driveway with. I think
[1:42:08] it's a bit too excessive. There's some comments from transfer
[1:42:11] station works with regard to some sight lines as well
[1:42:15] that they wish to deal with. So. Uh, we're going
[1:42:17] to give them an opportunity to do that. Um, then
[1:42:19] they'll come back. Um, Alexander, do we want to? Yeah,
[1:42:23] we could do November 19th again deadline for the deferral
[1:42:25] fee and resubmission October 9th. Sir, are you able to
[1:42:29] come back on November the 19th. Yes. Mr. Chairman. Okay.
[1:42:34] So, um, you've gotten until October the 9th to present
[1:42:37] any new drawings or anything that you wish to do.
[1:42:39] My suggestion to you is to contact. Shivani. Oh Sarah.
[1:42:44] Um, if you don't have a contact information, Sarah, is
[1:42:47] your planner reach out to the Committee of Adjustment Office
[1:42:50] tomorrow. They'll give it to you. I'd sit down with
[1:42:54] comments not only from planning department, but from development and
[1:42:57] construction, they have some concerns with regards to sight lines
[1:43:01] and offencing and so forth. So I think those are
[1:43:03] very serious concerns. So at the end of the day,
[1:43:05] please sit down with them, uh, we'll have you back
[1:43:07] on November the 19th. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The
[1:43:11] owner is again as well. We both will be working
[1:43:17] with the planning. Okay. Thank you. Committee members, Ici, I
[1:43:19] did defer. Uh, application has been deferred. I apologise. I
[1:43:23] have to come in and sit through this. But, um,
[1:43:25] it is going to be heard on November the 19th.
[1:43:27] You will be recirculated if you did receive the, uh,
[1:43:31] first circulation. There may change the variances. They may not.
[1:43:36] You can come to the committee. You don't have to
[1:43:37] come in person. You can do it virtually if you
[1:43:39] want. If that saves you some time or write a
[1:43:41] lettering, whatever you prefer. So it's just giving them an
[1:43:45] opportunity to hopefully to fix it so that when they
[1:43:47] come back, they'll be dealing with it. Okay. Um, we've
[1:43:51] deferred it. So we're not going to hear any thing.
[1:43:54] Is there anything that you want to hand in or
[1:43:55] whatever you can, uh, but anything else. Why didn't you
[1:43:59] want it back? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No problem. Yeah. Sure.
[1:44:02] You're welcome. Um, so application's been deferred to November 19th.
[1:44:06] As I said, you're more than welcome to come back
[1:44:08] or even register online if that saves you some time.
[1:44:10] Okay. Thank you. Next application is A254 located 422 Dixie
[1:44:17] Road Unit 160. Is there anybody in the aids as
[1:44:21] an interest in this application? No. Alexander. Yes. Mr. Chair
[1:44:27] for this application. We have Oscar Manias registered. Oscar, you've
[1:44:30] been unmuted. You can go ahead. Good afternoon. And members.
[1:44:38] My name is Oscar Mannius. I'm the representative and partner
[1:44:43] of the owner, uh, Miss Rossi at 4222 Dixon Road.
[1:44:50] So you, uh, yeah, yeah, just give me a sec.
[1:44:52] So you have favorable planning staff comments. So if you
[1:44:55] want to give us a brief presentation on what you're
[1:44:57] looking at doing, that'd be great. Okay. So, um, the,
[1:45:03] uh, there's two variants. I guess that we were in
[1:45:09] question. So there was the exterior side yard setback. Which
[1:45:14] was, uh, the requirement is 4. 5 metres. And we
[1:45:20] were asking for 4. 25, and, uh, which is pretty
[1:45:25] minimal difference. And, um, the, uh, encroachment, the backyard encroachment
[1:45:32] was one metre. And we were asking for 3. 23
[1:45:37] metres. And, um, this encroachment for the backyard is, well,
[1:45:45] I feel it's well within the, uh, limits of other
[1:45:48] balcony encroachments in the same development. So we're just, uh,
[1:45:54] requesting the, uh, approval of those two variances. Thank you.
[1:46:02] Committee members, any questions or comments? Alexander comments, please. The
[1:46:06] city has no objections to the application as amended. Um,
[1:46:08] they're recommending amendments to both variances. The first one is
[1:46:11] just technical noting that the setback is to the balcony.
[1:46:14] The second one is noting that the encroachment is 3.
[1:46:17] 34 rather than the circulated 3. 23. And the bit
[1:46:22] of a rewarding there as well. No written submissions receive
[1:46:24] no members of the public kept pre - registered to
[1:46:26] speak. Thank you. Um, sir, did you want to amend
[1:46:29] the application to reflect planning stops comments? No, okay. Yes,
[1:46:37] Sarah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sorry for the confusion. I
[1:46:39] just want to make a note here. Not a zoning
[1:46:41] bylaw examiner. I don't know that I can explain exactly
[1:46:44] how zoning has gotten to this measurement. But essentially they
[1:46:48] take it from the setback. And then that's, or take
[1:46:51] it from the required rear yard setback and measure the
[1:46:53] difference in the balcony. As you see on the drawings
[1:46:56] that are noted, it's dashed out and it notes of
[1:46:59] 3. 23 metre setback variants. In order for this to
[1:47:03] not have issues when it comes to the building permit
[1:47:05] process, I'm worried about tying this to the drawings because
[1:47:08] of that, those, that minor change in numbers could cause
[1:47:11] it to, to not be approved through what was approved
[1:47:15] for the committee. I'm okay with the 3. 66 metres
[1:47:18] versus the 3. 23. I'd rather them not tie it
[1:47:22] to drawings if possible. Just because of that issue that
[1:47:26] could be created if there's a technical issue that's owning
[1:47:29] has. I don't have an issue with either setback. Just
[1:47:34] want to make sure the wording is too zoning satisfaction.
