[0:04] And welcome to the Committee of Adjustment Hearing for September

[0:06] 3rd, 2026. If you are attending virtually and new technical

[0:09] assistance during the meeting, please email virtual meeting. help at

[0:13] mississaga. ca. And members of the public will be given

[0:17] 5 minutes to speak to their item on the agenda,

[0:19] those attending virtually will be introduced by staff and staff

[0:21] will turn your microphone on. Those attending in person will

[0:23] be called upon by the chair to approach the podium

[0:25] if they wish to address the committee. The committee may

[0:27] ask you questions at the end of your presentation, an

[0:29] agents may be given a chance to respond to comments

[0:31] made by members of the public. We ask that everyone

[0:33] maintain respectful conduct at all times. If anything inappropriate is

[0:36] said, your microphone may be turned off and you may

[0:37] be removed from the meeting. Once all presentations are made,

[0:40] we move into the decision - making process and no

[0:42] further input from agents or members of the public will

[0:44] be permitted. Requests for deferrals will be handled at the

[0:46] beginning of today's hearing and no evidence will be heard

[0:48] today on those files. The Committee may or may not

[0:51] assign new hearing dates for items deferred at today's hearing.

[0:53] Once deferred hearing dates are finalised, everyone in the original

[0:55] circulation area, as well as those that have written in,

[0:58] registered to speak, or place their name on the sign

[0:59] - in sheet located beside the podium will be notified.

[1:01] If you are an applicant and you wish to defer

[1:03] your application, please raise your hands now, whether in person

[1:06] or using the virtual handraies feature to let us know.

[1:08] Members driven to declarations of conflict of interest on state's

[1:10] agenda? No, Alexander? Mr. Chair. Thanks, Alexander. Welcome to Committee

[1:15] of Adjustment for Thursday, September 3rd. Is there anybody in

[1:19] the audience that wishes to address, or sorry, wishes to

[1:22] defer withdrawn application? If you want to come forward and

[1:24] just give us your name and address and file number.

[1:32] Good afternoon. Oh, it's Max Comishenko 5. I live at

[1:37] 39 Broly Avenue, Toronto, Ontario. File number A263. 26. 2202

[1:45] Stanfield. Correct. Okay. I would like to defer the application

[1:50] at this point. And have some time to speak with

[1:53] staff and so forth. Yes. Okay. Committee members, any questions

[1:56] or comments? Is there anybody in the audience as an

[1:59] interest in application A263 at 2202 Stanfield Road. No. Committee

[2:06] member satisfied to defer? So we'll defer the application. When

[2:10] you're ready to go, just contact Alexander, and then we'll

[2:13] put you on the next available agenda, okay? Thank you.

[2:16] Thank you. Have a good day. Is there anybody else

[2:18] in the audience which is to defer with Thrawn application

[2:20] on today's agenda. Alexander, anybody online that wishes to defer

[2:24] withdrawal? Yes, Mr. Chair, we have Caden Somerville with this

[2:28] hand up. Caden, you've been unmuted, you can go ahead.

[2:31] Good afternoon. I would like to defer phone number A255.

[2:38] 26, 1776, Meyer side row. Okay. I guess you gotta

[2:47] do some work on that. Yeah, the other thing too,

[2:51] is I think the site plan that you guys have

[2:52] shown us looks like, you're not even gonna, I think

[2:57] you don't even have enough room on your aisle width

[2:59] to park your cars next to the building. So you

[3:01] may want to work on that as well. So we'll

[3:03] give you some time to deal with planning staff, and

[3:05] then you can come back when you're ready to go.

[3:08] Is Committee members, any questions or comments? Is there anybody

[3:10] in the eye that's has an interesting application A255 at

[3:14] 1776 Meyerside Road Unit 1. No, Committee Sessel, I did

[3:19] defer. So Sir, your application has been deferred. When you're

[3:22] ready to go, just contact the committee office and they'll

[3:24] put you on a new agenda, okay? Perfect, thank you

[3:28] so much. Thank you, have a good day. Alexander, anybody

[3:31] else. Three, Mr. Chair, no further hands raised online. All

[3:36] right, so we'll start at the top of gender and

[3:38] work our way through. I'll call application A180 at 1381

[3:41] Trotwood Avenue. Is there anybody in the Irons has an

[3:43] interest in this application? Oh, Alexander, if you'd like to

[3:46] introduce the agent of the applicant, please. Yes, Mr. Chair,

[3:48] for this application, we have Daniel Begin registered. Daniel, you've

[3:50] been unmuted, you can go ahead. Get everyone here me.

[3:55] Give me my. Classes. Bottom. Yes, we can hear you,

[3:57] Daniel. Okay, thank you. Yeah, we had a driveway extension

[4:02] on the, I guess the top right. Where we were

[4:07] looking to take an existing structure, which was semi -

[4:09] permanent. And make it a permanent structure for a full

[4:13] concrete pour. We had drainage look at it, and we

[4:17] had the planning committee look at it. And they said

[4:20] it wouldn't be an issue, at least from their perspective.

[4:22] Um, I don't believe the neighbours that have concerns. We've

[4:25] spoken to all of them in our area. And it's

[4:31] basically taking what was a semi - permanent structure with

[4:35] eight by eight woods, uh, patio stones from a two

[4:40] foot to the property line to about six inches from

[4:42] the property line with a full concrete. So Daniel, before,

[4:46] is it. Talia, can you put up the photos from

[4:51] staff's provided. Is this basically what's there

[5:00] today, what you're looking to do? Yes. Okay. Community members,

[5:04] any questions or comments? Mr. Page? Thanks, Mr. Chair. Uh,

[5:07] just to be cautious here, so does the site then

[5:12] drain from the front to the rear. The front being

[5:17] the house. Well, let's say from the front line of

[5:19] the house to the rear. It does have a slope

[5:23] ad drainage slope as well, back to an existing. Man

[5:31] storage, not storage, string hog, manhole cover. Yeah, starting to

[5:36] interrupt, just the only reason I ask is the, uh,

[5:37] the edge of the elevation above the side where that

[5:40] garbage can is in this photo is higher than the,

[5:43] you know, the surface beyond. I just want to be

[5:45] sure it was draining back and not for it. It

[5:47] looks like based on your drawing. Thank you. Yeah, it

[5:50] drains both ways. And we had, um, a gentleman, John

[5:54] Sylvana look at it and say that the draining concerns.

[5:57] Where those bins are, um, are just patios. Daniel, don't

[6:01] worry about it. As long as John said, uh, he's

[6:03] okay with it, we're good to go. Uh, any other

[6:05] questions or comments. Alexander Comments, please. City recommends that the

[6:09] Committee of regard for all Commons and evidence brought it

[6:11] by the applicant area residents when assessing a felicity meets

[6:13] the requirements of Section 45, sub one of the planning

[6:14] act. The applicant may wish to defer the application to

[6:16] ensure all required variances have an accurately identified. No written

[6:19] submissions were received, no members of the public have pre

[6:21] - registered speak. Thank you. Is there anybody in the

[6:26] audience again that has an interesting application A180 located at

[6:29] 1381 Trottwood Avenue. Seeing none ready for a motion, Mr.

[6:33] Page. Thanks, Mr. Chair. I'm going to move approval of

[6:36] the application meets the fore test. I do agree with

[6:39] staff planning comments. Um, draining development engineering has no issues

[6:44] with that. It looks good to me. Based subject to

[6:47] General Coach Florence of the drawings, please. Thank you, Dove

[6:50] Second, Mr. Dale. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll second

[6:53] the motion. Committee members, any discussion on the motion. All

[6:56] those in favor. Any opposed? Daniel, your application has been

[6:59] approved by the Committee and General Cordens of the Drines

[7:01] presented today. Thank you very much. Thank you. Have a

[7:04] good day. Take care. Uh, next application is A185 located

[7:10] 4482 Mayflower Drive. Is there anybody in the aids has

[7:13] an interest in this application? Good

[7:23] afternoon, sir. Good afternoon. So petition 18526. A widening the

[7:30] driveway. Sorry, just give us your name for the record,

[7:33] please. Love you, Musiro. Can you just move the mic

[7:36] up a little so we can hear you a little

[7:37] bit better? Slavim your suit. Okay. Thank you. Um, it

[7:40] looks like you have favorable planning staff comments and the

[7:43] audience are online that has an interest. Um, so basically

[7:46] you're just looking at increasing the driveway to 7. 3

[7:50] metres more year allowed six. That's right. Okay. Is it

[7:56] currently, is the driveway in existence? It's the one that's

[7:59] there now today. Exactly. Yeah. Okay. Um, Community members, questions

[8:03] or comments. Alexander Commons, please. The city is no objections

[8:08] to the application. The applicant may wish to defer the

[8:10] application to ensure all required variances have an accurately identified.

[8:13] Um, the recommendation notes a condition, but I don't see

[8:15] any conditions listed. I think that you might have been

[8:16] a typo. No written submissions were received. No members of

[8:19] the public. Hope you registered speak. Thank you. Again, is

[8:22] there anybody in the audience has an interest application A185

[8:25] at 4482 Mayflower Dry? Seen nothing ready for a motion,

[8:28] Mr. Rowan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll move a motion

[8:33] for approval. I think the driveway won't accommodate three cars

[8:35] across. It doesn't need a side variance for setback. And

[8:40] it doesn't dominate the front. And I think I'd move

[8:43] that in accordance to the drawings. Thanks. Do I have

[8:46] a second, Mr. Dale. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll second

[8:49] the motion. Committee members, any discussion on the motion. All

[8:52] those in favor. Any opposed? Sir, your application has been

[8:56] approved by the committee and general courts of the drawings

[8:58] present. Okay. Thank you. Have a good day. Thank you.

[9:01] Next application is A. 240 at 14. 07 Broadmoor Avenue.

[9:05] Is there anybody in the audience that has an interest

[9:06] in this application? No, Alexander, if you like to introduce

[9:10] the agent of the applicant, please. Yes, Mr. Chair, for

[9:12] this application, we have Emmett Paul Bensol. Emrat Paul, you've

[9:14] been unmuted. You can go ahead. Good afternoon. My name

[9:17] is Paul Banciel. I'm the agent on this file. Good

[9:22] afternoon. Um, you have favorable planning staff comments, but there

[9:25] was a letter on file from one of the neighbours

[9:27] with regards to this. Can you just give us a

[9:29] presentation on what you're looking at doing, please? Sir, do

[9:32] you miss the chair? Um, our proposal is to propose

[9:36] a cabana. That's adjacent to the existing tool. Uh, we're

[9:41] asking for three variances. Variance is number one. With a

[9:46] total accessory structure, uh, the permitted area, 60 square metres,

[9:51] and we're asking for 66. 8 square metres. So it's

[9:55] 6. 8 square metre increase. Uh, we're also asking for

[9:59] a small high increase of a couple of inches. Uh,

[10:02] the bylaw requires 3. 5 metres in building height. And

[10:05] we're asking for 3. 64. We're also asking for a

[10:12] singular structure to be, uh, 58 point in two square

[10:16] metres. Uh, where the by - level requires 20 square

[10:20] metres for a single structure. So essentially what we're trying

[10:22] to do is consolidate. All the permitted structures into one

[10:27] focused area, uh, to be a cabana for the pool.

