[6:46] Okay, thank you.

[6:51] 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.

[7:01] 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.

[7:17] This process is not intended to be used to resolve any concerns or dispute that may exist between the

[7:24] Pound, Individuals, or Organizations.

[7:27] If our request for a deferral is made and...

[7:37] 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.

[7:54] Again, the number is 905, 815, 6, 0, 9, 5.

[7:59] The phone number is also posted on your screen below the live stream at Oakville.de.

[8:04] That will be standing by to take your call when you call in Stafford after name and item

[8:09] number that you wish to address and your telephone number.

[8:12] Further instructions will be provided for you to call back to join the video conference.

[8:17] When the chair of the committee polls for interested parties press star six to unmute yourself.

[8:21] 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.

[8:30] A maximum of five minutes will be provided for each presentation.

[8:34] 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.

[8:42] All delegations must also state their full name and address for the record and maximum of five minutes will be provided to make presentation.

[8:49] 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.

[8:57] 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.

[9:06] 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.

[9:14] The matter then will be taken into committee for a decision, and this will mark the end of all discussions.

[9:21] Any person's hiring an order of the decision for an application must provide a written request preferably to email to the psychatory treasure.

[9:28] Written notice of the committee's decision will be mailed no later than 10 days from minor variants and 15 per consent.

[9:35] The applicant agent or any other person who has filed a written request for such an order.

[9:40] So, last day, to appeal to decisions with Ontario, Land Tribunal will be noted on a decision.

[9:46] Only the applicant specified persons or public bodies may appeal the decision of the committee to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

[9:54] In November of 2022, Bill 23 legislation, the Moore Home's Billed Faster Act

[10:00] amended the Planning Act to remove all appeal rights for members of the public.

[10:05] If no appeal is received within the prescribed time frame, the decision of the community becomes final and binding.

[10:11] The Secretary-Turgeonal then notify the applicant and anyone who received a copy of the decision through within correspondence.

[10:18] 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.

[10:27] Tonight's electronic hearing is being did you record it and available a future viewing at Google.

[10:32] Thank you.

[10:33] Thank you.

[10:44] We have no regret this evening, but I have any declarations of victory interests.

[10:51] See, none.

[10:53] Madam Secretary, treasured, do we have any requests for deferral or withdrawal of applications?

[10:58] And if anyone is in the audience and seeks the deferral or withdrawal of an application, please raise your hand.

[11:09] Madam Chair, I see no hands up at this time.

[11:13] Very

[11:16] well.

[11:18] Okay, I'll proceed with the first application on our agenda this evening and that application

[11:24] 88 of 2026 the third from June the 24th at 26 to

[11:30] Trollbridge, please again that application 88 of

[11:35] 2026

[11:35] The third from June the 24th at 26 to

[11:39] Trollbridge, please. I Mr. Egor, look back as the agent

[11:46] Good, and I will

[11:48] Yes. Good afternoon. Just give me a moment. I just want to note that because of the new

[11:55] bylaw going into effect, there is a change to one of the variances that are before us.

[12:03] And I'm going to read variance number two, which is to permit the maximum residential for

[12:09] area ratio of 58.5% whereas a maximum residential for area ratio is now 55 permitted versus

[12:20] 43 previously. Go ahead Mr. Looker.

[12:25] Thank you very much Madam Chair and committee members. I really appreciate it.

[12:34] This is

[12:39] We are requesting two minor variances, one for interior, side yard setback, whereas 1.8 meters is required from the new bylaws.

[12:53] We are requesting 1.2 meters and a gross floor area of 58.5, whereas the new bylaw is 55%.

[13:04] I can walk you guys through the presentation, but essentially we're doing a side and rear

[13:11] addition on an existing single-family dwelling home and the last page I believe lets you

[13:18] kind of visualize the difference just so you know that it's not overly grotesque in size

[13:23] and stature. So the first two are the existing state and the lower is what we're proposing.

[13:29] And

[13:35] I welcome any questions.

[13:43] Thank you, Mr. Gorkak. Any questions?

[13:47] Item of conference.

[13:53] Mr. Taras, go ahead.

[13:55] Thank you, Madam Chair.

[13:57] Mr. Gorkak.

[13:58] There's only bylaws, obviously, changed since you started.

[14:03] But this is a very large addition.

[14:06] Looks like it's large in existing house.

[14:09] 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?

[14:18] 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.

[14:30] And we did take a lot of care, and then kind of right as we were heading towards minor variants, this process happened.

