1 00:06:46,930 --> 00:06:48,150 Okay, thank you. 2 00:06:51,400 --> 00:07:00,120 Good evening, tonight's committee of adjustment hearing is being held live video conference on live streaming, video on the town's live stream, web page at ovil.ca. 3 00:07:01,640 --> 00:07:16,660 This is a hearing to consider applications for minor variants and consent held under the authority of the planning app. Please keep in mind intent of this process to review the application as before the committee. Listen to the evidence and then make a decision. 4 00:07:17,900 --> 00:07:24,200 This process is not intended to be used to resolve any concerns or dispute that may exist between the 5 00:07:24,200 --> 00:07:26,380 Pound, Individuals, or Organizations. 6 00:07:27,460 --> 00:07:29,320 If our request for a deferral is made and... 7 00:07:37,760 --> 00:07:54,700 In order to conduct an effective and efficient electronic hearing, we have adopted the following process. If you are watching the livestream of this hearing on Oakville.ta and if you wish to speak on item on the agenda, you can call 905-815-6095. 8 00:07:54,700 --> 00:07:59,300 Again, the number is 905, 815, 6, 0, 9, 5. 9 00:07:59,920 --> 00:08:04,280 The phone number is also posted on your screen below the live stream at Oakville.de. 10 00:08:04,820 --> 00:08:09,820 That will be standing by to take your call when you call in Stafford after name and item 11 00:08:09,820 --> 00:08:12,480 number that you wish to address and your telephone number. 12 00:08:12,980 --> 00:08:16,620 Further instructions will be provided for you to call back to join the video conference. 13 00:08:17,300 --> 00:08:21,620 When the chair of the committee polls for interested parties press star six to unmute yourself. 14 00:08:21,620 --> 00:08:30,040 The applicant or agent will be given an opportunity to briefly explain to the committee the basis of their application and answer any questions that may arrive. 15 00:08:30,740 --> 00:08:33,700 A maximum of five minutes will be provided for each presentation. 16 00:08:34,680 --> 00:08:41,000 We will be asked the state of your funding when address for the record and any submissions beyond the five minutes will be at the discretion of the committee. 17 00:08:42,820 --> 00:08:49,380 All delegations must also state their full name and address for the record and maximum of five minutes will be provided to make presentation. 18 00:08:49,380 --> 00:08:56,920 All remarks and questions are to be directed to the chair and any submission beyond the five minutes, again, will be at the discretion of the committee. 19 00:08:57,980 --> 00:09:05,340 The applicant or agent will then be provided a further five minutes to respond to the comments made by interested parties and answer any questions from committee members. 20 00:09:06,020 --> 00:09:14,960 If the applicant or agent has concerns found particularly in staff report to do with conditions proposed, this will be the opportunity to advise us. 21 00:09:14,960 --> 00:09:20,280 The matter then will be taken into committee for a decision, and this will mark the end of all discussions. 22 00:09:21,180 --> 00:09:27,940 Any person's hiring an order of the decision for an application must provide a written request preferably to email to the psychatory treasure. 23 00:09:28,960 --> 00:09:35,220 Written notice of the committee's decision will be mailed no later than 10 days from minor variants and 15 per consent. 24 00:09:35,820 --> 00:09:40,140 The applicant agent or any other person who has filed a written request for such an order. 25 00:09:40,140 --> 00:09:46,080 So, last day, to appeal to decisions with Ontario, Land Tribunal will be noted on a decision. 26 00:09:46,840 --> 00:09:54,020 Only the applicant specified persons or public bodies may appeal the decision of the committee to the Ontario Land Tribunal. 27 00:09:54,520 --> 00:10:00,300 In November of 2022, Bill 23 legislation, the Moore Home's Billed Faster Act 28 00:10:00,300 --> 00:10:05,520 amended the Planning Act to remove all appeal rights for members of the public. 29 00:10:05,520 --> 00:10:11,220 If no appeal is received within the prescribed time frame, the decision of the community becomes final and binding. 30 00:10:11,940 --> 00:10:17,660 The Secretary-Turgeonal then notify the applicant and anyone who received a copy of the decision through within correspondence. 31 00:10:18,700 --> 00:10:27,200 People participating in this hearing are to be produced to a respectful of the members of the committee, help staff, and any other person participating in this electronic hearing. 32 00:10:27,940 --> 00:10:32,460 Tonight's electronic hearing is being did you record it and available a future viewing at Google. 33 00:10:32,940 --> 00:10:33,540 Thank you. 34 00:10:33,540 --> 00:10:34,400 Thank you. 35 00:10:44,140 --> 00:10:50,060 We have no regret this evening, but I have any declarations of victory interests. 36 00:10:51,780 --> 00:10:52,440 See, none. 37 00:10:53,600 --> 00:10:58,200 Madam Secretary, treasured, do we have any requests for deferral or withdrawal of applications? 38 00:10:58,520 --> 00:11:06,760 And if anyone is in the audience and seeks the deferral or withdrawal of an application, please raise your hand. 39 00:11:09,940 --> 00:11:12,160 Madam Chair, I see no hands up at this time. 40 00:11:13,460 --> 00:11:14,040 Very 41 00:11:16,310 --> 00:11:16,630 well. 42 00:11:18,200 --> 00:11:23,920 Okay, I'll proceed with the first application on our agenda this evening and that application 43 00:11:24,920 --> 00:11:29,720 88 of 2026 the third from June the 24th at 26 to 44 00:11:30,560 --> 00:11:34,100 Trollbridge, please again that application 88 of 45 00:11:35,080 --> 00:11:35,720 2026 46 00:11:35,720 --> 00:11:39,240 The third from June the 24th at 26 to 47 00:11:39,960 --> 00:11:44,340 Trollbridge, please. I Mr. Egor, look back as the agent 48 00:11:46,280 --> 00:11:48,120 Good, and I will 49 00:11:48,120 --> 00:11:55,700 Yes. Good afternoon. Just give me a moment. I just want to note that because of the new 50 00:11:55,700 --> 00:12:02,820 bylaw going into effect, there is a change to one of the variances that are before us. 51 00:12:03,740 --> 00:12:09,640 And I'm going to read variance number two, which is to permit the maximum residential for 52 00:12:09,640 --> 00:12:20,500 area ratio of 58.5% whereas a maximum residential for area ratio is now 55 permitted versus 53 00:12:20,500 --> 00:12:24,340 43 previously. Go ahead Mr. Looker. 54 00:12:25,000 --> 00:12:29,780 Thank you very much Madam Chair and committee members. I really appreciate it. 55 00:12:34,040 --> 00:12:39,620 This is 56 00:12:39,620 --> 00:12:52,780 We are requesting two minor variances, one for interior, side yard setback, whereas 1.8 meters is required from the new bylaws. 57 00:12:53,140 --> 00:13:04,620 We are requesting 1.2 meters and a gross floor area of 58.5, whereas the new bylaw is 55%. 58 00:13:04,620 --> 00:13:11,520 I can walk you guys through the presentation, but essentially we're doing a side and rear 59 00:13:11,520 --> 00:13:18,640 addition on an existing single-family dwelling home and the last page I believe lets you 60 00:13:18,640 --> 00:13:23,840 kind of visualize the difference just so you know that it's not overly grotesque in size 61 00:13:23,840 --> 00:13:29,740 and stature. So the first two are the existing state and the lower is what we're proposing. 62 00:13:29,740 --> 00:13:30,360 And 63 00:13:35,800 --> 00:13:37,360 I welcome any questions. 64 00:13:43,860 --> 00:13:47,020 Thank you, Mr. Gorkak. Any questions? 65 00:13:47,860 --> 00:13:50,760 Item of conference. 66 00:13:53,020 --> 00:13:54,260 Mr. Taras, go ahead. 67 00:13:55,400 --> 00:13:56,800 Thank you, Madam Chair. 68 00:13:57,760 --> 00:13:58,400 Mr. Gorkak. 69 00:13:58,800 --> 00:14:02,420 There's only bylaws, obviously, changed since you started. 70 00:14:03,880 --> 00:14:06,580 But this is a very large addition. 71 00:14:06,820 --> 00:14:09,020 Looks like it's large in existing house. 72 00:14:09,020 --> 00:14:17,100 But yeah, you don't seem to have even attempted to try to comply with the new Zoning side yard set back requirements. Can you explain what? 73 00:14:18,340 --> 00:14:30,180 Yeah, for sure. So again, the plan was set with the old zoning bylaws. So all of the design work, the layout planning space planning. 