[10:32] The cabana is open from three sides with one side.

[10:36] Just a third of it closed off. Uh, for a

[10:40] change room and, uh, storage. So essentially, it's just an

[10:43] accessory structure to, you know, for open saving space just

[10:48] across the existing folder. Thank you. Committee members, any questions

[10:52] or comments. Mrs. Robinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yeah. Question

[11:00] to the applicant. Is it really necessary for you to

[11:04] have a height variance, the immediate neighbours have a concern

[11:08] about the, what they're going to see. And, um, you

[11:13] know, your variance isn't big, but, but then that could

[11:15] mean that maybe you could lower it down to what's

[11:18] permitted. I threw you, Mr. Chair. We, we, we could

[11:24] lower the, the height down to comply. What we're trying

[11:28] to do is standard as the construction. So eliminating cutting

[11:31] the studs, uh, we're also trying to create a small

[11:34] little parapet, a couple of inches. Um, just to allow

[11:37] for drainage and not to fall off on their own

[11:40] side. So technically, yes, we could lower it. Um, but

[11:45] it's a matter of five inches what we're asking. For.

[11:49] Myself. I would like to see it lower to come

[11:51] fly. I don't have a concern about the size because

[11:56] that size, well, it's not a lot bigger than the

[11:59] total that's permitted. But I would like to see the

[12:02] height go down. Yeah. I don't have a problem with

[12:04] the height. I mean, we're talking about 15 centimeters. And

[12:07] I think there's a tree that is on the property

[12:10] of the neighbour next door that blocks it. I mean,

[12:12] I don't think six inches is going to really make

[12:15] an impact. So I'm, I don't think you need to

[12:18] lower it in my opinion. I'm not sure what the

[12:20] rest of the committee members think, but we'll deal with

[12:22] it when we go to a motion. Um, any other

[12:25] questions or comments? Alexander Comments, please. Yes, Mr. Chair. Uh,

[12:30] the city is no objection to the application. The region

[12:32] of peel is requesting a condition relating to servicing. One

[12:35] letter of objection was received. No members of the public

[12:37] up pre - registered speak. Thank you again. Is there

[12:41] anybody in the audience has an interesting application A240 located

[12:43] 1507 Broadmoor Avenue. Ready for a motion then, Mr. Page?

[12:50] Thanks Mr. Chair. I'm going to move approval of the

[12:53] application. I do think it meets a four test. Uh,

[12:56] it's a very small increase in height. At the closest

[12:59] point to the property line, the structure, uh, meets or

[13:02] exceeds the required setback and is even more well away

[13:06] from, as due to the angle of the property line,

[13:09] it's well away from the, uh, the unit to point

[13:11] out the neighbour that wrote the letter has a tree.

[13:15] Pretty good sized tree there. Um, so I don't see

[13:17] that, uh, besides visibility, maybe in the winter, I really

[13:22] just don't see any impact to the neighbour that's not

[13:25] already occurring from what's there. Uh, subject to general conformates

[13:28] of the drawings, please. Thank you, Davis. Second. Mr. Rowan.

[13:32] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll second the motion. I find

[13:36] the height is acceptable. And if they don't need a

[13:38] side yard sat back, I think then it meets the

[13:42] four tests. But if it didn't decide you'd got setback,

[13:45] I understand what Mrs. Robinson is mentioning. I don't think

[13:51] we need. That condition. You have to. Go to this

[13:53] peel anyway, right? Committee members, any further discussion. All those

[13:58] in favor. Any opposed. Sir, your application has been approved

[14:04] by the committee and General Corrins with the drawings you

[14:06] presented to the committee today. Thank you very much. Thank

[14:09] you. Have a good day. Next application is A. 252

[14:14] located 5265 Terry Foxway. Is there anybody in the eye

[14:17] that has an interest in this application. No, Alexander. If

[14:20] you'd like to introduce the agent of the applicant, please.

[14:22] Yes, Mr. Chair, for this application, we have Sham Sayed

[14:25] registered. Shams, you've been unmuted. You can go ahead. And

[14:28] Mr. Church. I'm Seyut Macroesing. Six Rippon Street, Mrs. Saga.

[14:34] I say it. Um, you have favorable planning staff comments.

[14:37] There's nobody in the audience nor online that wishes to

[14:39] adjust committee on this application. Do you want to give

[14:41] us a brief presentation on what you're looking at doing,

[14:44] please? Thank you, Mr. Chair, through you. The application for

[14:47] the committee is very requesting. Minor variance for an interior

[14:50] side yard set back to a below grade entrance that

[14:52] blew facility date the building of a secondary unit in

[14:56] the basement. The requested setback is 0. 585 metres, whereas

[15:00] the buyer requires a minimum of 1. 20 metres. We

[15:03] feel that this is monitoring nature and does not have

[15:06] a negative impact on their neighbourhood or the property itself.

[15:11] Uh, and VR in some of the staff report. We

[15:13] kindly request the committee to consider and approve this application.

[15:17] Any questions I'll be glad to answer. Thank you. Thank

[15:19] you, sir. Committee members. Any questions or comments? Alexander Comments,

[15:21] please. City has no objections to the application. No written

[15:26] submissions were received. No members of the public up here

[15:27] registered speak. Again, is anybody in the audience has an

[15:31] interest application A. 252 at 5265 Terry Fox Wayne. Seeing

[15:36] none ready for a motion, Mrs. Robinson. Thank you, Mr.

[15:40] Chairman. I'll move approval of the application. Um, it's minor

[15:44] in nature. There's no drainage concerns. And in general conformance

[15:47] with the plan submitted. Thank you, Doves. Second and Mr.

[15:51] Ellis. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll second that motion. Community

[15:55] members, any discussion on the motion? All those in favor.

[15:59] Any opposed? Sir, your application has been approved by the

[16:02] committee and general courts of the joints presented to the

[16:04] committee today. Thank you and have an outstanding. Thank you.

[16:07] Um, application A. 255 for anybody who's tuning in or

[16:12] walked in late at 1776 Meyer side road unit. One

[16:15] has been deferred. Um, there is no scheduled hearing date

[16:18] if you've been, once we recirculate it, you'll get, uh,

[16:22] notice once we have a date. Next application is A.

[16:25] 256 located 4562 Penhalo Road. Is there an interest in

[16:30] this application? No, Alexander, if you'd like to introduce the

[16:34] agent of the applicant, please. Yes, Mr. Chair, for this

[16:37] application, we have a DT decide registered. A DT, you've

[16:40] been unmuted. You can go ahead. Good afternoon, everyone. So

[16:45] we have. Uh, we are proposing an ADU in the

[16:49] basement. And for that, we need a below grade entrance

[16:54] on the side yad. And so we have after the

[16:59] retaining wall to the property line, we have three feet,

[17:03] five inches or 1. 05 metres that required setback is

[17:08] 1. 2 metres. So asking relief for 0. 17 metres

[17:13] or 7 inches. And there is no negative impact on

[17:17] the property or neighbouring property. Um, there is a clearance

[17:23] for drainage purpose. So kindly request for the relief. Okay.

[17:31] Thank you committee members. Any questions or comments? Alexander Commons,

[17:34] please. Yes, Mr. Chair. Is no objections to the

[17:43] application. One letter of objection was received in one member

[17:46] of the public has pre - registered to speak. Thank

[17:48] you. Do you want to do some member of the

[17:50] public, please? Yes, Mr. Chair, let me just take a

[17:54] look. Here. I see we had a theatore fitch registered,

[18:02] but I don't see him online. Not sure. Let me

[18:09] take a look.

[18:21] Yeah, they did register successfully, but I don't see them

[18:24] online, Mr. Chair. Mr. and Mrs. Fitch, if you're online,

[18:28] do you want to raise your hand. If you've logged

[18:32] in under different. There are no hands rates, Mr. Chair.

[18:37] Is there anybody in the audience I'll ask again, A.

[18:40] 256 at 4562 Penhalo Road has an interest in this

[18:44] application? No. Um. Okay, we'll just move forward. I guess,

[18:48] uh, Mr. Ready for a motion, Mr. Page. Thanks, Mr.

[18:51] Chair. Move approval, the application meets the four tests. Um,

[18:55] Septic General conforms of the drawings. I know we've received

[18:57] a letter. The letter has more to do than, um,

[19:01] uh, people living there and police experience in Airbnb. The

[19:05] fact is, is that, uh, multiple dwellings are allowed on

[19:08] the site. And this is just simply an application for

[19:11] access to what's legal. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Dove Second, Mr.

[19:14] Dale. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll second the motion.

[19:18] Thank you. Um, discussion. Mr. and Ms. Svitch, I don't

[19:21] know if you're watching or not, but we did get

[19:22] your letter understanding. We do have some empathy for your

[19:26] comments. But unfortunately, that isn't something that this committee has

[19:29] jurisdiction over. Uh, my suggestion to you is if there

[19:32] is issues with Airbnb, et cetera, there are some bylaws

[19:35] and so forth that the city has imposed on that

[19:39] you. So I would suggest reaching out to the local

[19:41] councillor and maybe getting them involved in getting by law

[19:46] out and ensuring that they're meeting all the requirements that's

[19:48] needed for, uh, the use that they have there. So,

[19:51] um, Committee members, any further discussion, all those in favor.

[19:55] Any opposed. Ma'am, your application has been approved by the

[19:58] committee. And General Corns at the drawing, you presented to

[20:00] the committee today. Thank you so much. Thank you. Have

[20:04] a good day. Bye. Next application is A. 258 located

[20:09] 2517 Argar Road. Is there anybody in the ioniz has

[20:12] an interest in this application? Sorry. A. 258. At 2517

[20:19] Argyle Road. No, I thought we, no. We just did.

[20:27] We just did 256. Yeah. Do you want my glasses?

[20:32] Alexander, do you want to introduce the agent of the

[20:35] applicant, please? You're not being helpful. Yes, Mr. Chair, for

[20:39] this application, we have Sonia Di Michelle. Sonia, you've been

[20:42] unmuted. You can go ahead. Good afternoon, everyone. It's Sonia

[20:46] Di Michelle and I'm seeing the planning slaff comments. Do

[20:52] you want to move forward and present today. Yes. Okay.