[1:47:37] Alexander, what do you think? Um, the amendments that are
[1:47:41] written on the staff comments are provided by zoning. Um,
[1:47:45] I would suggest that would probably be the safest route
[1:47:48] to go just because that is being provided by them.
[1:47:51] Uh, they're noting the, uh, encroachment of 3. 34, however,
[1:47:55] which is a third number that I'm not sure exactly
[1:47:56] where that's coming from. Through you, Mr. Chair. My understanding
[1:48:01] is there could be just a difference in the drawings
[1:48:03] that were submitted to BP versus the C of A.
[1:48:07] So the 3. 66 is what was submitted to the
[1:48:10] building permit, which is why I'm urging not to tie
[1:48:12] it to the, to the drawings and just keep the
[1:48:15] variance as it's worded as that's what's been reviewed by
[1:48:18] zoning. And that's what I've confirmed informally. Good zoning that
[1:48:22] would be the correct variance. The 3. 66 is the
[1:48:26] one that you think should be instead of 3. 34.
[1:48:30] No, sorry. The variance should be word at 3. 34
[1:48:34] as zonings noted. It's just that the drawings. Oh, okay.
[1:48:37] Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Right. Okay. Yeah. That's fine. You don't
[1:48:39] yet. That's okay. Yeah. I mean, sometimes I think we
[1:48:42] try to figure out what zoning stealing too. So it's
[1:48:47] been amended, Sarah spoken. I think Alexander needs to speak.
[1:48:51] Um, cities and objections to the application as amended. No
[1:48:54] written submissions received no members of the public. If you
[1:48:56] register to speak. Again, is anybody in the audience has
[1:48:59] an interest in application A254 at 4222 Dixie Road Unit
[1:49:04] 160. Oscar, is anything else you wish to add or
[1:49:08] are you good to go? I think that's, that's great.
[1:49:12] That's great. It's fine. Okay. Uh, ready for a motion,
[1:49:16] Mr. Page. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Move approval the amended application
[1:49:20] meets a four tests. Um, not in conformance of the
[1:49:23] drawings. Do I have a second, Mrs. Robinson? Thank you,
[1:49:26] Mr. Chairman. I'll second the motion. Committee members, any discussion
[1:49:29] on the motion. All those in favor. Sir, your application
[1:49:34] has been approved by the committee as amended. Thank you.
[1:49:38] Thank you. Have a good day. Thank you very much.
[1:49:40] Thank you. Next application is A257 located 5218 Fallingbrook Drive.
[1:49:46] Is there anybody in the United States and interest in
[1:49:47] this application? Are you the applicant or a neighbour. You're
[1:49:51] the neighbour? Okay. Um, Alexander, do you wish to? Yes,
[1:49:56] Mr. Chair for this application. We have Ahmad Khan registered.
[1:49:59] Ahmad, you've been unmuted. You can go ahead. Good afternoon
[1:50:05] to Mr. Chair and Committee members, miners are. And if
[1:50:09] you're new, Mr. Kat, have you seen planning staff's comments.
[1:50:13] Yes, I have. And what are you going to do?
[1:50:15] You're going to defer, or do you want to get
[1:50:16] turned down today? I will differ. Yeah. That's, is that
[1:50:23] a question or is that a statement. Is that, can
[1:50:27] I present and get deferred if is needed. No. You
[1:50:32] want to present it and then deferred if you don't
[1:50:35] think it's going in the right direction. Yes. Yeah. Well,
[1:50:38] I'm going to tell you it's not going in the
[1:50:40] right direction. So I don't think you need to make
[1:50:42] any comments. So I think that your best bet is
[1:50:45] to defer. There's like you can't, we've got a pitcher
[1:50:47] on site that you've got a car parked parallel to
[1:50:50] the street. I mean, that's not what, you know, parking
[1:50:53] in the city of Mississauga has intended to do so.
[1:50:56] My suggestion to use deferred sit down with staff and
[1:51:00] work something out, um, can't talk for the rest of
[1:51:04] the committee, but I'm going to talk for the rest
[1:51:05] of the committee. I don't think you're going to approve
[1:51:07] today. Okay. November 19th work for you. Yes. Okay. So
[1:51:16] application will be deferred to November 19th. Do you know
[1:51:19] who you're, Sarah? Is your planner? If you don't have
[1:51:24] a contact information, reach out to Alexander tomorrow or the
[1:51:27] committee. They'll give it to you. Uh, you have to
[1:51:29] till October the 9th at hand in documents. And then
[1:51:31] we'll see you back on the 19th. Okay. Committee satisfied
[1:51:35] to defer? Satisfy. Applications ready for, sir. I'm sorry you
[1:51:38] have to wait through this, but we're going to defer
[1:51:40] it. And hopefully they'll be able to reduce this when
[1:51:42] they come back. They may need some variances. And then,
[1:51:45] but hopefully it won't look like this after we're done
[1:51:48] with them. Okay. All right. Thank you. That ends our
[1:51:52] agenda for today. Thanks, everybody.