74 00:14:30,180 --> 00:14:40,420 And we did take a lot of care, and then kind of right as we were heading towards minor variants, this process happened. 75 00:14:41,380 --> 00:14:46,080 And so the decision was made, I think it was more appropriate to try. 76 00:14:46,620 --> 00:14:53,980 We would make it a Justin's rather than going back to all of the space planning and we were thankful all of those costs were fine. 77 00:14:54,800 --> 00:14:55,880 That was the main reason. 78 00:15:00,020 --> 00:15:04,140 Do you have a matter of chair question for staff as well? 79 00:15:04,320 --> 00:15:14,480 Thank you. Let's make a nice please help me with the staff analysis here. 80 00:15:18,060 --> 00:15:18,160 The 81 00:15:18,160 --> 00:15:25,580 Young's not drying the new by law and the very first application this committee hears with the 82 00:15:25,580 --> 00:15:34,860 side of our setback requirements. We're being asked to approve a 1.2 meter setback when 1.8 83 00:15:34,860 --> 00:15:39,080 required by 15 meter long to story wall. 84 00:15:42,930 --> 00:15:46,490 The only analysis I see in the staff report is really 85 00:15:46,490 --> 00:15:52,870 that it's consistent with this surrounding neighborhood. But is that an appropriate analysis any 86 00:15:52,870 --> 00:15:58,730 given the Council just made a decision that they no longer want. 1.2 meters 87 00:15:58,730 --> 00:16:04,910 IDR Sapax, they want greater separation between the buildings and struggling 88 00:16:04,910 --> 00:16:09,230 with how I can find that this application meets the intent of the zoning 89 00:16:09,230 --> 00:16:16,350 dialogue. When Council has just said we don't want this anymore and in my view 90 00:16:16,350 --> 00:16:19,890 what's exacerbated by the fact that it's 15 meters long, 91 00:16:20,070 --> 00:16:23,750 two stories, no relief can make design whatsoever. 92 00:16:28,870 --> 00:16:32,750 For you, Madam Chair, yes, I understand the concern 93 00:16:32,750 --> 00:16:34,990 in staff's review of the application. 94 00:16:36,610 --> 00:16:39,930 Our, we did give recognition to the existing neighborhood 95 00:16:39,930 --> 00:16:40,930 as you mentioned. 96 00:16:41,070 --> 00:16:48,030 And I think the review undertaken did determine that 97 00:16:48,030 --> 00:16:58,470 is a minor proposal. So although it is exceeding the new direction passed by council, 98 00:16:59,430 --> 00:17:05,330 it has been determined to be in minor in the context of the existing neighborhood at the end of the day. 99 00:17:08,120 --> 00:17:15,550 I appreciate that. Wouldn't that go more to the test of whether it's desirable as opposed to 100 00:17:15,550 --> 00:17:19,290 whether it confies with the intent is on a by-law. 101 00:17:20,930 --> 00:17:26,410 I haven't heard how this ties with the intent of a by-law, 102 00:17:27,130 --> 00:17:30,750 which was clearly to increase the setback from 1.2 to 1.8. 103 00:17:33,190 --> 00:17:34,130 Thank you, Madam Chair. 104 00:17:35,350 --> 00:17:38,190 I do recognize that concern as well. 105 00:17:38,570 --> 00:17:42,050 I think the separation distance with the body property 106 00:17:42,050 --> 00:17:50,970 to that side yard. There is some space on the other side of the property as well. I know that 107 00:17:50,970 --> 00:18:00,130 that's not speaking to the property directly from 262 tropers, but the separation distance between 108 00:18:00,130 --> 00:18:08,570 the two properties was significant and that concern was not raised. And I would note that there 109 00:18:08,570 --> 00:18:14,010 and any concerns raised by engineering or a fire on that matter, either. 110 00:18:14,670 --> 00:18:21,070 And so, typically, if there were concerns raised by other departments to that degree, 111 00:18:21,610 --> 00:18:27,170 that decided looking at the neighborhood character as a whole, then we would have some hesitation 112 00:18:27,170 --> 00:18:29,170 but in this context we did not. 113 00:18:32,500 --> 00:18:33,420 Thank you. 114 00:18:36,130 --> 00:18:37,050 Any other questions? 115 00:18:43,300 --> 00:18:47,080 Okay, has anyone called with interest for the Southification of Psychitary Treasure? 116 00:18:48,140 --> 00:18:52,080 I'm sure there have been no calls and no one in attendance has their hand up. 117 00:18:53,360 --> 00:18:54,100 Thank you. 118 00:18:54,360 --> 00:18:57,360 In my case, we'll take the matter into committee who would like to move motion. 119 00:19:10,950 --> 00:19:11,910 I have Mr. Falski. 120 00:19:14,290 --> 00:19:15,250 Thank you, Madam Chair. 121 00:19:15,710 --> 00:19:20,670 I think you know where this is going, but I'll make the motion to see if there's any discussion 122 00:19:20,670 --> 00:19:21,530 on my colleagues. 123 00:19:22,870 --> 00:19:29,930 I cannot accept the evidence but forth by finding staff or the applicant as how this application 124 00:19:29,930 --> 00:19:33,310 makes the intent of the new zoning by-law. 125 00:19:34,050 --> 00:19:41,430 The applicant opted to proceed on the basis 126 00:19:41,430 --> 00:19:43,630 where they started, as opposed to make adjustments 127 00:19:43,630 --> 00:19:48,110 to an evolving zoning by-law on different requirements. 128 00:19:50,750 --> 00:19:54,130 The variance here, as I said earlier, 129 00:19:54,350 --> 00:19:58,030 it's exasperated by the fact that there's been zero with them. 130 00:19:58,030 --> 00:20:01,810 to set by, part of the building, the second floor, 131 00:20:03,430 --> 00:20:05,510 it's a imposing wall, 132 00:20:07,990 --> 00:20:08,940 cannot accept steps, 133 00:20:11,370 --> 00:20:13,550 evidence that this complies with the zoning body, 134 00:20:13,850 --> 00:20:16,930 intent to design the wall, intent to clear. 135 00:20:17,910 --> 00:20:19,190 It's just been changed. 136 00:20:20,330 --> 00:20:22,930 We want narrower buildings, more separation between, 137 00:20:24,980 --> 00:20:27,160 I cannot find that I'm chair of this application, 138 00:20:27,240 --> 00:20:28,760 it's the intent to design the wall, 139 00:20:28,760 --> 00:20:32,000 much. So I have to recommend it to me. 140 00:20:35,710 --> 00:20:38,630 Thank you Mister to ask you the discussion on this 141 00:20:41,670 --> 00:20:42,190 recommendation. 142 00:20:47,650 --> 00:20:49,170 Okay, I see that. 143 00:20:49,550 --> 00:20:50,690 All those in support. 144 00:20:53,530 --> 00:20:54,930 All those opposed. 145 00:20:57,290 --> 00:20:59,050 Okay, the application has been denied. 146 00:20:59,050 --> 00:20:59,750 I 147 00:21:23,240 --> 00:21:36,090 have a good evening, application 96 of 2026, the first from August 5th of 2026 at 1, 3, 2, 1, Duncan 148 00:21:36,090 --> 00:21:36,690 Road. 149 00:21:43,970 --> 00:21:50,370 I have a Dominic Monardo as the agent and that application 96 of 2026 at 1, 3, 2, 1, 150 00:21:50,690 --> 00:21:51,110 Duncan Road. 151 00:21:51,710 --> 00:21:59,530 I have a letter of opposition from a Mr. Arthur Loan and the two variants that are before 152 00:21:59,530 --> 00:22:09,410 do have both have amendments. The first being to permit a maximum residential for area ratio of 45.31 153 00:22:09,410 --> 00:22:20,410 whereas a maximum residential for area ratio of 41 is permitted versus previously 37 and to permit a maximum 154 00:22:20,410 --> 00:22:29,970 a lot coverage of 30.23% whereas a maximum of a lot coverage of 25% is permitted for dwellings. 155 00:22:39,220 --> 00:23:06,000 We are here again with this same property. We did go through this in 2025. It was a different design. We tried to stay within the RFA that we asked for, and the law coverage that we asked for last year. 156 00:23:06,920 --> 00:23:22,160 The main difference for the low coverage would be the walkout basement adding to that, but the main structure with RFA and the rest of the low coverage is very similar to what is passed in June of 2025. 157 00:23:22,160 --> 00:23:32,100 If the Doom design is stepping back in quite a few areas, we have the whole main floor office 158 00:23:32,100 --> 00:23:39,680 stepping back almost halfway down the house, the second floor is stepping back, very low pitch 159 00:23:39,680 --> 00:23:47,860 roof, tried to even further behind that front porch, we set that back as well. 160 00:23:47,860 --> 00:23:51,780 Our side-setbacks are all intact. 161 00:23:52,040 --> 00:23:56,000 We didn't go up beyond them. 162 00:23:56,100 --> 00:23:59,500 We're actually greater on the one side. 163 00:24:00,860 --> 00:24:03,080 We left the 2.4 on the right side of the field, 164 00:24:03,140 --> 00:24:05,040 because they wanted to go back and forth down the garage. 