[20:56] Go ahead. So we're proposing to, uh, build an accessory

[21:01] structure. On the, on the property. The property is a

[21:06] fairly big structure. The neighbour beside us has a similar

[21:10] structure to what we're proposing to build. Um, our lock

[21:15] coverage, you know, it's going to be 7. 03 and

[21:19] the maximum lock coverage is five. The height, we are

[21:22] lower than our neighbour who has a similar structure. So

[21:27] the height probably won't be into effect. And it's just,

[21:32] it's just the lock coverage. Um, I guess we're at

[21:37] 140 in the maximum area of the structure is 20

[21:41] metres squared. So just to confirm the structure is going

[21:45] to be placed. It looks like on your site plan

[21:48] when I visited the, uh, the, uh, the lot that

[21:52] it's being placed right next to the structure that's on

[21:54] the north side of your property. Correct. Okay. And I

[21:59] think there was a couple, um, sheds that were on

[22:03] there. I think you, they don't, they're not appearing on

[22:06] this site plan. So I'm assuming that the tarped one

[22:09] is being removed because it seems like it's in the

[22:11] area of where the structure's going. Yes. They will all

[22:14] be removed. All right. Mr. Rowan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[22:19] Just, just a quick question. Um, like I looked at

[22:22] the pictures. And when I was on site, you seemed

[22:24] to have a lot of equipment. So I'm assuming that

[22:25] the size of it is to accommodate the equipment that's

[22:28] in the yard, like the ride lawnmower. Yes. Correct. Yes.

[22:32] And it's not to facilitate motor vehicles like cars. No,

[22:36] no. And will there be any connection of pavement that's

[22:39] going to go back to that? No. Okay. Great. Thank

[22:42] you very much. Committee members, any other questions. Alexander Commons,

[22:48] please. City recommends that the application be deferred for redesign.

[22:53] No written submissions have received. One member of the public

[22:55] has pre - registered speak. Yes. Mr. Chair, we have

[23:05] Diana Carlesimo registered. Diana, you've been unmuted. You can go

[23:08] ahead. Hi, everybody. Thank you. Daphne, can you give us

[23:13] your name and address for the record, please? Yep. So

[23:15] this is Diana Carlesimo and my address is 2512 Rugby

[23:19] Road. Okay. Um, so I just had additional questions, I

[23:27] guess, regarding the structure. Um, I understand now placement, uh,

[23:31] wise, uh, but I guess my worry behind it was

[23:36] the actual size of the structure being so significantly large

[23:41] as well as the additional six feet in height. What

[23:46] the usual bylaw is, um, I guess my worry and

[23:50] my question is more around is this just strictly a

[23:56] storage, uh, building that's being built or is this going

[24:00] to be used, rented out, is it for anything outside

[24:05] of storage since it is a residential property? Yeah. Um,

[24:10] so the question was asked of the agent, um, and

[24:16] they mentioned that it is just for storage. Um, on

[24:20] our site plan, it doesn't show any driveway leading up

[24:22] to the, uh, to the, to the structure. And we're

[24:26] going to, if we do approve it, we'll make it

[24:28] subject to the joints presented so that there is no

[24:30] driveway. And I don't think there's a wide enough between

[24:34] the garage and the property line that they can drive

[24:37] up there. So, um, as far as the evidence that's

[24:40] been given, and we don't have anything to contrary, that

[24:43] it is only being used for storage. And now the

[24:47] only thing I can tell you is if they do

[24:49] start to run a business out of there, then there

[24:51] is bylaws in place and you'd have to, uh, call

[24:55] the city and by law enforcement, we'll go down and

[24:57] make sure that they're just using it for what they've

[24:59] asked for today. Um, but outside of that, there's really

[25:03] not much more that or any evidence to us that

[25:06] shows it's being used as a business. Okay. Perfect. And

[25:10] then I guess my only other question, just because we

[25:13] do have additional issues from other properties. Um, that there

[25:19] will be, is there any water, any sewer connections, or

[25:23] is this strictly just a shed? Like there's no other

[25:26] connection to anything? Uh, yeah, it doesn't show anywhere on

[25:29] the plans that there's any, like any sewer or anything

[25:33] being connected to it. Um, so yeah, it just looks

[25:36] like it's, uh, just a shed for storage purposes. Okay.

[25:39] So in the event, I thank you for that clarity.

[25:44] Um, so in the event that there is something that

[25:47] we see going forward that it is used for commercial

[25:50] for anything outside of a strictly storage, then that's when

[25:54] we would default to contacting bylaws and what that byline

[25:59] will fall under. Yeah. So yeah. Um, the protect ourselves

[26:02] beforehand. Yeah. No. So what I mean, we can't unfortunately,

[26:06] you know, fortunately in Canada, you assumed innocent until pretty

[26:10] guilty. So at the end of the day, what you'd

[26:12] have to do is if the thing that occurs where

[26:15] you see it that it's being used for anything other

[26:16] than storage, then you'd have to contact the city and

[26:19] just let them know. And then they'd send by -

[26:21] law down to deal with it at that point. Okay.

[26:25] Okay. Any other questions? Not at this time. Thank you.

[26:29] Thank you. Mr. DeMishell, just to confirm, um, your satis

[26:39] you're confirming that it is only for storage. There is

[26:41] no utilities or anything that's being. Right. Okay. Um, all

[26:47] right. Committee members, any questions or comments? Janice, did you

[26:49] have a comment or question or motion. It's a question.

[26:54] If, um, so this, if this gets approved and it

[26:57] got built and it's the size of a house, 1500

[26:59] square feet, a small house. If they decided they wanted

[27:03] to use it as an ARU, would they have to

[27:06] come back to committee for that. With the structure being

[27:09] in place? Yes. Yeah. Because I think, because right now

[27:13] it's been approved as a shed. Then if it converts

[27:16] an ARU, then there's bylaws in place for ARU size,

[27:19] which they wouldn't meet. So then they'd have to come

[27:21] to the committee and request for a variance on that

[27:24] if there was any that they need. Yeah. Okay. Committee

[27:28] members, any other questions or comments ready for a motion

[27:31] then? Mr. Page. Thanks Mr. Chair. Move approval of the

[27:37] application. It meets a four tests. Um. Subject to general

[27:41] conformance of the drawings satisfied that it's not going to

[27:43] be used as an ARU appropriate to approve. Dove is

[27:47] secondary, Mr. Ronin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll second the

[27:50] motion. Committee members, any discussion on the motion. All those

[27:53] in favor. Any opposed? So ma'am, your application has been

[27:57] approved by the committee. Uh, and General Corrines of the

[28:00] Drones you presented to the Committee today. Thank you very

[28:03] much. Thank you. Have a good day. You too. Thank

[28:05] you. Uh, next application is A259 at 4764. Yarmokrok court.

[28:14] Anybody in the IS have an interest in this application.

[28:17] Alexander, if you'd like to introduce the aging of the

[28:19] applicant, please. Yes. Mr. Chair for this application. We've was

[28:21] say Gulraz registered. Let's say you've been unmuted. You can

[28:23] go ahead. Hi. Uh, I'm Nadia. I'm speaking on behalf

[28:29] of Base Guresi nominated me as he was available for

[28:33] this day. Um, sorry Naddy, before you go any further,

[28:39] what's your last name, please? Uh, Natya Hanif. Okay. Have

[28:44] you seen planning staff's comments. Uh, yes. I have read

[28:48] those comments. Yeah. So they're suggesting that deferral. Well, two

[28:53] things. Number one is I think the variance that you

[28:57] were asking for was two six metres. But, or sorry,

[29:00] to eight and a half metres, but I believe the

[29:01] frontage of this lot only allows you six metre driveway,

[29:06] which now you're, you're asking for 9. 23 metres versus

[29:09] six metres. Um, so I think staff's asking for a

[29:12] deferral for you to be able to sit down with

[29:15] them and take a look at maybe redesigning the, uh,

[29:18] or making the driveway a little bit smaller. Uh, I

[29:21] tend to agree with them. I'm not sure what the

[29:23] rest of the committee members feel. But I'll just ask

[29:26] them. And then you can decide what you want to

[29:28] do, Mr. Rowan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm not unsupport

[29:32] of the current configuration. It can easily accommodate three vehicles

[29:36] across that would be in, I wouldn't really follow through

[29:40] the zoning. Thanks. Mr. Page. It's two wide needs to

[29:43] be deferred. Committee members all agree. Okay. So, um, you,

[29:48] the committee, the majority of the committee feel that, uh,

[29:51] we can't support the application as it's being presented today.

[29:54] So your two options are you can still present in

[29:58] more than likely you're going to get turned down. Or

[30:00] you can defer it and sit down with staff and

[30:02] then come back to this committee with an amended application

[30:08] that this committee may find favoring. So it's up to

[30:10] you to decide what you want to do. Um, I'd

[30:14] like to proceed with presenting. Okay. Go ahead. Um, okay.

[30:20] I read the planning comments engineering comments, uh, regional field

[30:24] comment zoning and MTO comments. So referring to the planning

[30:27] comments that you've mentioned, um, the trucks of those comments

[30:31] is that they want us to redesign the softscape. And

[30:36] the contravention letter from the city indicates that we, that

[30:39] we can, we do have an option to get back

[30:41] to 8. 5 metres, um, a width of the driveway.

[30:45] Yes. Sorry. Before you go any further, the individual that

[30:49] sent that, I believe, uh, made an error. Zoning reviewed

[30:53] it and their comments are that what you're allowed is

[30:56] a six metre, six metre wide drive wave, my correct,

[31:01] Steve. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah. We reviewed it with

[31:04] zoning. Zoning's interpretation is that the frontage does only permit

[31:10] a six metre wide driveway. Um, I think, uh, if

[31:14] they were to proceed as is the other issue that

[31:16] would be outstandings that the soft landscaping requirement that was

[31:19] not asked for in the variance request. So there's two

[31:23] things here. Just so you're clear. And you can still

[31:25] proceed if you want. But at the end of the

[31:27] day, the letter that you received from, uh, bylaw, I

[31:31] believe that they misinterpreted it. You're only allowed a six

[31:34] metre driveway, not eight and a half. So now you're

[31:37] asking for a driveway of 9. 23 to six metres,

[31:42] not to eight and a half metres. So that's a

[31:43] larger discrepancy than you think it is when it was

[31:46] at eight and a half metres. The second thing is

[31:48] you may need another variance for, uh, soft landscape. So

[31:52] if you move forward today, um, even if you've got

[31:55] approved, which I don't think you would, you'd still need

[31:58] another variance and have to come back to the committee

[32:00] for the soft landscape variants as well. So I mean,

[32:04] to me, I think you should defer it. Um, but

[32:07] again, it's up to you on what you want to

[32:09] do. Um, I'd just like to proceed with discussing it

[32:13] a little more. No, no, we're not going to discuss

[32:15] it. Your options are deferral. Or you present and we

[32:19] make a decision. Uh, I'd like to present. Okay. Go

[32:23] ahead. So, uh, I'd like to make a request that

[32:28] the driveway width of six metre be retained where as

[32:31] paredes original condition and the hardscape on the sides can

[32:35] be reduced to softscape or redesigned as your previous comments,

[32:40] um, and region of fields comments. There is a light

[32:44] standard there right next to the hors scape on the

[32:47] side. So, um, that's it. So, so the option would

[32:50] be to get back to six metres of the original

[32:53] condition and redesign the soft scale. Now I leave it

[32:58] up to you to make the decision. Sorry, you want

[33:00] to redesign the landscape in the softscape. Um, as for

[33:05] planning comments, they are. Yeah. Why don't you defer the

[33:10] application and get all that done and then come back

[33:13] to the committee. Uh, all right. Like at the end

[33:17] of the day you're allowed six metres. You, you can

[33:20] ask for a variance that's greater than six metres, maybe

[33:23] not 9. 5, 9. 23. You may, when you sit

[33:27] down with staff, you may be saying, okay, I need

[33:30] whatever that figure is. You can come back, include that

[33:34] as part of the variance for the driveway and then

[33:38] add the soft landscaping. If you require that as well.