[14:41] And so the decision was made, I think it was more appropriate to try.

[14:46] 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.

[14:54] That was the main reason.

[15:00] Do you have a matter of chair question for staff as well?

[15:04] Thank you. Let's make a nice please help me with the staff analysis here.

[15:18] The

[15:18] Young's not drying the new by law and the very first application this committee hears with the

[15:25] side of our setback requirements. We're being asked to approve a 1.2 meter setback when 1.8

[15:34] required by 15 meter long to story wall.

[15:42] The only analysis I see in the staff report is really

[15:46] that it's consistent with this surrounding neighborhood. But is that an appropriate analysis any

[15:52] given the Council just made a decision that they no longer want. 1.2 meters

[15:58] IDR Sapax, they want greater separation between the buildings and struggling

[16:04] with how I can find that this application meets the intent of the zoning

[16:09] dialogue. When Council has just said we don't want this anymore and in my view

[16:16] what's exacerbated by the fact that it's 15 meters long,

[16:20] two stories, no relief can make design whatsoever.

[16:28] For you, Madam Chair, yes, I understand the concern

[16:32] in staff's review of the application.

[16:36] Our, we did give recognition to the existing neighborhood

[16:39] as you mentioned.

[16:41] And I think the review undertaken did determine that

[16:48] is a minor proposal. So although it is exceeding the new direction passed by council,

[16:59] it has been determined to be in minor in the context of the existing neighborhood at the end of the day.

[17:08] I appreciate that. Wouldn't that go more to the test of whether it's desirable as opposed to

[17:15] whether it confies with the intent is on a by-law.

[17:20] I haven't heard how this ties with the intent of a by-law,

[17:27] which was clearly to increase the setback from 1.2 to 1.8.

[17:33] Thank you, Madam Chair.

[17:35] I do recognize that concern as well.

[17:38] I think the separation distance with the body property

[17:42] to that side yard. There is some space on the other side of the property as well. I know that

[17:50] that's not speaking to the property directly from 262 tropers, but the separation distance between

[18:00] the two properties was significant and that concern was not raised. And I would note that there

[18:08] and any concerns raised by engineering or a fire on that matter, either.

[18:14] And so, typically, if there were concerns raised by other departments to that degree,

[18:21] that decided looking at the neighborhood character as a whole, then we would have some hesitation

[18:27] but in this context we did not.

[18:32] Thank you.

[18:36] Any other questions?

[18:43] Okay, has anyone called with interest for the Southification of Psychitary Treasure?

[18:48] I'm sure there have been no calls and no one in attendance has their hand up.

[18:53] Thank you.

[18:54] In my case, we'll take the matter into committee who would like to move motion.

[19:10] I have Mr. Falski.

[19:14] Thank you, Madam Chair.

[19:15] I think you know where this is going, but I'll make the motion to see if there's any discussion

[19:20] on my colleagues.

[19:22] I cannot accept the evidence but forth by finding staff or the applicant as how this application

[19:29] makes the intent of the new zoning by-law.

[19:34] The applicant opted to proceed on the basis

[19:41] where they started, as opposed to make adjustments

[19:43] to an evolving zoning by-law on different requirements.

[19:50] The variance here, as I said earlier,

[19:54] it's exasperated by the fact that there's been zero with them.

[19:58] to set by, part of the building, the second floor,

[20:03] it's a imposing wall,

[20:07] cannot accept steps,

[20:11] evidence that this complies with the zoning body,

[20:13] intent to design the wall, intent to clear.

[20:17] It's just been changed.

[20:20] We want narrower buildings, more separation between,

[20:24] I cannot find that I'm chair of this application,

[20:27] it's the intent to design the wall,

[20:28] much. So I have to recommend it to me.

[20:35] Thank you Mister to ask you the discussion on this

[20:41] recommendation.

[20:47] Okay, I see that.

[20:49] All those in support.

[20:53] All those opposed.

[20:57] Okay, the application has been denied.

[20:59] I

[21:23] have a good evening, application 96 of 2026, the first from August 5th of 2026 at 1, 3, 2, 1, Duncan

[21:36] Road.

[21:43] I have a Dominic Monardo as the agent and that application 96 of 2026 at 1, 3, 2, 1,

[21:50] Duncan Road.