165 00:24:05,980 --> 00:24:10,140 Our front-setbacks are all within zoning requirements, 166 00:24:10,380 --> 00:24:11,560 as well as the rear. 167 00:24:13,260 --> 00:24:15,820 Our building height is well below. 168 00:24:17,580 --> 00:24:25,800 understanding that our new by-law believe we're allowed to go 10 or 10.5 meters and we're still at 9 meters. 169 00:24:26,500 --> 00:24:37,020 So we do we kept that down in purpose and we're also included the flat roofs on top of the garage on top of the offices lower that. 170 00:24:37,640 --> 00:24:42,160 So that peak on there is not actually impacting the front view as well. 171 00:24:42,160 --> 00:24:46,240 We just left the peaks on the top, which is a very low page. She says it fights well. 172 00:24:47,660 --> 00:24:54,460 So I do believe this is looking at the Oakville livable plan 173 00:24:56,770 --> 00:24:59,410 and I hope you guys do as well. 174 00:25:05,550 --> 00:25:08,550 Okay, are there any questions of Mr. Ronaldo? 175 00:25:18,560 --> 00:25:22,400 After dealing with Mother Nature, we've got that sign back off. We dealt with it again tonight. 176 00:25:22,600 --> 00:25:24,960 So I just drove by just in case it's still there. 177 00:25:26,380 --> 00:25:28,220 Yeah, it is going hard. 178 00:25:28,960 --> 00:25:30,000 Yeah, it was there. 179 00:25:35,320 --> 00:25:40,460 If there are no questions for Mr. Monardo, I will see if there are any answers from the audience. 180 00:25:41,200 --> 00:25:47,380 Madam Secretary Treasurer has anyone raised their hand up for this application or request that this speaker. 181 00:25:48,320 --> 00:25:50,760 Madam Chair, there are no hands up and no one has called in. 182 00:25:55,050 --> 00:25:58,770 Okay. Very well. Who would like to move a motion? 183 00:26:01,920 --> 00:26:02,760 Go ahead and miss Price. 184 00:26:03,860 --> 00:26:09,280 Taking into account my previous site visit, the drawings provided by the agent, staffs, 185 00:26:09,340 --> 00:26:13,640 comments, and there being one letter of opportunity of objection, I find it very 186 00:26:13,640 --> 00:26:15,020 needs to be minor in nature. 187 00:26:15,780 --> 00:26:20,600 A stage of I staff, the proposed application maintains and protects the character of existing 188 00:26:20,600 --> 00:26:24,760 neighbourhood, and does not present unacceptable adverse impacts. 189 00:26:25,320 --> 00:26:29,620 Based on the information provided, I find the application needs support, tests and 190 00:26:29,620 --> 00:26:36,600 planning act, and I therefore put part of the motion to approve the application subject to the following conditions. 191 00:26:37,640 --> 00:26:42,740 The drawing being constructed in general accordance with the submitted site plan dated June 23, 192 00:26:43,880 --> 00:26:48,580 2026, and elevation dines dated May 28, 2026. 193 00:26:49,520 --> 00:26:52,860 And that the approval expires two years from the date of the decision 194 00:26:52,860 --> 00:26:56,460 if the building permit has not been issued for the proposed construction. 195 00:26:58,710 --> 00:27:00,330 There well, thank you, Ms. Price. 196 00:27:00,510 --> 00:27:02,350 Is there a discussion on this recommendation? 197 00:27:05,500 --> 00:27:07,220 I think none, all those in support. 198 00:27:11,180 --> 00:27:13,640 And the application has been approved and not opposed. 199 00:27:24,660 --> 00:27:24,920 Thank you. 200 00:27:24,920 --> 00:27:25,340 Thank you. 201 00:27:25,340 --> 00:27:26,560 Thank you very much, committee. 202 00:27:26,680 --> 00:27:27,860 Have a good night. 203 00:27:28,700 --> 00:27:29,060 Good night. 204 00:27:42,030 --> 00:27:45,270 Application, application 98 of 2026, 205 00:27:45,330 --> 00:27:49,410 deferred from August the 5th at 35-year-old air-question road. 206 00:27:49,930 --> 00:27:53,410 Again, that application 98 deferred from August the 5th. 207 00:27:53,410 --> 00:27:56,490 at 3-5-0 air-question wrote 208 00:28:00,750 --> 00:28:03,330 in the Spiritsili as the agent. 209 00:28:04,490 --> 00:28:06,530 Good evening, Madam Chair, and members of the committee. 210 00:28:07,390 --> 00:28:08,870 Hopefully everyone can hear me here. 211 00:28:09,470 --> 00:28:11,230 So, yes, my name is Vasily Sarantoplas. 212 00:28:11,490 --> 00:28:15,050 I'm representing IGP Realty Advisors, and I'm a parent and I'm behalf of the client. 213 00:28:15,490 --> 00:28:16,590 I'm a son or Patrick Canada. 214 00:28:16,690 --> 00:28:20,070 My address is 30 here until a way in North York, Ontario. 215 00:28:21,550 --> 00:28:25,610 Here today, it's been supported to minor variances for 350 air-question or road redevelopment 216 00:28:25,610 --> 00:28:30,990 of existing gas bars site into the convenience store and A and W restaurant. 217 00:28:33,350 --> 00:28:36,450 I can kind of, well, if we want to switch to the next slide, 218 00:28:39,060 --> 00:28:39,940 I should run the site plan 219 00:28:39,940 --> 00:28:45,760 in the property since at the southeast corner of your Quashore Road at your Fogger Road, and 220 00:28:45,760 --> 00:28:49,600 established a low-rise commercial area with plasas to the north and the office building 221 00:28:49,600 --> 00:28:54,660 to the east of the place to, I guess, technically would be the south, currently operates 222 00:28:54,660 --> 00:28:58,020 is a petrochemical gas bar with convenience during car wash, 223 00:28:58,740 --> 00:29:02,820 aimed to keep the development of the property, keeps the same 224 00:29:02,820 --> 00:29:06,480 commercial function, and then modernizing it as an existing use. 225 00:29:06,680 --> 00:29:07,980 Not introducing a new one. 226 00:29:08,920 --> 00:29:10,520 If you want to go to the next slide, 227 00:29:11,020 --> 00:29:14,000 I'll outline the variances that we are going through. 228 00:29:14,540 --> 00:29:16,920 So variances number one, the first variances under section 10.5, 229 00:29:17,000 --> 00:29:20,660 the dissolving by-law, which requires 35% of the main wall to 230 00:29:20,660 --> 00:29:27,060 made wall length to sit within the flankage gun. We're requesting relief to 1.4% and I know 231 00:29:27,060 --> 00:29:33,420 the gap looks large on paper, so I do want to dress it directly. It's not mainly a design choice. 232 00:29:33,460 --> 00:29:39,760 It is a state to constrain. The TSSA look at fuels handling code requires the self-servotentative 233 00:29:39,760 --> 00:29:45,240 remain within 50 meters of fuel dispensers and the building's current position maintains that distance. 234 00:29:45,600 --> 00:29:49,980 Moving, I'd close it to the flankage line would break that requirement and relocating the canopy 235 00:29:49,980 --> 00:29:53,980 as well as infeasible, given conflicts with the fire roots in site circulation. 236 00:29:55,120 --> 00:29:59,620 Despite the numeric variance, the building does sit close to fall to road. 237 00:30:00,000 --> 00:30:05,100 And it does feel continue to address the public realm by way of the bylaw intents. 238 00:30:06,580 --> 00:30:12,440 So the underlying planning objective is met where the specific number is not. 239 00:30:12,760 --> 00:30:14,360 We want to go to the next slide. 240 00:30:16,040 --> 00:30:18,260 Second variance is on a table 10.2. 241 00:30:18,420 --> 00:30:23,200 It's footnote 5 which captures restaurant and can be used as a combined 20% of the net floor area. 242 00:30:23,780 --> 00:30:29,480 For the record, I know on the presentation it does state that it can be used or figure on the slide should read 243 00:30:29,480 --> 00:30:39,500 56.6 percent not 58.6 percent just the typo. So that gives the 43.4 percent to the 244 00:30:39,500 --> 00:30:46,100 hand W restaurant in 56.6 percent to the convenience store. Equally to the 100 percent combined. 245 00:30:47,700 --> 00:30:53,240 And yeah, if we want to go into the four tests, I can happily do so. The rest of those slides 246 00:30:53,240 --> 00:30:57,720 are just more so for for visual information to give a little bit more context as to what this actually 247 00:30:57,720 --> 00:31:07,000 looks like, in turning to the Ford tests, the variances are minor, introducing new land use, 248 00:31:07,120 --> 00:31:11,920 no impact beyond what's already anticipated for the site. They are desirable supporting 249 00:31:11,920 --> 00:31:18,400 of the redevelopment of existing commercial site with a safe and functional layout. They 250 00:31:18,400 --> 00:31:23,600 maintain the intent of the zoning bylaw since both uses remain permitted and the relief response 251 00:31:23,600 --> 00:31:28,280 to the site-specific operational constraints. They also maintain the intent of the official 252 00:31:28,280 --> 00:31:32,700 plan supporting business commercial designation and the site's ongoing commercial function. 