[33:40] And then deal with it all at one time versus,

[33:43] um, being turned down today. Um, understood. So you wish

[33:49] to defer. Yes. Okay. John, did you want to make

[33:52] a comment. Yeah. Uh, Mr. Chair, you know, we mentioned

[33:57] the potential for a soft landscape. I think even more,

[34:00] it looks like it might need a zero setback. And

[34:03] on top of that, uh, staff is mentioned at proximity

[34:05] to potential issue with the proximity to utility pole. So

[34:09] I think there's some other things on the plate that

[34:11] needs to be dealt with. Sarah, did you want to

[34:14] make a comment? Ms. Dudd, Mr. Page got it. Just

[34:17] the hardscaping variance is also required. So, um, what I

[34:20] would suggest is defer it and just work through it.

[34:23] Um, again, it doesn't mean you have to go to

[34:25] six metres. You can ask for a variance that's greater

[34:28] than six metres. Uh, you can deal with the soft

[34:30] landscape. There's also the zero metre setback as Mr. Page

[34:34] is indicated, which you may be able to eliminate by

[34:36] moving the driveway from that side. But those are things

[34:39] you can work out with staff and then come back

[34:40] to this committee and present at that time. And I

[34:44] think it'll be a better option for you. Okay. Alexander,

[34:50] do we want to give him a date. Yes, Mr.

[34:52] Chair. We could bring this back on November the 26th.

[34:55] That would mean that the Alicant would have to pay

[34:56] their deferral fee and to submit any revisions by October

[35:00] 16th. So are you able to come back for November

[35:04] the 26th. Okay. And you've got to, if the changes

[35:09] that you're making to the drawings or anything like that,

[35:12] it has to be done by October the 16th. So

[35:15] my suggestion to use to reach out to, if you

[35:18] don't know the planner's name, it's Sarah. Reach out to

[35:21] the committee tomorrow. They'll give you, um, a, uh, her

[35:25] contact information. Then you can set up a meeting with

[35:27] her. Okay. Steve, did you want me to meet. Uh,

[35:31] yeah, maybe just to add to the conversation a little

[35:34] bit further, understanding that she received an order to comply,

[35:38] uh, as long as the applicant is working with the

[35:40] city to resolve the matter, the order is more or

[35:43] less stayed while she works through that process. Just, it's

[35:46] for her information. So as you know, as she works

[35:48] through it. So did you hear what, uh, Mr. Sperling

[35:51] said. Uh, yes, I did hear if you could. So

[35:55] yeah, so basically I know you have an order to

[35:57] comply. As you're still working through the process, they're not

[36:00] going to enforce it until we deal with it. So

[36:03] you don't have to worry about them coming to you

[36:06] and moving on with this because you do have a

[36:07] date now November 26. So, um, you're not, you're not

[36:10] going to have to worry about the enforcement of that,

[36:13] uh, outstanding order. For now. Unders. Okay. Committee member satisfied

[36:17] to defer. So application has been deferred in November 26

[36:20] contact. The committee office tomorrow. And they'll give you Sarah's

[36:24] contact information. And then you can sit down with her

[36:27] and go through the, uh, the process. Okay. Okay. Thank

[36:32] you. Have a good day. Okay. Next application is A260

[36:39] at 2318 Dundas Street West. Is there anybody in the

[36:42] ion that has an interest in this application? All right?

[36:53] Good afternoon. Good afternoon. You've seen planning staff comments. I

[36:56] guess they're asking for refusal. I'm not sure if it

[36:59] deferrals really going to mean anything to you or do

[37:02] much for you. So if you want to present, please.

[37:04] Yep. Absolutely. Um, so I'm Zachariah Bouchard. I'm a planner

[37:06] with Glenn Associates. Agent on behalf of this file. So

[37:10] we did read the staff report. And with respect to

[37:12] staff, we met with a couple of times, uh, during

[37:15] the process. We do appreciate, uh, but due disagree with

[37:17] the recommendation for refusals. So I'll just give a brief

[37:20] background on that. Um, this site was formerly a gas

[37:23] station. It was demolished in 2018. And it's been vacant

[37:27] in the eight years since. In 2020, there was a

[37:30] temporary approval for car sales on this site. Um, but

[37:34] no permanent structures were built in 2020 at that time.

[37:38] The subject lands were designated motor vehicle commercial. Uh, in

[37:42] the old official plan, which did not permit motor vehicle

[37:44] sales. That temporary variance was approved by committee despite staff's

[37:48] opinion at the variants did not meet the intent of

[37:50] the official plan or the intent of the bylaw. Now

[37:53] we have a new official plan in 2026. The site

[37:56] has been redesignated to mixed use, which does permit motor

[37:59] vehicle sales. Um, and in the staff report, staff agree

[38:02] now that the application meets the incent of the official

[38:05] plan. But of course, the site is still zoned C5

[38:07] 3, which doesn't permit motor vehicle sales and only permits

[38:11] three specific uses. Being gas bar motor vehicle service and

[38:15] motor vehicle repair. So over the past eight years, the

[38:17] site has been undeveloped of vacant lots and planning policy

[38:21] has evolved in the background for this new vision along

[38:24] the DonDAS corridor. Uh, the area is also in a

[38:27] major transit station area. And it's being enhanced through investment

[38:30] in the dundas bus rapid transit project. So, uh, add

[38:35] to that, there's approximately a dozen existing motor vehicle sales

[38:38] uses within 500 metres of the sites, including at Dunwind

[38:41] Drive and Aaron Mills Drive. So the changing kind of

[38:44] planning policy context going on in the background here. Uh,

[38:47] the applicant for this development is interested in developing a

[38:51] motor vehicle sales building. And we would argue that motor

[38:54] vehicle sales in this site is certainly more compatible than

[38:57] a motor vehicle service or motor vehicle repair use, uh,

[39:00] and, uh, more compatible than a vacant lot along a

[39:02] rapid transit corridor. Um, the site would have no outdoor

[39:06] display of vehicles for sale. There is adequate parking. And

[39:09] the site would be well designed and support these active

[39:12] pedestrian and transit goals in an MTSA more so I

[39:15] would argue that a motor vehicle service and repair use.

[39:19] It was an act of site plan application and process

[39:21] to help ensure quality of design to the city satisfaction.

[39:25] Um, there'll be a two metre road dedication along the

[39:27] frontage there to meet the transit goals, uh, and the

[39:31] investment in rapid transit. Planners on that site plan application

[39:35] did ultimately recommend. We pursue minor variants for this use

[39:38] as opposed to a rezoning. And we would welcome any

[39:41] site plan conditions attached to a potential approval by committee

[39:44] to be realised through site plan. Uh, and then finally

[39:49] as a former gas station in a commercial cluster, we

[39:51] would just argue that, uh, the site is not necessarily

[39:53] appropriate for any other kind of residential or mixed use

[39:56] opportunity without more significant remediation. So given that context, we

[40:01] do believe this is an appropriate use. So we would

[40:04] suggest, and like the committee to consider that although the

[40:07] existing C5 3 zone doesn't contemplate motor vehicle sales as

[40:11] a permitted use given the current planning contest context and

[40:15] the existing site context, it's an appropriate use and meets

[40:18] the general intent of the zoning by law to implement

[40:21] the official plan and regulate compatible uses. Thank you. Thank

[40:26] you. Committee members, any questions, Mr. Page? Yeah, just, I'm

[40:31] okay with the proposal. I would just throw out. There's

[40:34] some neighbour concerns about potential for lighting. I know they

[40:36] don't abut. Um, but, you know, if you're going to

[40:39] be having cars and display and probably want security and

[40:42] all that stuff, a little bit of conscientiousness maybe about

[40:45] how the light, that high can spill over. Thanks, Mr.

[40:48] Chair. Community members, any other questions or comments? Alexander Commons,

[40:53] please. The city recommends that the application be refused. The

[40:57] building department is currently reviewing the site plan application and

[41:00] notes variance is 15 and 6 are correct for variance

[41:03] 2, they note that the drawing submitted through the site

[41:05] plan shall we'll landscape buffer of 1. 4 were the

[41:07] variance is asking for 1. 5. They also note that

[41:11] the site plan the frontier setback is shown at 2.

[41:14] 7 where the requested variance is 3. And they are

[41:17] unable to confirm the accuracy of the centre line setback

[41:19] variants. 2 letters of objection were received, one member of

[41:23] the public has be registered speak and 1 petition of

[41:25] objection was received as signatures from 7 members of the

[41:27] public. Have you seen planning staff's comments? Do you want

[41:31] to amend the application? Do you want to leave the

[41:34] variances as you've requested? We leave it requested. Um, if

[41:37] we made, uh, we adapted it from the site plan,

[41:41] the initial site plan application in part to accommodate that

[41:43] 2 metre row dedication, which came up through site plants.

[41:47] So Alexander, if we make it subject to the plans

[41:50] that were presented, I guess they'll have to change those

[41:53] to register flight. Three of you, Mr. Chair. I'm not

[41:55] entirely sure. We need to tie this to drawings. They're

[41:56] going through site plan approval anyways. That's the application that's

[41:59] zoning note that they're reviewing. So if they're going through

[42:01] site plan anyways, the city can address any comments they

[42:03] have there. Is there anybody in the eye that's as

[42:05] an interest in this application at A260 2318 Dundas Street

[42:10] West. Now, Alexander, is there online that was just committee

[42:13] on this application. Through you, Mr. Chair, we had a

[42:20] Muhammad Khan request to speak. Don't see them online. Just

[42:25] let me check quickly.