[21:51] I have a letter of opposition from a Mr. Arthur Loan and the two variants that are before

[21:59] do have both have amendments. The first being to permit a maximum residential for area ratio of 45.31

[22:09] whereas a maximum residential for area ratio of 41 is permitted versus previously 37 and to permit a maximum

[22:20] a lot coverage of 30.23% whereas a maximum of a lot coverage of 25% is permitted for dwellings.

[22:39] 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.

[23:06] 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.

[23:22] If the Doom design is stepping back in quite a few areas, we have the whole main floor office

[23:32] stepping back almost halfway down the house, the second floor is stepping back, very low pitch

[23:39] roof, tried to even further behind that front porch, we set that back as well.

[23:47] Our side-setbacks are all intact.

[23:52] We didn't go up beyond them.

[23:56] We're actually greater on the one side.

[24:00] We left the 2.4 on the right side of the field,

[24:03] because they wanted to go back and forth down the garage.

[24:05] Our front-setbacks are all within zoning requirements,

[24:10] as well as the rear.

[24:13] Our building height is well below.

[24:17] understanding that our new by-law believe we're allowed to go 10 or 10.5 meters and we're still at 9 meters.

[24:26] 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.

[24:37] So that peak on there is not actually impacting the front view as well.

[24:42] We just left the peaks on the top, which is a very low page. She says it fights well.

[24:47] So I do believe this is looking at the Oakville livable plan

[24:56] and I hope you guys do as well.

[25:05] Okay, are there any questions of Mr. Ronaldo?

[25:18] After dealing with Mother Nature, we've got that sign back off. We dealt with it again tonight.

[25:22] So I just drove by just in case it's still there.

[25:26] Yeah, it is going hard.

[25:28] Yeah, it was there.

[25:35] If there are no questions for Mr. Monardo, I will see if there are any answers from the audience.

[25:41] Madam Secretary Treasurer has anyone raised their hand up for this application or request that this speaker.

[25:48] Madam Chair, there are no hands up and no one has called in.

[25:55] Okay. Very well. Who would like to move a motion?

[26:01] Go ahead and miss Price.

[26:03] Taking into account my previous site visit, the drawings provided by the agent, staffs,

[26:09] comments, and there being one letter of opportunity of objection, I find it very

[26:13] needs to be minor in nature.

[26:15] A stage of I staff, the proposed application maintains and protects the character of existing

[26:20] neighbourhood, and does not present unacceptable adverse impacts.

[26:25] Based on the information provided, I find the application needs support, tests and

[26:29] planning act, and I therefore put part of the motion to approve the application subject to the following conditions.

[26:37] The drawing being constructed in general accordance with the submitted site plan dated June 23,

[26:43] 2026, and elevation dines dated May 28, 2026.

[26:49] And that the approval expires two years from the date of the decision

[26:52] if the building permit has not been issued for the proposed construction.

[26:58] There well, thank you, Ms. Price.

[27:00] Is there a discussion on this recommendation?

[27:05] I think none, all those in support.

[27:11] And the application has been approved and not opposed.

[27:24] Thank you.

[27:25] Thank you very much, committee.

[27:26] Have a good night.

[27:28] Good night.

[27:42] Application, application 98 of 2026,

[27:45] deferred from August the 5th at 35-year-old air-question road.

[27:49] Again, that application 98 deferred from August the 5th.

[27:53] at 3-5-0 air-question wrote

[28:00] in the Spiritsili as the agent.

[28:04] Good evening, Madam Chair, and members of the committee.

[28:07] Hopefully everyone can hear me here.

[28:09] So, yes, my name is Vasily Sarantoplas.

[28:11] I'm representing IGP Realty Advisors, and I'm a parent and I'm behalf of the client.

[28:15] I'm a son or Patrick Canada.

[28:16] My address is 30 here until a way in North York, Ontario.

[28:21] Here today, it's been supported to minor variances for 350 air-question or road redevelopment

[28:25] of existing gas bars site into the convenience store and A and W restaurant.

[28:33] I can kind of, well, if we want to switch to the next slide,

[28:39] I should run the site plan

[28:39] in the property since at the southeast corner of your Quashore Road at your Fogger Road, and

[28:45] established a low-rise commercial area with plasas to the north and the office building

[28:49] to the east of the place to, I guess, technically would be the south, currently operates

[28:54] is a petrochemical gas bar with convenience during car wash,

[28:58] aimed to keep the development of the property, keeps the same

[29:02] commercial function, and then modernizing it as an existing use.

[29:06] Not introducing a new one.

[29:08] If you want to go to the next slide,

[29:11] I'll outline the variances that we are going through.