253 00:31:33,240 --> 00:31:36,620 On that basis, we respectfully request the committee's approval. Both Francis, 254 00:31:36,940 --> 00:31:39,240 thank you so much for your time and happy to answer any questions. 255 00:31:41,190 --> 00:31:42,030 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your time. 256 00:31:43,130 --> 00:31:46,650 I know. Well done. Ms. Bricey of a question? 257 00:31:47,390 --> 00:31:53,390 Yes, that is just one. Were there any traffic studies done on this property? 258 00:31:53,390 --> 00:31:59,930 Well, they were, we are going through the site plan application process and I believe that that has been since cleared and approved. 259 00:32:00,750 --> 00:32:04,590 As of today, we are into our third submission on this file. 260 00:32:05,090 --> 00:32:10,690 I believe it should have been included in the package, but if it wasn't, I'm happy to provide it. 261 00:32:10,750 --> 00:32:13,450 It's just that that's very busy intersection. 262 00:32:14,310 --> 00:32:16,470 So we have actually gone back. 263 00:32:16,470 --> 00:32:18,870 So we, we didn't actually in the beginning. 264 00:32:18,910 --> 00:32:21,890 So this project started our initial site plan application 265 00:32:21,890 --> 00:32:25,890 began back in 2020, 2020, 2024, 266 00:32:26,390 --> 00:32:28,650 where we did actually have more to the site. 267 00:32:28,910 --> 00:32:31,370 We have dialed it back significantly, 268 00:32:32,330 --> 00:32:35,270 and we have worked with staff intensely to make sure 269 00:32:35,270 --> 00:32:36,430 that we are meeting the requirements 270 00:32:36,430 --> 00:32:38,710 and their needs. 271 00:32:40,750 --> 00:32:41,350 Any 272 00:32:45,320 --> 00:32:46,560 other questions? 273 00:32:49,920 --> 00:32:51,720 I see none. 274 00:32:51,980 --> 00:32:55,520 Has anyone called with interest for this application that I'm Secretary Treasurer? 275 00:32:56,480 --> 00:32:59,860 Madam Chair, there have been no calls and no one has their hand up. 276 00:33:00,380 --> 00:33:00,780 Very well. 277 00:33:00,920 --> 00:33:04,440 And we'll take the matter into committee who would like to move a motion. 278 00:33:09,540 --> 00:33:10,620 Go ahead, Mr. Dickie. 279 00:33:14,040 --> 00:33:14,900 Thank you, Madam Chair. 280 00:33:18,140 --> 00:33:24,320 I'm based upon my review of the owner's application, the site plan, building elevations, my site visit. 281 00:33:24,320 --> 00:33:30,760 The presentation by the owners consultant and the planning staff's report, I'm satisfied 282 00:33:30,760 --> 00:33:36,500 at the various as our minor in nature, and conform to the four tests under the planning act. 283 00:33:36,940 --> 00:33:41,320 And I put forth the motion that the application is applied for, the approved subject 284 00:33:41,320 --> 00:33:48,680 to the conditions that the building be constructed in accordance with the final approved 285 00:33:48,680 --> 00:34:07,520 site plan and elevation drawings SP 1512 042 slash 01 to the satisfaction of the director of planning and development and that the approval of the fires 2 years from the date of the decision 286 00:34:07,520 --> 00:34:11,560 of ability permit has not been issued for the proposed construction. 287 00:34:12,880 --> 00:34:15,860 Thank you Mr. Dick, is there a discussion on this recommendation? 288 00:34:19,260 --> 00:34:20,800 I see none of those of course. 289 00:34:23,370 --> 00:34:28,590 Okay, the application has been approved, none of course. 290 00:34:29,450 --> 00:34:30,590 Thank you very much. 291 00:34:30,630 --> 00:34:31,450 I have a bit of a statement. 292 00:34:48,130 --> 00:34:50,950 Application 108 of 2026 set, 293 00:34:50,950 --> 00:35:00,810 3-1-1-3 card draws forward. Again, that application 108 of 2026 set 3-1-1-3 card draws 294 00:35:00,810 --> 00:35:08,450 court. I have the owner, representing themselves as Mr. Digen Ova. 295 00:35:11,380 --> 00:35:16,340 Good evening, Madam Chair and committee members. I am the owner of 3-1-1-3 card 296 00:35:16,340 --> 00:35:23,480 cross-court, Andre D. Genova, and I'm here before you today to apply for minor variants 297 00:35:23,480 --> 00:35:32,040 regarding Flankage X for Hotup. As you can see by the site plan on screen, it's kind of an 298 00:35:32,040 --> 00:35:39,980 odd shape lot. I've been struggling with placement and not obstructing the rear egress and existing 299 00:35:39,980 --> 00:35:45,860 gas facilities while still making the accessory usable close enough to the door, especially 300 00:35:45,860 --> 00:35:53,220 during winter. And I'm requesting 1.5 meter relief from the three and a half meters required 301 00:35:53,220 --> 00:36:04,460 under the zoning by-law, 2014-014. Going over the town's report, fire has expressed a concern 302 00:36:04,460 --> 00:36:11,280 about the hedges and accessibility along the side of the house, and tend to mitigate that in 303 00:36:11,280 --> 00:36:16,300 short term by just trimming them back a bit, I should be able to get greater than one meter 304 00:36:16,300 --> 00:36:21,600 fairly easily. In the long term, as noted on the cover letter, there is a fence variance 305 00:36:21,600 --> 00:36:28,640 in flight to redo the sensing that we'll be replacing the hedge and rock iron that currently 306 00:36:28,640 --> 00:36:35,880 exists. And it's well covered from the street with the existing solution, the higher fenced 307 00:36:35,880 --> 00:36:39,120 and opaque fence will enhance this screening 308 00:36:40,020 --> 00:36:43,160 further such that it will impact the neighborhood. 309 00:36:44,100 --> 00:36:46,720 In any way, I do leave the neighborhood 310 00:36:46,720 --> 00:36:48,480 when you can build it's there. 311 00:36:51,340 --> 00:36:53,160 And one other thing I wanted to mention 312 00:36:53,160 --> 00:36:57,480 from the staff report is under the recommended conditions, 313 00:36:58,300 --> 00:37:02,440 the typical two years from one of building permit is issued. 314 00:37:02,440 --> 00:37:05,900 I'm concerned that might be difficult here. 315 00:37:06,500 --> 00:37:17,320 The deck requires a building permit since it's being attached to the house, but my understanding for the hot tub itself is no municipal issued building permit applies. 316 00:37:17,940 --> 00:37:22,440 The concrete slab is the specs are too small to demand one. 317 00:37:24,260 --> 00:37:29,980 The pool enclosure by a law is being satisfied by substantial cover blocking. 318 00:37:31,720 --> 00:37:59,080 So there will be no engineering permit there. There will be an ESA permit for electrical hookup. I'm not sure if that will fill that requirement if if that requirement is issued with the variance, but that's pretty much it. Other than that, the staff comments are supportive of granting the variance. 319 00:37:59,080 --> 00:38:02,500 And, um, open any questions you may have. 320 00:38:05,940 --> 00:38:06,680 Thank you. 321 00:38:06,740 --> 00:38:07,120 Any questions? 322 00:38:08,140 --> 00:38:09,360 Oh, Mr. Digenover? 323 00:38:12,690 --> 00:38:15,190 I think none has anyone called with interest for the faculty, 324 00:38:15,530 --> 00:38:16,910 and Madam Secretary Treasurer? 325 00:38:18,830 --> 00:38:20,250 Madam Chair, there have been no calls, 326 00:38:20,250 --> 00:38:21,750 and no one has their hand up. 327 00:38:22,850 --> 00:38:23,910 Okay, very well. 328 00:38:24,330 --> 00:38:26,370 Um, who would like to move a motion? 329 00:38:29,020 --> 00:38:30,040 Well, I have missed the hard castle. 330 00:38:34,340 --> 00:38:35,200 Thank you, Madam Chair. 331 00:38:35,500 --> 00:38:37,540 Although, um, before I put forward a motion, 332 00:38:37,540 --> 00:38:41,900 I would like to seek some clarification from staff on a matter. 333 00:38:42,960 --> 00:38:46,420 I'm sorry, I failed to respond to your query earlier. 334 00:38:47,380 --> 00:38:52,020 I just wanted to clarify that in fact that the ESA, the electrical permit, 335 00:38:52,480 --> 00:38:58,160 would be satisfactory to address this building permit requirement as the homeowner highlighted. 