[42:35] Yeah, no. It doesn't look like it. 3 Mr. Chair

[42:37] doesn't look like they ever successfully completed the registration. Okay.

[42:41] Sir, just want to come back up to the podium.

[42:44] And that was the only person that registered, right? Okay.

[42:46] Committee members, do you have any questions or comments. If

[42:50] not, ready for a motion. Mr. Rowan. Thank you, Mr.

[42:58] Chairman. I'm going to move a motion for approval. I

[43:00] think the fact that it doesn't meet the intent of

[43:03] the official plan and it is permitted in the new

[43:05] official plan. I look at the area in the built

[43:08] form. I think it is compatible to what's there. And

[43:11] I think it's a minor deviation in terms of the

[43:12] zoning. If it didn't meet that test, um. Did it

[43:16] be amend that. No, we didn't. Uh, no. Okay. So

[43:20] we would approve that. And we're not bataching it to

[43:23] the drawings because it's going through cyclan approval. So thanks.

[43:26] Dove, a second, Mr. Dale. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll

[43:30] second the motion. Committee members, any discussion on the motion,

[43:33] Mr. Page? Thanks, Mr. Chair. I'm going to, I support

[43:36] the motion. I'm not sure that we hit with the

[43:39] letters had asked for. They think there was some concern

[43:42] about motor vehicle traffic. Derived from this. Um, I, unless

[43:47] it's people coming from the residential area to Dundas to

[43:50] access the motor vehicle sales area, it seems like it's

[43:53] really, uh, facing done DAS and relative to that direction.

[43:56] And, uh, and not the neighbourhood. So I'm not seeing

[43:59] any issues with, uh, headlights, et cetera. And as I

[44:02] understand it, the building itself meets the setbacks. It's just

[44:07] some landscape buffers and relationship to Dundas, if I'm not

[44:11] mistaken. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Thanks, Mr. Page. And just to

[44:15] add to that, I mean, at the end of the

[44:16] day, it's a commercial property. Something can be built there.

[44:19] You're going to have people visiting that site no matter

[44:22] what. So I don't think you're going to get any

[44:23] more traffic with what the use is being asked for

[44:26] today than anything else. So I'm going to support the

[44:29] motion as well. All those in favor. Any opposed. So

[44:33] your application has been approved by the committee. Thank you.

[44:35] Good day. Uh, anybody watching or that came in late

[44:38] A263 2202 Stanfield Road has been deferred. Um, next application

[44:45] is A265, 1646, would even drive. Is there anybody in

[44:49] the INS has an interest in this application? No, Alexander,

[44:52] if you'd like to just see easier, the applicant, please.

[44:54] Yes, Mr. Chair, we have Caden Somerville registered for this

[44:56] one. Caden. You've been unmuted. You can go ahead. Good

[44:59] afternoon. Uh, chaired members of the committee. My name is

[45:03] Caden Sogo and our representing the application. A265 0. 26

[45:08] at 1646 wedding drive. Um, you have favorable planning staff

[45:13] comments, but I believe there's someone in the line that

[45:16] wishes address committee. So if you want to give us

[45:18] a presentation on what you're looking at doing, please. Absolutely.

[45:22] The application request permission to increase the permitted gross floor

[45:26] area from approximately 329 to 363 square metres to accommodate

[45:32] an addition on the house. This is the Onlyvariance required

[45:35] as a proposal compliance with the zoning requirements for height.

[45:39] A lot coverage dwelling death and setback. In our opinion,

[45:43] the variance satisfies the fore test under the planning act

[45:46] maintains the character of the neighbourhood and will not negatively

[45:49] affect neighbouring properties or the streetscape. Like you mentioned prior,

[45:53] planning staff has no objection to the application and the

[45:56] application agrees to satisfy the recommended forestry condition for the

[46:00] protected protection of the city Owen treat. Anything further, do

[46:09] that. That's all. Okay. Uh, comments, questions, Mr. Page. Thanks,

[46:16] Mr. Chair. I know that there was a little bit

[46:18] of concern expressed. So let me just, uh, get you

[46:22] to underline. So this is just your request for what,

[46:25] 360 additional square feet. But the side yard setbacks, no

[46:29] rear, no front yard setbacks. Uh, no height variances, no

[46:34] lot coverage. Variances, no building depth coverage as a variance.

[46:41] Is that correct? You don't have any additional variances. Exactly.

[46:46] Thank you. Yeah. And just to confirm, I think one

[46:51] of the neighbours mentioned about overlook and so forth. I

[46:54] mean, first of all, you're allowed to build a two

[46:56] - story home here. So no matter how, even if

[46:59] they built to the GFA that's required, you're allowed. There's

[47:03] going to be windows and there'll be two - story

[47:05] home there. But on the side, uh, on their side,

[47:10] I guess, uh, when you're facing the house, um, it

[47:14] looks like you've only got a window in the office

[47:16] study, a window in the storage, and then a window

[47:19] in the bedroom that's kind of at the front of

[47:21] the house. Is that correct? Yes, sir. Okay. All right.

[47:26] Um, Alexander comments, please. City has no objections to the

[47:31] application. The forestry division has requested a condition relating to

[47:34] securities. Three letters of concern were received. One member of

[47:37] the public has to be registered to speak. Thank you.

[47:40] Um, do you want to introduce a member of the

[47:42] public, please? Alexander? Yes, Mr. Chair, for this application, we

[47:45] have Ed Arendel registered. Ed, you've been unmuted. You can

[47:48] go ahead. You've been unmuted. You can go ahead.

[48:01] There we go. Go ahead, Mr. We can hear you.

[48:05] Yep. Just give us your name and address. For the

[48:07] record, please. Uh, my wife and I have been resident.

[48:11] Oh, my name is Ed Arandel and Levi at 9H

[48:16] 7 Vangeli. Okay. Go ahead. Uh, our property is immediately

[48:22] behind the property at 1646, Woudinho. Our house designed a

[48:27] similar to the current design at 1646. We share a

[48:31] sizable portion of the backyard pinched with 1646 property. Um,

[48:36] my main concern is in regard to the impact of

[48:39] the larger footprint. Um, and the, uh, the size of

[48:44] the roof on stormwater or snow melt run off on

[48:47] our property. Yes. So what they'll have to, sorry, just

[48:52] to, as they go through the building permit process, they'll

[48:56] have to get clearance from, um, development and construction committee

[48:59] with regards to drainage. They'll have to provide a drainage

[49:02] plan. Um, their drainage will have to be self -

[49:05] contained and drained to the front of the houses that,

[49:08] I guess, is today. So that'll be addressed through that

[49:11] process. Oh, that, uh, that answers most of my questions.

[49:16] We really appreciate that that has to happen. Uh, hopefully

[49:20] the eavesdrop greening will flow to the front of the

[49:23] house as well. Uh, that would solve much of my

[49:26] concern. Yeah. Whatever, as I said, they'll have to get

[49:29] through that process with, uh, development. And typically in the

[49:33] city of Mississaugi have to, you drainage have to be

[49:35] self - contained. So they'll have to, whatever, however it

[49:38] drains now, they'll have to maintain that. Um, and they'll

[49:40] have to get that approval before they can build the

[49:43] house through the building permit process. Great. The only other

[49:48] thing I'd say is they've been good neighbours and their

[49:49] kids are fun to watch. And, uh, there have been

[49:52] some water issues in the past, uh, two or three

[49:55] times, but in the 30 years that we've been here,

[49:58] and they've been worrying, but not, uh, overwhelming. Thank you

[50:02] for your comments committee members. Any questions for the neighbour?

[50:05] Thank you, sir. We appreciate your comments. Thanks. Again. Is

[50:10] anybody else in the audience as an interest in this?

[50:13] No, Mr. Somerville, is there anything you wish to add

[50:15] before we go to a decision. No, sir. Ready for

[50:19] a motion then, Mr. Page. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Move approval

[50:23] of the application. I do believe meets the forecasts. This

[50:27] just has no other variances other than a little bit

[50:28] of square footage. Um, subject to general conformance to the

[50:33] drawings, please. Do I have a sector, Mr. Ellis? Thank

[50:36] you, Mr. Chair. Yes. I'll second that motion. Committee members,

[50:41] any discussion on the motion, all those in favor. Any

[50:45] opposed? Sir, your application has been approved by the committee.

[50:48] Subject to the drones presenting. Thank you so much. Thank

[50:50] you. Have a good day. Yes, well. Thank you. Next

[50:54] application is A. 266 located 1720 Sherwood 4 Circle. Is

[50:58] there anybody in the eyes as an interest in this

[50:59] application?

[51:09] Jane, sir. Gaston, you, Mr. Chairman members of the committee.

[51:16] My name is Maurice Lukic. Shun with GSAI. We are

[51:20] the agents for the applicants. At short before circle. So

[51:24] you have favorable planning staff comments, but I know that

[51:26] there's two neighbours online that we should address committee. So

[51:29] if you just want to give us a presentation on

[51:31] what you're looking at doing. Sure. So I can run

[51:34] through this quickly. Next slide. Or is it me? Do

[51:41] I draw? Okay. You drive. Thank you. Um, so just

[51:45] to, just to clarify for everyone, this is, uh, variances

[51:48] with regards to the residential block. Um, it's West and

[51:51] Mississauga Road, South of Dundas, but it's actually accessed only

[51:54] from Sherwood Forest Circle. This is a block that's been

[51:58] subject to rezoning and plan of subdivision and now site

[52:01] plan approval applications. Next slide. The site is designated residential

[52:10] low density 1 in the brand new city's official plan.

[52:14] This shows the zoning, um, uh, approval on the left.

[52:18] I tried to splice to show you what was the

[52:20] old R 16 16 zoning. Which had a site -

[52:24] specific schedule to outline little blocks for particular buildings. The

[52:30] 1 on the right is a replacement schedule that actually

[52:32] was before this committee this past December. Where as a

[52:37] result of processing the site plan, we did some modifications

[52:40] to the buildings and all of that. And that has

[52:42] now been approved on the right. Next slide. So we

[52:52] prepared this lotting plan, uh, and it got submitted with

[52:55] the materials and we thought we might, in case there

[52:57] was residents interested or watching, we thought we would include

[53:01] this to explain the variances seamworthy, but the reasoning and

[53:08] logic, um, behind that, uh, the project is still continuing

[53:13] with 41 detached wellings. Nothing is changing on that. They

[53:18] are the same. It's the same project that's been before

[53:20] the city for the past year. The variances which are

[53:23] before us or as a result of interpretation issues, which

[53:26] have come up from zoning staff as a result of

[53:30] the advancing and processing of the site plan application. So

[53:34] the variances that we have deal with, um, different house

[53:38] types and model elevations. And so what we try to

[53:42] do is to capture them all with the plans that

[53:45] you're going to see, I'll cycle through a few. That

[53:49] will apply to these lots and questions. So we're using

[53:52] this as an easy way for everyone, particularly for permit

[53:55] staff down the road and zoning to be able to

[53:58] understand where the variances applied because they are being asked

[54:01] and tied to specific addresses. Which have been assigned by

[54:05] the city. Uh, next slide, please. So the first variance

[54:12] to talk about is, uh, is a request for height.