[29:14] So variances number one, the first variances under section 10.5,

[29:17] the dissolving by-law, which requires 35% of the main wall to

[29:20] made wall length to sit within the flankage gun. We're requesting relief to 1.4% and I know

[29:27] the gap looks large on paper, so I do want to dress it directly. It's not mainly a design choice.

[29:33] It is a state to constrain. The TSSA look at fuels handling code requires the self-servotentative

[29:39] remain within 50 meters of fuel dispensers and the building's current position maintains that distance.

[29:45] Moving, I'd close it to the flankage line would break that requirement and relocating the canopy

[29:49] as well as infeasible, given conflicts with the fire roots in site circulation.

[29:55] Despite the numeric variance, the building does sit close to fall to road.

[30:00] And it does feel continue to address the public realm by way of the bylaw intents.

[30:06] So the underlying planning objective is met where the specific number is not.

[30:12] We want to go to the next slide.

[30:16] Second variance is on a table 10.2.

[30:18] It's footnote 5 which captures restaurant and can be used as a combined 20% of the net floor area.

[30:23] For the record, I know on the presentation it does state that it can be used or figure on the slide should read

[30:29] 56.6 percent not 58.6 percent just the typo. So that gives the 43.4 percent to the

[30:39] hand W restaurant in 56.6 percent to the convenience store. Equally to the 100 percent combined.

[30:47] And yeah, if we want to go into the four tests, I can happily do so. The rest of those slides

[30:53] are just more so for for visual information to give a little bit more context as to what this actually

[30:57] looks like, in turning to the Ford tests, the variances are minor, introducing new land use,

[31:07] no impact beyond what's already anticipated for the site. They are desirable supporting

[31:11] of the redevelopment of existing commercial site with a safe and functional layout. They

[31:18] maintain the intent of the zoning bylaw since both uses remain permitted and the relief response

[31:23] to the site-specific operational constraints. They also maintain the intent of the official

[31:28] plan supporting business commercial designation and the site's ongoing commercial function.

[31:33] On that basis, we respectfully request the committee's approval. Both Francis,

[31:36] thank you so much for your time and happy to answer any questions.

[31:41] Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your time.

[31:43] I know. Well done. Ms. Bricey of a question?

[31:47] Yes, that is just one. Were there any traffic studies done on this property?

[31:53] Well, they were, we are going through the site plan application process and I believe that that has been since cleared and approved.

[32:00] As of today, we are into our third submission on this file.

[32:05] I believe it should have been included in the package, but if it wasn't, I'm happy to provide it.

[32:10] It's just that that's very busy intersection.

[32:14] So we have actually gone back.

[32:16] So we, we didn't actually in the beginning.

[32:18] So this project started our initial site plan application

[32:21] began back in 2020, 2020, 2024,

[32:26] where we did actually have more to the site.

[32:28] We have dialed it back significantly,

[32:32] and we have worked with staff intensely to make sure

[32:35] that we are meeting the requirements

[32:36] and their needs.

[32:40] Any

[32:45] other questions?

[32:49] I see none.

[32:51] Has anyone called with interest for this application that I'm Secretary Treasurer?

[32:56] Madam Chair, there have been no calls and no one has their hand up.

[33:00] Very well.

[33:00] And we'll take the matter into committee who would like to move a motion.

[33:09] Go ahead, Mr. Dickie.

[33:14] Thank you, Madam Chair.

[33:18] I'm based upon my review of the owner's application, the site plan, building elevations, my site visit.

[33:24] The presentation by the owners consultant and the planning staff's report, I'm satisfied

[33:30] at the various as our minor in nature, and conform to the four tests under the planning act.

[33:36] And I put forth the motion that the application is applied for, the approved subject

[33:41] to the conditions that the building be constructed in accordance with the final approved

[33:48] 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

[34:07] of ability permit has not been issued for the proposed construction.

[34:12] Thank you Mr. Dick, is there a discussion on this recommendation?

[34:19] I see none of those of course.

[34:23] Okay, the application has been approved, none of course.

[34:29] Thank you very much.

[34:30] I have a bit of a statement.

[34:48] Application 108 of 2026 set,

[34:50] 3-1-1-3 card draws forward. Again, that application 108 of 2026 set 3-1-1-3 card draws

[35:00] court. I have the owner, representing themselves as Mr. Digen Ova.