336 00:38:58,200 --> 00:39:01,260 I just like to understand that from staff. 337 00:39:04,050 --> 00:39:11,910 To you, Madam Chair, to commemorate, I'm not certain about the performance of us to be honest 338 00:39:11,910 --> 00:39:17,970 and how that would be satisfied, but I can just quickly double check if you just get me a moment. 339 00:39:47,860 --> 00:39:56,960 Sorry, so you, Madam Chair, again, to commemorate the electrical works would be adjusted to the building permit phase. 340 00:39:58,220 --> 00:40:10,020 So, that would be a satisfactory trigger to address that condition number two, leaving this with the web, being a fulfillable condition, then. 341 00:40:10,120 --> 00:40:11,620 Thank you very much, Dad. 342 00:40:13,000 --> 00:40:17,640 On the basis of that, Madam Chair, I would be prepared to put forward a motion. 343 00:40:18,160 --> 00:40:25,940 That motion would be for approval of the application, finding that there are requested variants as conformed to the Fortress of the Act. 344 00:40:26,540 --> 00:40:32,860 the proposed hot tub in the reduction in the side yard, our minor and desirable, 345 00:40:33,000 --> 00:40:38,760 a desirable for the appropriate development of the land. The motion would be subject to two conditions, 346 00:40:39,120 --> 00:40:42,900 those being that the hot tub be extracted in general accordance with the submitted sketch. 347 00:40:43,560 --> 00:40:56,980 Uh, submitted sketched reference plan, 20 R, 16, 783 dated September, 1825, and the 348 00:40:56,980 --> 00:41:00,400 approval will expire within two years of the date of the decision if a permit has 349 00:41:00,400 --> 00:41:01,960 not been issued for the proposed construction. 350 00:41:03,320 --> 00:41:06,580 So, thank you Mr. Hardcastles, I would just special on this recommendation, 351 00:41:09,740 --> 00:41:10,560 be not all those 352 00:41:10,560 --> 00:41:16,000 support, okay, the application has been approved and underposed. 353 00:41:19,650 --> 00:41:19,830 Thank you. 354 00:41:20,070 --> 00:41:21,170 Madam Chair and committee members. 355 00:41:21,710 --> 00:41:22,180 Thank you. 356 00:41:22,930 --> 00:41:23,510 Good evening. 357 00:41:28,150 --> 00:41:28,310 Okay. 358 00:41:29,750 --> 00:41:31,970 Application 101.09 of 2020. 359 00:41:32,270 --> 00:41:35,710 Success 4483rd line. 360 00:41:36,050 --> 00:41:38,190 Again, that's application 109 of 2021. 361 00:41:38,650 --> 00:41:40,670 26 at 4483rd line. 362 00:41:41,710 --> 00:41:46,470 And again, there is an amendment to the dialogue amendment that's taken place. 363 00:41:46,470 --> 00:41:55,060 The variant, number six, which reads to permit a maximum residential floor area, 364 00:41:57,710 --> 00:41:58,150 ratio of 365 00:41:58,150 --> 00:42:05,950 53.6% whereas a maximum residential floor area, ratio of 49 is permitted previously 366 00:42:05,950 --> 00:42:06,830 41. 367 00:42:10,090 --> 00:42:13,610 I have Alex overhauled as the agent. 368 00:42:16,330 --> 00:42:18,530 Good evening, Madam Chair and fellow panel members. 369 00:42:18,530 --> 00:42:21,370 Alexander Obrhol from Contemporal Studio, 370 00:42:22,030 --> 00:42:25,710 speaking on behalf of this minorbearance application today. 371 00:42:26,010 --> 00:42:27,050 Go ahead, Mr. Obrhol. 372 00:42:27,550 --> 00:42:29,050 Thank you. 373 00:42:29,370 --> 00:42:32,330 Natasha and our three, we have a lovely short presentation 374 00:42:32,330 --> 00:42:34,590 that I will do my best to act by through. 375 00:42:34,730 --> 00:42:36,730 I know I own the last of the day's agenda. 376 00:42:38,050 --> 00:42:38,890 So we're aware. 377 00:42:39,590 --> 00:42:41,950 We are pursuing the six fairies as you did, 378 00:42:42,010 --> 00:42:43,970 note, Matt and Cher, thank you for doing so. 379 00:42:43,970 --> 00:42:46,690 They are four more variances than we had initially 380 00:42:47,610 --> 00:42:53,210 Was pursuing a little background in this application. If you do go to the next page 381 00:42:53,210 --> 00:42:53,930 Please 382 00:42:53,930 --> 00:42:58,310 brief description I'll skip through it. Oh, sorry. This is our proposed massing 383 00:42:58,830 --> 00:43:04,870 You can see here we've done a fair job working with applying department to ensure that our massing is modulated 384 00:43:05,750 --> 00:43:11,110 Setback in both height and on our mass no left right and front especially in the rear as well 385 00:43:11,110 --> 00:43:13,210 where we have produced our two story volume 386 00:43:13,210 --> 00:43:15,010 with the one-and-a-half story volume 387 00:43:15,010 --> 00:43:17,730 and sure differentiating roof lines as well 388 00:43:17,730 --> 00:43:18,850 to ensure that our, 389 00:43:18,870 --> 00:43:21,110 always building high variance is not necessarily 390 00:43:21,790 --> 00:43:23,930 contained in the entirety of the structure. 391 00:43:24,530 --> 00:43:27,130 Now, if you've pursued the next slide, please, 392 00:43:27,310 --> 00:43:28,230 it's a brief description, 393 00:43:28,370 --> 00:43:30,230 I'm not gonna read all of this, it's a lot of information, 394 00:43:30,850 --> 00:43:33,530 but so you're aware that we started our correspondence 395 00:43:33,530 --> 00:43:35,710 with a plane that powered back in the beginning 396 00:43:35,710 --> 00:43:37,970 of January, where we're pursuing two variances 397 00:43:37,970 --> 00:43:40,470 under by a lot of 2014-4K. 398 00:43:40,470 --> 00:43:45,730 That was for a RFA variance and a rear eSarget setback variance. 399 00:43:46,550 --> 00:43:50,770 Now, we work with planning for over five months through a visor design, which you can 400 00:43:50,770 --> 00:43:55,050 saw in the previous slide, which resulted in all different setbacks, the modulation, et cetera. 401 00:43:56,470 --> 00:44:00,490 We're here today now, because the new by-law has introduced four additional variances. 402 00:44:00,690 --> 00:44:06,230 The Sarget setback variance is the lock coverage variance, as well as the building height variance. 403 00:44:06,270 --> 00:44:07,010 Next slide, please. 404 00:44:09,030 --> 00:44:12,830 On the left here, you see a image of our site plan. 405 00:44:13,170 --> 00:44:17,450 If you look carefully, there are lines in blue and lines in red, lines in blue, and 406 00:44:17,450 --> 00:44:22,670 the key to the original setbacks I learned posed in this property that read as the new 407 00:44:22,670 --> 00:44:25,250 massing regulations imposed from new by law. 408 00:44:25,630 --> 00:44:28,290 As you mentioned, Madam Chair, we're proposing a, 409 00:44:29,030 --> 00:44:32,930 north and east side or a setback of 1.70 meters in a south and east side. 410 00:44:33,090 --> 00:44:34,730 A setback of 1.22 meters. 411 00:44:35,450 --> 00:44:37,910 Now, if you go to the next slide, you'll see it in large. 412 00:44:37,910 --> 00:44:39,070 in Mesivar's site. 413 00:44:39,850 --> 00:44:39,930 Thank you. 414 00:44:40,110 --> 00:44:45,530 Now, on the left, you'll see a large site plan with two areas highlighted in yellow. 415 00:44:46,010 --> 00:44:47,750 I've also circled them in red for you. 416 00:44:47,750 --> 00:44:53,350 These are the areas of our side-yard setback, encroachments into the new by large regulation. 417 00:44:54,130 --> 00:44:58,830 The rest of our dwelling is actually compliant with the side-yard setback requirement. 418 00:44:59,190 --> 00:44:59,970 Additionally in the front 419 00:45:00,000 --> 00:45:23,680 One of the structures in the right structure are very faint that do apologize, but you see an orange line. That orange line actually is reference to our second story outline. So further to our first story, our second thought is actually pulled back inward in the front and the right as well further decreasing the impact our mask through has to the street than the joining neighbors. Next slide please. 420 00:45:24,990 --> 00:45:31,110 Now, this slide is dedicated to the explanation of a rear yard setback, so that yellow 421 00:45:31,110 --> 00:45:35,530 area highlighted in the diagram until left is the portion of our mask that is 422 00:45:35,530 --> 00:45:37,250 encroaching into the rear yard setback. 423 00:45:37,690 --> 00:45:42,630 As you mentioned, Madam Chair, the required minimum rear yard setback is 7.50 meters per 424 00:45:42,630 --> 00:45:44,030 proposing 6.01. 