[54:16] So again, the interpretation issue, which came up, uh, which

[54:20] the, can you see how on the sideshot there is

[54:23] what I'll call an asymmetrical roofline, uh, you see one

[54:27] side, you see the other. So what has happened is

[54:30] the design team thought that would be still considered a

[54:33] sloped roof and city has said, no, we can call

[54:35] it flat. So then the request is to go from

[54:40] the 12. 6 metre permission to 13. 2 metres. Because

[54:44] now we have to measure to the top. Again, it's

[54:46] the same house, the same drawings. There's just a new

[54:49] way that we have to measure. Next slide. This variance,

[54:55] and again, I thought I would isolate this one applies

[54:58] for lots that are interior to the, to the project.

[55:02] So they do not overlook or are included on any

[55:05] of the lands which but existing homes on Sherwood Forest

[55:09] circles. They're all, uh, again, going to be part of

[55:12] the future development, but let's say removed by one block

[55:16] interior to the site. Next slide. So this variance and

[55:24] then the next ones that I'm going to go through,

[55:26] um, they result from the city advising us that the

[55:29] building projection has to be measured on three sides. So

[55:33] that has sort of imbalanced the math and thrown off

[55:37] the percent window coverage that we need to have. So

[55:40] the first of the projection variances is to ensure that

[55:43] if there is a lowered rear yard condition, there's going

[55:47] to be a fixed point. So we've just sort of

[55:49] drawn a red line there. Where that's the percentage which

[55:53] you, or the percent, sorry, the measurement of the amount

[55:56] of wall that you will measure for the purposes of

[55:58] deciding and meeting the window coverage number. So that, that

[56:02] was the first variance again. We had to do this

[56:04] as a technicality now because of the way, um, so

[56:08] just, I mean, to put it in English, and if

[56:12] I'm reading this right, in two dimension, you're okay with

[56:16] the windows, but because you've got projections and you're measuring

[56:19] the sides of those projections, that puts you over the

[56:23] window mount. So it's more of a technical in nature.

[56:27] If you didn't have the projection, it was flat against

[56:29] the wall, you would be fine. You wouldn't need these

[56:31] variances. That's what's happened. Correct. Thank you. Yeah. Next slide,

[56:36] please. So that was a nice prequel to this slide.

[56:46] So the architect's drawings are actually showing the arrow is

[56:49] pointing to a part on their drawings, which is trying

[56:51] to explain this and what has going on. So to

[56:54] your point, Mr. Chairman, instead of just measuring the 2D

[56:59] plane wall, we are now having to measure the sides

[57:02] of the projection. And so the math is being thrown

[57:06] off. So this is the first one where there is

[57:08] a rear wall projection. And, um, this is the first

[57:12] request before the city. Next slide, please. And. This is,

[57:19] um, minor variance number 4. And again, this is 4A.

[57:23] We're calling it a 2 story front wall projection. And

[57:26] again, we're showing the arrow to show you the area

[57:28] that had to be measured. I'm going to pause here

[57:31] for a minute and also just point out something that

[57:32] we've noted in our, in our submission materials. Uh, that

[57:36] in my opinion, when you look at this and all

[57:38] the other drawings that you're going to see coming after

[57:40] this, um, while the math mathematically, we might be offside.

[57:46] And so you look at the math and the requests

[57:48] of the variances aesthetically and in terms of the designs,

[57:52] um, they look typical and they certainly match in our

[57:56] in keeping with the balance of the character of each

[57:58] house model. There's nothing. The math doesn't give you the

[58:01] true story. These are the plans and this is the

[58:04] way it will be built. But again, it's basically the

[58:07] denominator is becoming larger and it's shrinking the percentage once

[58:11] you keep the same numerator. The numerator being the window

[58:14] coverage. So basically except for variance number 1 2 through

[58:19] 7 are exactly what you've described just with different, um,

[58:25] homes and different architecture and stuff. So you know what

[58:28] just rifle through the, you don't have to explain each

[58:30] one. Just won't. So we'll just, I'll just keep showing

[58:32] you. We can just, you can keep flipping whomever is

[58:35] doing this. Thank you for doing this. So there's another

[58:37] example. Again, this will be a front wall, second wall.

[58:40] Next story. Very next slide. And then, uh, variance number

[58:45] six again for a smaller unit. And then number seven.

[58:50] So again, it's the exact same issue. It's a math

[58:53] interpretation question, which is before committee today. I would love

[58:56] to have been in the brain of the person that

[58:58] came up with this. Bylaw. Like we must be sitting

[59:02] there at night going, Hey, how can we make things

[59:03] more difficult for everybody. Um, Committee, sorry, did you have

[59:07] anything else you want, Dad? That's, I think. Committee members,

[59:10] any questions or comments? Alexander Commons, please. Yes. Mr. Chair.

[59:15] City recommends the Committee of regard for all comments and

[59:17] evidence provided by the applicant narrow residence when assessing if

[59:19] the application meets the requirements to section 45, 71 to

[59:21] the planning act. The applicant may wish you defer the

[59:23] application to ensure the accuracy they requested variances and that

[59:25] additional variances are not required. Um, I will just note

[59:27] there was a bit of a formatting issue on the

[59:29] notice. They're all the information that's still correct on there.

[59:33] Uh, we'll fix it in the decision variances. The original

[59:36] variance is four and five got combined into four. And

[59:38] the variances on the Note is six and seven are

[59:39] actually one variant. So, but we'll correct that in the

[59:42] decision. Two letters of objection were received and two members

[59:44] of the public high pre - registered speak. Mr. Lucuch,

[59:47] before, go to the members of the public for variance

[59:50] number one with the height, the structure hasn't changed. It's

[59:54] just the bylaw that's changed on how you measure height

[59:57] now opposed to mid roof. It's at the peak, correct?

[1:00:00] Correct. The place where zoning has decided you interpret the

[1:00:05] top of the house instead of being the midpoint. Because

[1:00:08] again, the architect thought that would be deemed a sloped

[1:00:10] roof structure. And now zoning has said, no, we're going

[1:00:12] to be, the slope at, uh, I think member John,

[1:00:16] you correct me, 212 slope is considered a very low

[1:00:18] slope and pitch of the roof. And therefore they're saying

[1:00:20] we call that a flat roof. You now have to

[1:00:23] go to the highest element. So it's just, again. And

[1:00:26] those, those units appear towards Mississauga Road in behind the

[1:00:31] units on, um, on Forest, the further ease. They're not,

[1:00:36] they're not any of the units that will be, um,

[1:00:38] next to Sherwood 4 circle box. Great. If you want

[1:00:40] to seat for a moment, we'll go to the members

[1:00:42] of the online. Alexander, if you want to introduce members

[1:00:46] online that wishes to address committee on this application. Yes,

[1:00:53] Mr. Chair. First up, we have Teresa Pamata. Terisa, you've

[1:00:58] been unmuted. You can go ahead. Yes. Hello. Um, thank

[1:01:04] you. Um, I didn't actually really have any questions. Just,

[1:01:10] can you just give us your address for the record

[1:01:11] just so that we can put that in our? Yes.

[1:01:14] I'm Teresa Pamitat and I live at 1698. She worked

[1:01:18] for a circle. And I back on to part of

[1:01:21] the development. So I've just been involved with this, um,

[1:01:25] parcel of land since it came up for sale with

[1:01:28] the sisters in 2018. So I'm just following along. I

[1:01:31] didn't have any particular questions or comments. I just want

[1:01:34] to keep in the loop with these, uh, minor variances

[1:01:37] that are being addressed today. So I appreciate all the

[1:01:40] information. Thank you. Committee members, any questions? Thanks Mr. Pametat.

[1:01:46] Um, Alexander, do you want to introduce the next person,

[1:01:48] please? Through you, Mr. Chair, we did have the Hendry's

[1:01:53] registered. However, they do not appear to be online. Okay.

[1:01:56] Community members, any question. Uh, sorry, Mr. Liquidch, do you

[1:01:58] want to come back up to the podium. I'm assuming

[1:02:05] you have nothing further you wish to add to the

[1:02:07] discussion. No, Mr. Chairman, if there had been questions, I

[1:02:11] would have certainly answered them. I think we're good to

[1:02:13] go. Ready for a motion then. Committee members. Mrs. Robinson.

[1:02:20] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm of approval of the application.

[1:02:23] It's many variances. They're all technical. I don't think the

[1:02:26] proposal has changed at all. It's just the way the

[1:02:28] bylaw was written and now how it's being interpreted. And

[1:02:31] I don't think we need it to be subject to

[1:02:33] the plans because they're going through cycline approval. Thanks, Mrs.

[1:02:37] Robinson. Do I have a second, Mr. Rowan. Thank you,

[1:02:40] Mr. Chairman. I'll second the motion. It's a minor deviation

[1:02:43] from the original site schedule through the rezoning and it's

[1:02:46] appropriate. Sorry, Committee members, any discussion on the motion. Um,

[1:02:51] just to address, I think some of the letters that

[1:02:53] came in, like the zoning in here has gone through

[1:02:58] a process that I think was approved a few years

[1:03:00] ago. So at the end of the day, we're not,

[1:03:02] um, litigating the zoning. It's allowed to be built here.

[1:03:06] All we're really doing is dealing with variances as the

[1:03:09] presentation has gone through really technical in nature, more than

[1:03:13] anything. So I think they do meet the four tests.

[1:03:15] I'm going to support the motion. All those in favor.

[1:03:19] Janice. Any opposed, sir, your application has been approved by

[1:03:23] the committee. Thank you. Next application is A267 located 6685

[1:03:30] Pacific Circle. Is there anybody in the INS has an

[1:03:33] interest in this application? No, Alexander, if you'd like to

[1:03:35] introduce the agent of the African place. Yes, Mr. Chair,

[1:03:38] for this application, we have Nicholas Multiregistered. Nicholas, you've been

[1:03:41] unmuted. You can go ahead. I, good afternoon, Mr. Chair,

[1:03:44] members of the committee. My name is Nicholas Malta. I'm

[1:03:46] a planner with mainline planning services. Uh, we are the

[1:03:49] authorized planning agent. For the property owner. Um, you have

[1:03:52] favorable planning staff comments. Uh, just give us a real

[1:03:55] brief presentation on what you're looking or asking for. Of

[1:03:59] course, uh, the proposal is a technical variance which seeks

[1:04:02] to bring an existing site condition into compliance with the

[1:04:06] zoning by law because of a condition to convert this

[1:04:08] property into condominium tenure. Uh, we are aware of the

[1:04:11] staff has no objections to the application and that you

[1:04:14] have mainlines, uh, or rather our considered and professional planning

[1:04:17] opinion that the proposal meets the four tests and is

[1:04:20] good planning. Um, thank you for your time. I'm available

[1:04:23] turns to any questions. Thank you. Committee members, any questions

[1:04:26] or comments. Do you have a question. Okay. Uh, Alexander

[1:04:31] Commons, please. City is no objections to the application. No

[1:04:34] written submissions were received. No members of the public. I

[1:04:36] pre - registered to speak. Ready for motion, Mr. Page.