[35:11] Good evening, Madam Chair and committee members. I am the owner of 3-1-1-3 card

[35:16] cross-court, Andre D. Genova, and I'm here before you today to apply for minor variants

[35:23] regarding Flankage X for Hotup. As you can see by the site plan on screen, it's kind of an

[35:32] odd shape lot. I've been struggling with placement and not obstructing the rear egress and existing

[35:39] gas facilities while still making the accessory usable close enough to the door, especially

[35:45] during winter. And I'm requesting 1.5 meter relief from the three and a half meters required

[35:53] under the zoning by-law, 2014-014. Going over the town's report, fire has expressed a concern

[36:04] about the hedges and accessibility along the side of the house, and tend to mitigate that in

[36:11] short term by just trimming them back a bit, I should be able to get greater than one meter

[36:16] fairly easily. In the long term, as noted on the cover letter, there is a fence variance

[36:21] in flight to redo the sensing that we'll be replacing the hedge and rock iron that currently

[36:28] exists. And it's well covered from the street with the existing solution, the higher fenced

[36:35] and opaque fence will enhance this screening

[36:40] further such that it will impact the neighborhood.

[36:44] In any way, I do leave the neighborhood

[36:46] when you can build it's there.

[36:51] And one other thing I wanted to mention

[36:53] from the staff report is under the recommended conditions,

[36:58] the typical two years from one of building permit is issued.

[37:02] I'm concerned that might be difficult here.

[37:06] 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.

[37:17] The concrete slab is the specs are too small to demand one.

[37:24] The pool enclosure by a law is being satisfied by substantial cover blocking.

[37:31] 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.

[37:59] And, um, open any questions you may have.

[38:05] Thank you.

[38:06] Any questions?

[38:08] Oh, Mr. Digenover?

[38:12] I think none has anyone called with interest for the faculty,

[38:15] and Madam Secretary Treasurer?

[38:18] Madam Chair, there have been no calls,

[38:20] and no one has their hand up.

[38:22] Okay, very well.

[38:24] Um, who would like to move a motion?

[38:29] Well, I have missed the hard castle.

[38:34] Thank you, Madam Chair.

[38:35] Although, um, before I put forward a motion,

[38:37] I would like to seek some clarification from staff on a matter.

[38:42] I'm sorry, I failed to respond to your query earlier.

[38:47] I just wanted to clarify that in fact that the ESA, the electrical permit,

[38:52] would be satisfactory to address this building permit requirement as the homeowner highlighted.

[38:58] I just like to understand that from staff.

[39:04] To you, Madam Chair, to commemorate, I'm not certain about the performance of us to be honest

[39:11] and how that would be satisfied, but I can just quickly double check if you just get me a moment.

[39:47] Sorry, so you, Madam Chair, again, to commemorate the electrical works would be adjusted to the building permit phase.

[39:58] So, that would be a satisfactory trigger to address that condition number two, leaving this with the web, being a fulfillable condition, then.

[40:10] Thank you very much, Dad.

[40:13] On the basis of that, Madam Chair, I would be prepared to put forward a motion.

[40:18] That motion would be for approval of the application, finding that there are requested variants as conformed to the Fortress of the Act.

[40:26] the proposed hot tub in the reduction in the side yard, our minor and desirable,

[40:33] a desirable for the appropriate development of the land. The motion would be subject to two conditions,

[40:39] those being that the hot tub be extracted in general accordance with the submitted sketch.

[40:43] Uh, submitted sketched reference plan, 20 R, 16, 783 dated September, 1825, and the

[40:56] approval will expire within two years of the date of the decision if a permit has

[41:00] not been issued for the proposed construction.

[41:03] So, thank you Mr. Hardcastles, I would just special on this recommendation,

[41:09] be not all those

[41:10] support, okay, the application has been approved and underposed.

[41:19] Thank you.

[41:20] Madam Chair and committee members.

[41:21] Thank you.

[41:22] Good evening.

[41:28] Okay.

[41:29] Application 101.09 of 2020.

[41:32] Success 4483rd line.

[41:36] Again, that's application 109 of 2021.

[41:38] 26 at 4483rd line.

[41:41] And again, there is an amendment to the dialogue amendment that's taken place.

[41:46] The variant, number six, which reads to permit a maximum residential floor area,

[41:57] ratio of

[41:58] 53.6% whereas a maximum residential floor area, ratio of 49 is permitted previously

[42:05] 41.

[42:10] I have Alex overhauled as the agent.

[42:16] Good evening, Madam Chair and fellow panel members.