425 00:45:44,650 --> 00:45:48,830 It's important to note that our rear yard setbacks actually measure to the extensive rear 426 00:45:48,830 --> 00:45:49,530 porch. 427 00:45:49,650 --> 00:45:53,250 It is one story volume and is covered with a flat roof. 428 00:45:53,250 --> 00:45:58,150 Now, important to note that if we work take our setback to with actually the, for this 429 00:45:58,150 --> 00:46:03,770 extent of our main wall attached to our structure, are you setback measured to the dwellings 430 00:46:03,770 --> 00:46:09,170 actually 9.62 meter, which is 2.12 meters greater than the allow 7.5. 431 00:46:09,650 --> 00:46:15,330 We worked with planning ahead of this in the beginning and after the, understood how our 432 00:46:15,330 --> 00:46:19,990 setback to the main dwellings actually much greater than the allow, they were happy of course 433 00:46:19,990 --> 00:46:21,870 with this level of encroachment. 434 00:46:22,050 --> 00:46:22,870 Next slide, please. 435 00:46:24,530 --> 00:46:28,290 Here we have a visual diagram of our front elevation, right? 436 00:46:28,290 --> 00:46:32,190 Another wonderful description of how you'll see in blue, 437 00:46:32,670 --> 00:46:35,090 the original extends of what we were pursued 438 00:46:35,090 --> 00:46:39,670 and regulated under our profile at 2014-014 items 439 00:46:39,670 --> 00:46:42,790 and red are the increased restrictions, 440 00:46:42,790 --> 00:46:44,610 which I do understand as to why they're imposed. 441 00:46:45,290 --> 00:46:48,910 Now, we are pursuing a building high variance of 8.97 meters 442 00:46:48,910 --> 00:46:51,290 for 8.0 meters is allowed. 443 00:46:51,790 --> 00:46:54,830 We were under the impression, when we first started this journey, 444 00:46:54,990 --> 00:46:58,050 we would be right with under 2014-014. 445 00:46:58,370 --> 00:47:01,850 It wasn't until we made our minor variance application in June 446 00:47:01,850 --> 00:47:03,670 when we found out that this new ZBA. 447 00:47:04,370 --> 00:47:05,130 Next slide, please. 448 00:47:07,030 --> 00:47:09,530 Now, with the changes in the zoning bylaw, 449 00:47:10,130 --> 00:47:13,230 the new bylaw in my apologies, not only are there changes to restrictions, 450 00:47:13,410 --> 00:47:15,410 but new definitions were imposed as well. 451 00:47:15,410 --> 00:47:21,770 Not includes, of course, introduction to three different types of root structures, the flat roof, the semi-flat roof and the slope roof. 452 00:47:22,610 --> 00:47:29,470 Now, our flat roof area encapsulates the entirety of our flat roof and the pair of heads as well. 453 00:47:30,050 --> 00:47:36,250 And that creates a flat roof area of 69.9%, which regulates our roof as a flat roof. 454 00:47:36,790 --> 00:47:44,490 A semi-flat roof, which is allowed to have nine meters in height, has a flat roof area between 35 and 65%. 455 00:47:44,490 --> 00:47:48,150 We're 4.9% greater than that, of course, right? 456 00:47:48,470 --> 00:47:51,650 So we are right. I just said that's threshold of being considered a semi-flat roof, 457 00:47:51,810 --> 00:47:54,570 which would negate the required with the pursuing a building height mirror. 458 00:47:55,270 --> 00:47:59,990 Next slide, please. Again, a refresher of our massing as well. 459 00:48:00,170 --> 00:48:03,570 You can see that there are different types of roof heights here as well, 460 00:48:03,670 --> 00:48:06,950 a combination of pair peds and the eaves heights as well, 461 00:48:07,030 --> 00:48:11,190 which helps modulate our massing in a way that, in some extent, 462 00:48:11,190 --> 00:48:15,110 reduces our impact of the surrounding area. Next slide, please. 463 00:48:16,830 --> 00:48:21,330 Residents of floor area. Now, this is the confusing one that us and applying 464 00:48:21,330 --> 00:48:25,070 department were trying to wrap our heads around. Hence, Madam Chair's explanation. 465 00:48:25,350 --> 00:48:31,450 The beginning of how our change is now at 4.9% required, right? We are pursuing a 466 00:48:31,450 --> 00:48:40,130 53.60% RFA, we're 4.9% is allowed. We were working with the 467 00:48:40,130 --> 00:48:48,350 department earlier and as for the on the original bylaw we were actually 43.27% or 41% at 468 00:48:48,350 --> 00:48:54,950 2.27% increase. Now we were complaining in the beginning and they indicated that anything 469 00:48:54,950 --> 00:49:01,270 over 3% increases typically are no no and we wanted to respect that as well right so we studied 470 00:49:01,270 --> 00:49:05,510 this surrounding area found a few other examples to see the next page that showcased our 471 00:49:06,350 --> 00:49:10,690 that are approved back in the day that remained at 3% or slightly lower next life. 472 00:49:11,730 --> 00:49:16,130 These are some examples in the various surrounding area, increased higher than 3% 473 00:49:16,130 --> 00:49:17,730 lower than 3% as well. 474 00:49:18,030 --> 00:49:22,950 Now, important to note that before we began our minor variance application, we found out about 475 00:49:22,950 --> 00:49:27,470 disease as only in Biola amendment, we actually really engaged with planning again. 476 00:49:27,610 --> 00:49:30,850 We wanted to make sure, hey, we were even introducing all these new variances, we want to 477 00:49:30,850 --> 00:49:36,830 get your approval in writing, of course, and then you understand the new impact associated with the 478 00:49:36,830 --> 00:49:40,470 dialogue, which, of course, actually triggers some changes to our softscape, but that's 479 00:49:40,470 --> 00:49:41,490 not what they're hearing or there. 480 00:49:41,910 --> 00:49:42,530 Next slide, please. 481 00:49:44,030 --> 00:49:50,090 Our max lock coverage, we are requesting 35% worth 30% is a loud, of course, under the merits 482 00:49:50,090 --> 00:49:54,430 of the initial by-law, 35% was the maximum allowed. 483 00:49:54,430 --> 00:50:01,490 I want to make it very clear that our coverage calculation for the dwelling itself was actually 484 00:50:01,490 --> 00:50:04,870 measured that 29.97% out of the lock coverage. 485 00:50:05,070 --> 00:50:09,790 The remaining percentage that accounts through the various active constitutions towards 486 00:50:09,790 --> 00:50:16,970 a frontier re-apportment furthermore, even with our lock coverage variance being presented 487 00:50:16,970 --> 00:50:21,770 here today, we are not pursuing any landscape invariance associated with our project. 488 00:50:22,410 --> 00:50:28,310 And that's it. I welcome any questions, of course. I did speak very fast so I just want to make sure when I have any questions. 489 00:50:28,910 --> 00:50:29,910 I'm very answering them. 490 00:50:34,350 --> 00:50:36,990 So we're all I'm going to put you on the hot seat today. 491 00:50:37,950 --> 00:50:38,130 Sure. 492 00:50:41,010 --> 00:50:50,470 With everything that you've set today, it just seems that you just cloud right ahead with your plans versus 493 00:50:53,070 --> 00:50:59,010 read, checking, and reassessing what the impact of the new vial laws are for your building 494 00:50:59,010 --> 00:50:59,770 project. 495 00:51:02,420 --> 00:51:08,760 I mean, I find myself in the same position as Mr. Telalski, for with our first application. 496 00:51:09,520 --> 00:51:15,420 I don't see how this in any way shape or form aligns with the intent of the vial law. 497 00:51:15,980 --> 00:51:20,040 And you spoke about breaking down the massing of your, the whole. 498 00:51:20,040 --> 00:51:28,800 I can see that on the side and the back elevations, but I'm looking at a straight wall in the front, in the front foot's heart. 499 00:51:30,440 --> 00:51:32,480 Right, I see we're coming from Madden chair. 500 00:51:32,640 --> 00:51:36,560 I just want to make it very clear that before we actually pursue with our minor variance, 501 00:51:36,800 --> 00:51:41,400 when we were found out with the ZBA, we didn't re-engage planning to discuss our variance associated with that. 502 00:51:42,360 --> 00:51:47,580 So we wanted to understand severely that before actually coming to today's stage here, right? 503 00:51:47,580 --> 00:51:53,900 and they did speak to the mayor of our, of our, of our parents' and did assess that it was minor in nature. 504 00:51:54,340 --> 00:52:00,260 Now, I want to make clear that regarding our front facade from a 2D perspective, yes, it is an imposing wall, 505 00:52:00,440 --> 00:52:05,720 but that second floor is step back more than six feet from the front of the first floor, right? 