[1:04:41] Thanks, Mr. Chair Move Approval Application meets four test case

[1:04:44] of the, they didn't cross the line crossed them. Dove,

[1:04:49] second, Mr. Dale. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll second

[1:04:51] the motion. Yes. Oh. Committee members, any discussion on motion.

[1:04:57] All those in favor. Any opposed? Sir, your application has

[1:05:00] been approved by the Committee as presented. Thank you very

[1:05:03] much. About your state. Have a good day. You too.

[1:05:05] Thanks. Next application is A59 located 1271 Lauren Park Road.

[1:05:10] Is there anybody in the Irons have an interest in

[1:05:12] this application? Alexander, want to introduce the agent of the

[1:05:15] Afflicton, please. Yes, Mr. Chair, for this application, we have

[1:05:18] Michael Barton. Michael, you've been unmuted. You can go ahead.

[1:05:22] Good. Afternoon. My name is Michael Barton. NB1 development consulting.

[1:05:26] I have the agent for the property owner. Good afternoon.

[1:05:31] It seemed like you have favorable planning staff comments. So

[1:05:35] do you, and then you want to give us a

[1:05:36] brief presentation on what you're looking at doing, please. Absolutely.

[1:05:40] So this was previously deferred. Uh, so this, this variance

[1:05:44] application relates to retain lands from a previous city approved

[1:05:49] consent application. So the change was that the owners would

[1:05:53] like to retain the existing dwelling for, uh, at this

[1:05:57] time as opposed to demolishing it immediately. So the two

[1:06:01] variances that are requested relate to, uh, maintaining the existing

[1:06:05] homes. So the, the interior side yard setback is the

[1:06:09] existing setback today. And then the rear yard setback is

[1:06:12] a setback that's being created to the severed lot next

[1:06:16] door. So the, the primary concerns that were raised by

[1:06:19] staff, uh, and the reason for the deferral were for

[1:06:22] drainage and grading. So we did go back and meet

[1:06:26] with development engineering staff, uh, provide grading a servicing plans

[1:06:30] that they were satisfied with to come back forward. So

[1:06:33] we will be then, uh, finally addressing those matters through

[1:06:37] finalising the severance. Um, so today again, we're just looking

[1:06:41] for the approval of the two variances that we'll allow

[1:06:43] the existing dwelling to remain on the retain lands. Okay.

[1:06:49] Committee members, any questions or comments? Alexander Commons, please. City

[1:06:53] recommends that the Committee of our guard for all commons

[1:06:54] and evidence provided by the applicant in area residents when

[1:06:56] assessing up the application meets the requirements of section 4571

[1:06:59] of the planning act. The applicant may wish to defer

[1:07:00] the application to ensure the accuracy that requested variances and

[1:07:03] the additional variances are not required. The forestry division is

[1:07:06] requesting a condition relating to tree securities. No written submissions

[1:07:11] were received as a result of the circulation. No members

[1:07:12] of the public have pre - registered to speak as

[1:07:14] this is a deferred file. And you all previous emissions

[1:07:15] that have not been amended remain enforced and effect. Thank

[1:07:17] you very much. Alexander. Committee members is again, is the

[1:07:23] IS has an interest in application A259 at 1271 Lauren

[1:07:26] Park Road? No seeing none. Ready for a motion, Mr.

[1:07:29] Page. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Move approval of the application meets

[1:07:34] four tests and general conformits of the drawings, please. Do

[1:07:38] I have a second, Mr. Rowan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[1:07:40] I'll second the motion. Community members, any discussion on the

[1:07:43] motion. All those in favor. Any opposed? Sir, your application

[1:07:48] has been approved by the Committee and General Court of

[1:07:50] the Johns presented to the Committee today. Thank you. Thank

[1:07:53] you. Have a good day. That ends our agenda for

[1:07:55] the day. Oh, sorry. No, we got another one. Uh,

[1:07:58] A219 at 929, 930 Crozier Court.

[1:08:08] Good afternoon, Mr. Odd. Good afternoon. Good one. I'm sure

[1:08:13] you've seen planning staff comments, but, uh, you do want

[1:08:16] to move forward. I guess that really, it deferrals not

[1:08:19] going to accomplish much. No, I'll explain the situation and

[1:08:23] very clearly. The reason for why we were going forward

[1:08:27] today and why we had supportive comments initially and now

[1:08:31] comments, uh, an opposition of the proposal. Um, just as

[1:08:35] a quick note, if I can have the, uh, the

[1:08:37] screen, please. Guys, can you guys switch it over to

[1:08:41] the overhead? Please. Thanks. It's there. Okay. Thank you. Um,

[1:08:46] this is the, uh, the current list of variances just

[1:08:48] so the committees aware. Alexander as well as planning both

[1:08:51] have them. There was a couple of, uh, small tweaks

[1:08:55] in the list of variances pertaining to what was, uh,

[1:08:58] provided as part of the circulation, uh, the two items

[1:09:01] were varianced number five, just so the committees aware, the

[1:09:04] flat roof height of the carport, uh, there was a

[1:09:07] slight change in that 3. 83 metres. It's within the

[1:09:10] new comments. Uh, the ARU height was determined also by

[1:09:15] zoning because it's from established grade to be a bit

[1:09:17] higher. We had applied for 10. 02. Whereas 10. 41

[1:09:21] was required. So there is a couple of changes in

[1:09:26] the variances specifically number 5, 13 and the same height

[1:09:29] on variance number 15. So, uh, there is a request

[1:09:33] to just accept those amendments. So do you want us

[1:09:36] to amend those, uh, there's nothing else that I guess

[1:09:38] staffs come up with. So Committee member satisfied to amend.

[1:09:42] Uh, Janice, I'm assuming you're okay. We can't see you,

[1:09:44] but. Go ahead. Okay. Thank you. Yes, I'm okay. Thanks

[1:09:53] James. So I'll just go through the presentation. I'll try

[1:09:56] and be this relatively grief as I can. We were

[1:10:00] before you back in July for the consent as well

[1:10:02] as the minor variance application. This was the, uh, the

[1:10:05] plan that was before you in July. Essentially what we

[1:10:08] were looking for was. So is that leak Ontario, Lake

[1:10:11] of America? That's Lake Ontario, Mr. Chair. Okay. Just wanted

[1:10:14] to double check. For the record. We know it's very

[1:10:17] clear Lake Ontario. You're putting me off now. So we

[1:10:25] did get a consent to proved. Uh, we took a

[1:10:28] piece off 929, added it to 930. The purpose was

[1:10:32] to have one large lot to accommodate the current proposal.

[1:10:37] Uh, the lot line read readjustment was approved. Um, just

[1:10:40] so the committee's aware there's a lot area at the

[1:10:43] total lot area. Of this 930 now. His 13, 519

[1:10:50] square metres. That includes a portion of lake Ontario. We

[1:10:53] take the portion of Lake Ontario off, uh, it ends

[1:10:57] up being about 5, 900 metre squared. All our figures

[1:11:00] for the purpose of what I'm discussing with you today,

[1:11:03] specifically coverage in GFA. Has to do within a 5,

[1:11:06] 900 metre squared, not the full amount. Okay. So I

[1:11:10] just want to be very clear that I'm going to

[1:11:11] be giving you some stats. And just so that we're

[1:11:14] a, what we're looking for here. The proposal and the

[1:11:16] design of the property, um, there's a house already under

[1:11:21] construction. This is what we call the west wing of

[1:11:24] the house. And this is the east wing of the

[1:11:27] house in green. Um, if you recall in July, we

[1:11:31] had made application essentially. Uh, interconnection between the two. Basically

[1:11:39] having it as one structure as opposed to being considered

[1:11:43] as an ARU. Since that meeting, uh, we actually had

[1:11:47] a meeting with, uh, with zoning. They determined that they'd

[1:11:50] rather see it as a, this is an AR, sorry,

[1:11:55] I apologise as a interconnection. We provided the recirculation as

[1:12:00] an ARU. So once again, uh, there was some miscommunication.

[1:12:04] I'm not missing the education. I think just a change

[1:12:05] of mind as far as zoning's interpretation that they, uh,

[1:12:10] initially want to see this as an ARU. They've since

[1:12:12] decided that, uh, it be a better as an interconnection.

[1:12:15] Uh, this came up last week. I had some discussions

[1:12:17] with our friends and planning all good. They were all

[1:12:20] worked very hard and making sure this application's going forward

[1:12:23] and all the variances are correct. But as I said,

[1:12:25] that there has been a recent interpretation change, which is

[1:12:28] why the, uh, the planning comments today, uh, are opposed

[1:12:32] specifically to the ARU. I think the issue is, uh,

[1:12:36] basically creating a precedent essentially. This property by no means

[1:12:42] will set a precedent, in my opinion, it's a very

[1:12:44] exclusive, large property fronting onto obviously Lake Ontario. What the

[1:12:51] proposal is preparing here is a very unique residential design.

[1:12:56] As I said, it's not a typical lot. Um, it's

[1:12:58] a very large lot. Instead of having one massive house,

[1:13:03] the owner is preparing or proposing a main dwelling as

[1:13:07] well as an east structure that essentially a secondary ARU

[1:13:12] or a secondary use that can essentially be, uh, used

[1:13:16] for, uh, guests or use for other amenities such as

[1:13:21] charitable events and so forth. Essentially, um, the purpose of

[1:13:26] it is to create a smaller living space in the

[1:13:30] main dwelling and have this green structure use only for

[1:13:34] a specific times and purposes. So just to discuss the

[1:13:37] functionality of the use, as I said, uh, this is

[1:13:40] day to day residence. This is for guests family visits

[1:13:43] entertaining and hosting. It includes a kitchen living area dining

[1:13:47] room, one bedroom. It's a functional guess suite essentially. The

[1:13:52] arrangement allows the owner of self property to efficiently use

[1:13:55] this particular building for their needs. From the street, of

[1:13:58] course, it appears as two separate dwellings. There is no

[1:14:01] interconnection. Although he still may provide that, you know, covered

[1:14:05] walkway at a future date. This is a overhead.

[1:14:16] The 3D view of the, uh, of the pavilion suite.

[1:14:20] Once again, it's more or less in keeping with, you

[1:14:23] know, the bylaw height - wise, it's less than the

[1:14:26] 10. 5 metres. Um, you know, if it was an

[1:14:31] assessment, it was a connected structure to the West Pavilion

[1:14:35] combined side yards would be met. Height would be met,

[1:14:38] GFA coverage. So once again, you know, it's just the

[1:14:41] fact that there's two separate structures on the property. Zoning

[1:14:48] wise, uh, as I said, this is unconventional. And this

[1:14:51] is why the scope of 18 variances in this instance.

[1:15:01] The variances should be concerned in context of the overall

[1:15:05] development. I mean, the lot is very large. Uh, the

[1:15:09] proposed coverage based on the 5, 900 Demeter squared is

[1:15:13] only 13. 61 percent with both the green in the

[1:15:17] blue west wing building. Uh, with the fact that this

[1:15:21] was considered as an ARU, it's actually 54, sorry, 45

[1:15:25] percent coverage permitted. So I have here the breakdowns of

[1:15:32] the, um, the west. GFA. The 419. 7 east, TFA,

[1:15:38] the total GFA is 749 metres squared. And the total

[1:15:42] permitted GFA is 1380. So we could get almost near

[1:15:46] to double of what is permitted on the site. And

[1:15:50] once again, that's the table end that I'm referring to,

[1:15:53] not the portion of the property, including Lake Ontario. I've

[1:15:56] noted here the coverage as well, specifically the east coverage

[1:16:01] is only 7. 41 percent. And just as a note,

[1:16:05] the bylaw, uh, does allow in the RL zone. ARUs

[1:16:10] for properties over 600, 750 metres squared, I believe. You

[1:16:14] can get timbersome the lot area up to 100 metres

[1:16:16] squared. So if for smaller property or allowed 10 percent

[1:16:20] of their lot area, just imagine the size of this

[1:16:22] property, we're actually less than the 10 percent as required

[1:16:25] for an ARIU. On the slide, uh, just showing

[1:16:35] the layout, um, outdoor kitchen, washrooms, uh, the large living

[1:16:40] area, entry hall kitchen. There's also the port courtier that

[1:16:44] results in the number of the variances. So pertaining specifically

[1:16:47] to the ARU. We'll just go through them very quickly.

[1:16:50] Um, ARU side yard. As opposed to being located in

[1:16:55] the rear yard. The ARU having a gross flurry of

[1:16:58] 419. 7 metre squared was 100 metres square dismitted. Height

[1:17:02] of 10. 41, whereas 6. 8 metres is permitted. That's

[1:17:07] in accordance with the height of the building. Uh, there's

[1:17:12] also a balcony on the front. On the two -

[1:17:15] story detached ARU. It's not permitted. Uh, I mentioned the

[1:17:20] coverage. The coverage is larger than the primary dwelling. And

[1:17:23] there is an ARU height of 410. 41 metres. The

[1:17:32] other remaining variances all have to do more or less

[1:17:34] with the driveway except for the depth. The depth of

[1:17:38] 23 is for the west. Building only. ARU does not

[1:17:46] require a debt variance in this instance. There's a walkway

[1:17:49] with a 1. 83 metres. Whereas 1. 5 metres is

[1:17:53] required. Maximum garage area. This is a garage on the

[1:17:56] side of the west. Dwelling 85. 08 75 metres squared

[1:18:00] being required. Uh, mentioned the garage projection from the meanwhile,

[1:18:04] 8. 25 metres, whereas, uh, projection at 2. 5 metres

[1:18:08] is required. That's for the poor courtier on the, uh,

[1:18:10] on the east building car port, or sorry, flat roof

[1:18:14] on a carport, 3. 83 metres. That's where the port

[1:18:17] courtier. And maximum number of garages, two garages. One, two,

[1:18:22] as opposed to one being required. And there's also a

[1:18:25] hammerhead variance relatively minor. Um, permit a carport in the

[1:18:30] front yard. Which is not permitted. And set back to

[1:18:33] a carport of 5. 65 metres, whereas 7 metres is

[1:18:36] required. So, you know, I'll put this just quickly, the

[1:18:41] chart of all the percentages. Also just indicate that this

[1:18:45] is the West primary dwelling, the max of the height

[1:18:48] of the West willing is only 7. 04 metres. This

[1:18:51] is another elevation of it. This is the elevation of

[1:18:56] the, uh, the ARU 10. 4 1 metres. So you

[1:19:03] can see it looks like two homes. The last letting

[1:19:06] I'm going to put on. This is what is permitted

[1:19:08] the 1380 metre squared. If one large house was to

[1:19:12] be built on the property. And once again, this is

[1:19:14] the only the calculation of the lot, not including the

[1:19:17] lake Ontario portion. You could get a massive dwelling. So

[1:19:20] instead of a massive dwelling, we have two separate dwellings.

[1:19:22] You can see between them. Just, just to finalise my

[1:19:26] presentation, I know I'm a little bit behind here. I

[1:19:29] mean, this is an innovative development on the waterfront property.

[1:19:34] Um, provides, uh, specific function to allow for the one

[1:19:38] building to be shut down as, you know, much of

[1:19:40] the winter when it's not being used. It's very efficient.

[1:19:42] Um, once again, the coverage is in the GFA is

[1:19:46] far less than what's to actually required for the lot.

[1:19:48] Uh, I know there's a number of neighbours that are

[1:19:50] supportive, one specifically was, uh, still in opposition. Um, my

[1:19:54] client had speak to him yesterday. Um, all in all,

[1:19:58] I believe the variances all meet the four tests. And

[1:20:00] I think I'm at about 10 minute mark. So I'll,

[1:20:03] I'll leave it at that. Be happy to answer any

[1:20:04] questions. Yes. So we'll have to erase five minutes of

[1:20:07] your presentation for that. Um, just a couple questions. So

[1:20:11] I guess if, if you were to theoretically divide that

[1:20:14] lot in half, the ARU, you could build, I mean,

[1:20:18] outside of what you just showed that you can build

[1:20:20] that big massive host. Both you can build both houses

[1:20:24] and they beat the requirements and so forth, correct? Yes.

[1:20:27] In fact, as far as I'm concerned, you could probably

[1:20:29] get a three lot sovereigns here. Right. Uh, and meet

[1:20:31] all the bylaw departments. Um, and from staff's perspective, I'm

[1:20:35] assuming that I think you said it in your planning

[1:20:38] comments that if this were attached in some way, you

[1:20:40] wouldn't have an issue with the variance. It's just because

[1:20:43] it's an ARE that is a concern, correct? Yes, that's,

[1:20:46] that's correct, Mr. Chair. And maybe just to even add

[1:20:49] to that, uh, staff didn't have an issue or the

[1:20:52] only variance is that staff had the issue with was

[1:20:54] the variances tied to the ARU. The other variance being

[1:20:57] sought for height and everything else we didn't really have

[1:20:59] an issue with at all. Thank you. Um, sorry, John,

[1:21:04] you didn't have a question. Okay. Um, Community members, any

[1:21:07] questions or comments? No, Alexander Comments, please. The city has

[1:21:11] no objections to variances two and three as amended. However,

[1:21:14] staff recommended that the rest of the variance is be

[1:21:15] refused. There are several amendments listed. I believe Mr. Outrud's

[1:21:20] list that he provided us did include all the ones

[1:21:21] from zoning as well as his additional requests. That has

[1:21:24] been provided to committee and was shown on screen by

[1:21:26] Mr. Otrid. Uh, as a result of the circulation, we

[1:21:29] received one letter of objection, one letter of concern, a

[1:21:32] petition of objection signed by three members of the public,

[1:21:34] a petition of support signed by eight members of the

[1:21:36] public. No members of the public have pre - registered

[1:21:38] to speak, as this is deferred file. And in our

[1:21:40] previous submissions that have not been amended remain enforced and

[1:21:42] effectiver. Is there anybody in the audience that has an

[1:21:46] interest in this application A219930 closing court. You're the homeowner.

[1:21:54] I'm assuming you're in favor of it. You're not going

[1:21:55] to come up and speak against it, right? Okay. Just

[1:21:58] want to make sure. Um, okay. Committee members questions. If

[1:22:02] not, ready for a motion, Mr. Page. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

[1:22:05] Move approval of the amended application. It meets the four

[1:22:07] test. Subject to general conformance of the drawings. Um. I

[1:22:11] think the letters that were sent in were addressed with

[1:22:14] one exception, somebody up, Crozier Court was concerned about view

[1:22:20] across the lots to the lake. That's not something that,

[1:22:22] uh, that we look at. And it's not contained in

[1:22:25] the bylaw. Um, even though it may be irritating. Thanks,

[1:22:27] Mr. Chair. Do I have a secret, Mr. Ellis? Thank

[1:22:30] you, Mr. Chair, I'll second that motion. Community members, any

[1:22:33] discussion. I'm going to support the motion as well. This

[1:22:34] is a unique lot. I think it's where it's located

[1:22:37] at the end of the day. It pretty much functions

[1:22:40] as one property in one unit. Uh, if there was

[1:22:43] attached, as staff has suggested, they wouldn't have an issue

[1:22:47] with it. It's the ARU definition. I think they have

[1:22:50] some issues with, which I don't blame them doing that.

[1:22:53] So I think it does meet the four tests. Committee

[1:22:57] members. Any further discussion? Oh, Janice, sorry. Did you want

[1:23:00] to make a comment. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yeah.

[1:23:04] I, I was concerned about these variants. I think, um,

[1:23:07] at the end of the day, when you put them,

[1:23:10] what the two buildings together. And then that would be

[1:23:13] permitted for the most part. Um, that kind of puts

[1:23:19] it over to being in the category of meeting the

[1:23:22] four tests. So I'm going to support the motion. Thank

[1:23:27] you. Uh, further discussion, all those in favor. Any opposed.

[1:23:32] Mr. Richard, did your application has been approved by the

[1:23:33] Committee and General Corrines of the Johns presented. And now

[1:23:36] we've got, uh, I guess a front where just in

[1:23:40] case we get invaded by the Americans, we know we're

[1:23:42] working to. We got turrets up on the, uh, on

[1:23:46] the houses and stuff. So we'll get started. It's actually

[1:23:49] called Lake John Page now, not like America. Yeah. I

[1:23:52] think you're lucky. I don't want to say what you'd

[1:23:55] be named after your application has been approved. Have a

[1:23:59] good day. Thanks. Take care. That ends our agenda for

[1:24:04] the day. Thank you, everybody.

Committee of Adjustment

Agenda

Transcript