506 00:52:05,880 --> 00:52:10,140 So, our impact to the massing is reduced from street state perspective right there. 507 00:52:10,460 --> 00:52:15,260 The mayor, the presentation I did present, even though it did touch on how we initially pursued 508 00:52:15,260 --> 00:52:17,980 Our variant is under the merits of the old by-law. 509 00:52:18,460 --> 00:52:22,740 The visuals are present today specifically with the side of our setbacks, rear yard setbacks, 510 00:52:22,980 --> 00:52:28,360 and the building heights still touch upon the notions and the regulations of the new bar, right? 511 00:52:28,840 --> 00:52:29,960 A portion of our... 512 00:52:30,000 --> 00:52:35,940 Building only encroaches into the side of the side, guide our setbacks on the north and south, the majority of our structures 513 00:52:35,940 --> 00:52:42,940 look on flies with most of the side-guarcent facts. Our dwelling that main wall of our dwelling is located greater than 7.5s in the 514 00:52:42,940 --> 00:52:49,080 rear. Our building height, yes, is, numerically, 0.97 meters greater than what's allowed in the new by-law. 515 00:52:49,960 --> 00:52:58,600 But if our flat roof was 4.9% less than calculation shows, we would have a building height that's allowed to be 9 meters. 516 00:52:59,120 --> 00:53:04,840 And additionally, I do understand that, you know, with a new by-law, there is a need to make 517 00:53:04,840 --> 00:53:09,820 the nearest smaller houses. And with our side yard setbacks, we definitely try to encourage 518 00:53:09,820 --> 00:53:16,200 that, or we most certainly did. And for the more, and though we are pursuing that 35% lot 519 00:53:16,200 --> 00:53:20,060 of coverage, and typically when you see a lot of coverage variants, you see grotesque 520 00:53:20,060 --> 00:53:23,480 large amounts of width in front of our setback, or it's as we are setback, 521 00:53:23,480 --> 00:53:27,480 experiences. Again, even though on paper, we have side yard from our subject 522 00:53:27,480 --> 00:53:31,140 experiences, they are minor in nature and we're not incurring any landscape 523 00:53:31,140 --> 00:53:31,700 experiences. 524 00:53:33,960 --> 00:53:36,640 Yeah, but there's a huge cumulative effect that I'm going to ask 525 00:53:36,640 --> 00:53:40,660 to count staff to comment on this because when you look at it all of this 526 00:53:40,660 --> 00:53:47,440 together, it's not just a one-off. There is a cumulative effect of several 527 00:53:47,440 --> 00:53:51,620 very into this put together. It gives a huge impact. 528 00:53:53,140 --> 00:54:00,400 Yes, I'm sure. So yeah, so when the applicant first met with staff in January of this year, 529 00:54:00,840 --> 00:54:06,920 obviously as Mr. Elver Hold had mentioned, there were only two variances that were being saw at that time, 530 00:54:07,020 --> 00:54:11,560 which included Florieri ratio and their rear yard set back variances. 531 00:54:11,560 --> 00:54:21,180 When the by-law was approved by council amending provisions within 2014-014 on June 15th of this year, 532 00:54:21,780 --> 00:54:27,880 there were the four additional variances that were required to implement the proposal from an urban design perspective, 533 00:54:28,160 --> 00:54:34,620 and from a development engineering perspective, and from a planning perspective, the design of the dwelling in our opinion 534 00:54:34,620 --> 00:54:41,020 were still mitigated sufficiently in order to limit adverse 535 00:54:41,020 --> 00:54:45,040 on due impacts upon the budding properties and the streets 536 00:54:45,040 --> 00:54:45,980 gave us a whole. 537 00:54:46,320 --> 00:54:50,900 numerically the variances are increased and there are some 538 00:54:50,900 --> 00:54:52,440 additional ones being sought. 539 00:54:53,180 --> 00:54:55,740 But the intention purpose of the by-law provision for 540 00:54:55,740 --> 00:54:58,880 side or a setbacks is to ensure that there's adequately 541 00:54:59,620 --> 00:55:02,680 inadequate space to provide for a great 542 00:55:02,680 --> 00:55:09,180 soil and provide for appropriate setback distances from adjacent dwellings, which this proposal 543 00:55:09,180 --> 00:55:13,620 has met and there were no concerns from our development engineering team when they completed 544 00:55:13,620 --> 00:55:19,290 their review. One of the other new provisions that were included as part of this Bala update were 545 00:55:20,000 --> 00:55:25,280 total soft lanes keeping on the property and then a separate variance for or provision 546 00:55:25,280 --> 00:55:30,920 hurting me for front yard soft lanes keeping in particular, as well as soft lanes keeping in 547 00:55:30,920 --> 00:55:36,240 side yard. So there's three new provisions in total for soft landscaping requirements, which have 548 00:55:36,240 --> 00:55:40,800 all been met, which is an important thing that's also been added as part of this review to ensure 549 00:55:40,800 --> 00:55:49,280 that there's adequate stormwater runoff capture and areas for landscaping and for tree growth 550 00:55:49,280 --> 00:56:00,900 and placement, and then the other height variance being sought. So the intent again for the eight 551 00:56:02,120 --> 00:56:08,900 heights in maximum height permissions. So again, based on the design of the dwelling from the 552 00:56:08,900 --> 00:56:14,280 public right away and from adjacent properties, staff in staffs opinion it looks like a typical 553 00:56:14,280 --> 00:56:19,260 mancer in roof type of style. That a lot of dwellings that are recently constructed in the area, 554 00:56:20,620 --> 00:56:25,920 you know, west of third line and east of third line, south of bridge road, have very similar 555 00:56:25,920 --> 00:56:32,120 root structures and heights as well. So that was of steps analysis in terms of the overall height. 556 00:56:32,580 --> 00:56:38,800 Again, for a lot of coverage, staff note that there was a reduction in the two-store open 557 00:56:38,800 --> 00:56:43,880 below area, the step-backs included on the second floor of the dwelling, and the overall footprint 558 00:56:43,880 --> 00:56:51,740 of the building has been articulated. So it's to provide for interest along the side walls, for example, 559 00:56:51,740 --> 00:56:55,740 and some other front walls as well, just to, again, break up some of that massing. 560 00:56:55,840 --> 00:56:59,200 So, in staff's opinion, there was no concern with the lot-peverage variants. 561 00:57:00,300 --> 00:57:05,220 And then for floor area ratio and various setback, again, were variances that were previously saw at 562 00:57:05,220 --> 00:57:13,360 one staff and met with Mr. Overhold in January. So, in staff's opinion through planning and development, 563 00:57:13,440 --> 00:57:18,380 urban design and development engineering, there were no concerns in our opinions, 564 00:57:18,380 --> 00:57:21,640 the experiences that's presented our minor in nature, 565 00:57:22,240 --> 00:57:24,160 desirable for the appropriate development of land, 566 00:57:24,500 --> 00:57:27,580 in keeping with the official plan, and in keeping with the zoning by-law. 567 00:57:28,660 --> 00:57:32,360 That was approved in June 15, the 2026, 568 00:57:33,200 --> 00:57:34,960 and although recently approved by council, 569 00:57:35,840 --> 00:57:37,400 through our discussions with Mr. Overhaul, 570 00:57:37,520 --> 00:57:40,880 and the work done, and the design of the dwelling 571 00:57:40,880 --> 00:57:43,860 to help mitigate some of the impacts, and no concerns 572 00:57:43,860 --> 00:57:48,040 from, again, engineering, fire, or any other sort of 573 00:57:48,040 --> 00:57:54,440 apartment that worries about flooding or life and health and safety issues, there were no concerns 574 00:57:54,440 --> 00:57:59,940 with that. So staff understand that although numerically, it intimately looks like there's a huge 575 00:57:59,940 --> 00:58:05,760 impact on the law. There are other dwellings in the neighborhood that are built at the same scale, 576 00:58:05,860 --> 00:58:11,900 some at a larger scale, and it was staff's opinion that with that said there was still 577 00:58:11,900 --> 00:58:15,380 behind the proposal and of our disapproval? 578 00:58:16,460 --> 00:58:18,140 Okay, thank you both. 579 00:58:18,820 --> 00:58:20,200 Anyone else have any questions? 580 00:58:21,140 --> 00:58:22,320 Go ahead, Mr. Kalski. 581 00:58:23,620 --> 00:58:23,820 Thank you. 582 00:58:24,100 --> 00:58:29,280 I'm Chair, I do share your concerns with any of the impacts 583 00:58:29,280 --> 00:58:32,420 from the particular side yard and height. 584 00:58:32,600 --> 00:58:36,500 The question for Mr. All here. 585 00:58:38,400 --> 00:58:41,060 I'm struggling with this staff report. 586 00:58:41,060 --> 00:58:48,300 just like the first one with the comments that you just made in response to the chair. 587 00:58:49,380 --> 00:58:56,560 The analysis that stated is consistent with recent bills in the neighborhood. 588 00:58:57,520 --> 00:59:04,220 Of course it will be because recent bills in the neighborhood were allowed to have 1.2 meters 589 00:59:04,220 --> 00:59:12,780 side yards up back and nine meter, going height. Council said enough, we want 590 00:59:12,780 --> 00:59:22,140 wider side yards, lower buildings, less coverage, and yet analysis is, well, it's 591 00:59:22,140 --> 00:59:28,800 consistent with what was built under a different bylaw, which the town made a 592 00:59:28,800 --> 00:59:37,440 just a decision to change. So, a similar, my question to Ms. McNight, 593 00:59:40,090 --> 00:59:41,890 how please explain to me 594 00:59:41,890 --> 00:59:49,210 how you believe that the variance in particular in this case height, the new knowledge 595 00:59:49,210 --> 00:59:55,750 it's not as significant as the previous one on the side yard. Although, it is concerning that 596 00:59:55,750 --> 00:59:59,970 where they chose to try to reduce the side yard is putting the dwelling right up and 597 01:00:00,000 --> 01:00:13,060 Again, the neighbors backyard, not joining the houses side by side, but Mr. O'Hare, please explain to me how you believe that when the 598 01:00:13,060 --> 01:00:29,980 ink is not dry on the by law, and I know the applicant said, well, if we did this, we could do this, but that's not what they did. How can I find that this application needs the intent of the new zoning by law, when it meets 599 01:00:29,980 --> 01:00:34,400 the intent of the farmers only by a lot of the council chose the church. 600 01:00:35,720 --> 01:00:40,060 So if you have a three-man chair to members of the excuse question, one of the other things 601 01:00:40,060 --> 01:00:45,040 that we look at obviously, you know, as part of our analysis is, you know, existing neighborhood 602 01:00:45,040 --> 01:00:50,340 character and, you know, although, again, council did just recently approve the by-law 603 01:00:50,340 --> 01:00:59,960 in June of this year, the existing character of the neighborhood and existing dwellings, you 604 01:00:59,960 --> 01:01:03,420 what's being proposed to, again, that existing character. 605 01:01:05,060 --> 01:01:07,400 And, you know, the intensive, the minor variance process, 606 01:01:08,020 --> 01:01:13,980 although the 2026-088 by law is, you know, 607 01:01:13,980 --> 01:01:17,480 two and a half months old still allows for 608 01:01:17,480 --> 01:01:21,520 variances to be made even to the new provisions, 609 01:01:21,620 --> 01:01:25,300 so long as there are no issues with 610 01:01:25,300 --> 01:01:31,620 training, drainage, setbacks, privacy, overlook, shadowing, all of the usual mechanisms 611 01:01:31,620 --> 01:01:37,800 through which staff review, the proposals, and so staff are aware and cognizant that there 612 01:01:37,800 --> 01:01:44,180 was a lot of time and effort and you know, organization through by staff to prepare the new 613 01:01:44,180 --> 01:01:51,810 bylaw that was, again, approved two and a bit months ago, but with that said, you know, 614 01:01:51,810 --> 01:02:13,810 We see a member of the public has the right to come in and open themselves up to this public process to go through the minor bearings process and you know providing a dwelling that best meets the intent again of the four tests under the planning act and although again recently approved by council there still presents an opportunity to 615 01:02:13,810 --> 01:02:25,630 You know, come forward with a varying application and we rely on our other departments as well as ourselves within planning to review those four tests and to see if it does 616 01:02:25,630 --> 01:02:37,210 may be intensive all for provisions under section 451 to put forward to yourselves and in this case with the, again, the design of the dwelling, the appropriate 617 01:02:38,210 --> 01:02:44,170 distances for the side-darts setbacks that can be appropriately rated and accommodated 618 01:02:44,170 --> 01:02:49,510 swales, again, with the height as proposed, with the design of the dwelling and the 619 01:02:49,510 --> 01:02:54,410 mitigation efforts that Mr. Overvolt undertook from first meeting with us in January, 620 01:02:56,090 --> 01:03:01,490 staff were still of the opinion that, again, although the by-law is still fairly new. In 621 01:03:01,490 --> 01:03:06,470 this case, it doesn't make sense and represents good planning to move forward with the application 622 01:03:06,470 --> 01:03:12,610 as is because all of the major concerns have been addressed from an engineering urban design and planning standpoint. 623 01:03:15,170 --> 01:03:16,390 I'm not 624 01:03:38,690 --> 01:03:39,530 sure you're muted. 625 01:03:42,330 --> 01:03:45,530 I just realized that when I didn't get an answer to my question, I have loads. 626 01:03:47,510 --> 01:03:51,250 Anyone else have any comments or items of clarification? 627 01:03:54,430 --> 01:03:55,170 Okay, I've seen that. 628 01:03:55,250 --> 01:03:58,530 Has anyone called with interest for this application of Adam Secretary Treasurer? 629 01:03:59,530 --> 01:04:03,310 Madam Chair, there have been no calls and no one has their hand up. 630 01:04:03,310 --> 01:04:06,930 Then we'll take the matter into committee who would like to remove a motion. 631 01:04:12,630 --> 01:04:14,170 Go ahead Mr. Tofti. 632 01:04:15,270 --> 01:04:17,930 Good, Chair. I'm going to be consistent. 633 01:04:20,030 --> 01:04:23,410 I don't believe the cumulative impacts are 634 01:04:23,410 --> 01:04:33,810 minor, but I also do not believe that the Siberia setback and high-variances make the intent 635 01:04:33,810 --> 01:04:43,650 of the news on in Baila. If we're going to judge, how is this going forward based on what was built 636 01:04:43,650 --> 01:04:47,730 under the old Baila, I'm not sure why the count changes on in Baila. 637 01:04:50,330 --> 01:04:52,490 Again, similar to the original one, 638 01:04:53,010 --> 01:04:57,690 the applicant, I don't know if you're trying to be to make some changes. So, 639 01:04:57,690 --> 01:05:01,270 mitigate the impact of the variance is under the new Baila, the chose not to. 640 01:05:05,210 --> 01:05:13,590 And earlier, yeah, applicants have said, right, if they had a different design, they have different standards, but that's not what the applicant brought in front of this committee. 641 01:05:14,590 --> 01:05:17,870 My interior cannot find that this meets the foretest of the funding. 642 01:05:18,350 --> 01:05:23,410 It cannot believe it's intended to be going by a law or the cumulative impacts desirable. 643 01:05:25,790 --> 01:05:28,430 Thank you, Mr. Toth. Is there a discussion on this recommendation? 644 01:05:30,690 --> 01:05:31,630 Mr. Hardcastle. 645 01:05:32,630 --> 01:05:39,690 Thank you, Madam Chair. I won't take up too much of the committee's time here. I will 646 01:05:39,690 --> 01:05:46,910 simply echo the comments of the member 12 ski here. This, the cumulative impacts of this 647 01:05:46,910 --> 01:05:51,790 application in the lack of regard for the new zoning by our significant in my decision-making 648 01:05:51,790 --> 01:05:57,610 and I'll follow the recommendation of floor. Thank you, Mr. Harpeth. Anyone else? 649 01:06:00,690 --> 01:06:03,130 Okay. The recommendation 650 01:06:03,130 --> 01:06:11,750 is to deny the fabrication, all those in sport, the application has been denied, 651 01:06:11,750 --> 01:06:13,010 and none of those. 652 01:06:15,780 --> 01:06:16,660 Thank you. 653 01:06:17,780 --> 01:06:18,300 Another good night. 654 01:06:35,690 --> 01:06:39,530 We have minutes to confirm for August the 19th. 655 01:06:40,390 --> 01:06:41,250 Thank you, Miss Price. 656 01:06:46,160 --> 01:06:47,780 And motion to adjourn. 657 01:06:49,620 --> 01:06:50,480 We are adjourned. 658 01:06:50,640 --> 01:06:51,700 Thank you, Mr. Hartcastle. 659 01:06:51,840 --> 01:06:53,580 At 8 o'clock on the dot.