[42:18] Alexander Obrhol from Contemporal Studio,

[42:22] speaking on behalf of this minorbearance application today.

[42:26] Go ahead, Mr. Obrhol.

[42:27] Thank you.

[42:29] Natasha and our three, we have a lovely short presentation

[42:32] that I will do my best to act by through.

[42:34] I know I own the last of the day's agenda.

[42:38] So we're aware.

[42:39] We are pursuing the six fairies as you did,

[42:42] note, Matt and Cher, thank you for doing so.

[42:43] They are four more variances than we had initially

[42:47] Was pursuing a little background in this application. If you do go to the next page

[42:53] Please

[42:53] brief description I'll skip through it. Oh, sorry. This is our proposed massing

[42:58] You can see here we've done a fair job working with applying department to ensure that our massing is modulated

[43:05] Setback in both height and on our mass no left right and front especially in the rear as well

[43:11] where we have produced our two story volume

[43:13] with the one-and-a-half story volume

[43:15] and sure differentiating roof lines as well

[43:17] to ensure that our,

[43:18] always building high variance is not necessarily

[43:21] contained in the entirety of the structure.

[43:24] Now, if you've pursued the next slide, please,

[43:27] it's a brief description,

[43:28] I'm not gonna read all of this, it's a lot of information,

[43:30] but so you're aware that we started our correspondence

[43:33] with a plane that powered back in the beginning

[43:35] of January, where we're pursuing two variances

[43:37] under by a lot of 2014-4K.

[43:40] That was for a RFA variance and a rear eSarget setback variance.

[43:46] Now, we work with planning for over five months through a visor design, which you can

[43:50] saw in the previous slide, which resulted in all different setbacks, the modulation, et cetera.

[43:56] We're here today now, because the new by-law has introduced four additional variances.

[44:00] The Sarget setback variance is the lock coverage variance, as well as the building height variance.

[44:06] Next slide, please.

[44:09] On the left here, you see a image of our site plan.

[44:13] If you look carefully, there are lines in blue and lines in red, lines in blue, and

[44:17] the key to the original setbacks I learned posed in this property that read as the new

[44:22] massing regulations imposed from new by law.

[44:25] As you mentioned, Madam Chair, we're proposing a,

[44:29] north and east side or a setback of 1.70 meters in a south and east side.

[44:33] A setback of 1.22 meters.

[44:35] Now, if you go to the next slide, you'll see it in large.

[44:37] in Mesivar's site.

[44:39] Thank you.

[44:40] Now, on the left, you'll see a large site plan with two areas highlighted in yellow.

[44:46] I've also circled them in red for you.

[44:47] These are the areas of our side-yard setback, encroachments into the new by large regulation.

[44:54] The rest of our dwelling is actually compliant with the side-yard setback requirement.

[44:59] Additionally in the front

[45:00] 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.

[45:24] Now, this slide is dedicated to the explanation of a rear yard setback, so that yellow

[45:31] area highlighted in the diagram until left is the portion of our mask that is

[45:35] encroaching into the rear yard setback.

[45:37] As you mentioned, Madam Chair, the required minimum rear yard setback is 7.50 meters per

[45:42] proposing 6.01.

[45:44] It's important to note that our rear yard setbacks actually measure to the extensive rear

[45:48] porch.

[45:49] It is one story volume and is covered with a flat roof.

[45:53] Now, important to note that if we work take our setback to with actually the, for this

[45:58] extent of our main wall attached to our structure, are you setback measured to the dwellings

[46:03] actually 9.62 meter, which is 2.12 meters greater than the allow 7.5.

[46:09] We worked with planning ahead of this in the beginning and after the, understood how our

[46:15] setback to the main dwellings actually much greater than the allow, they were happy of course

[46:19] with this level of encroachment.

[46:22] Next slide, please.

[46:24] Here we have a visual diagram of our front elevation, right?

[46:28] Another wonderful description of how you'll see in blue,

[46:32] the original extends of what we were pursued

[46:35] and regulated under our profile at 2014-014 items

[46:39] and red are the increased restrictions,

[46:42] which I do understand as to why they're imposed.

[46:45] Now, we are pursuing a building high variance of 8.97 meters

[46:48] for 8.0 meters is allowed.

[46:51] We were under the impression, when we first started this journey,

[46:54] we would be right with under 2014-014.

[46:58] It wasn't until we made our minor variance application in June

[47:01] when we found out that this new ZBA.

[47:04] Next slide, please.

[47:07] Now, with the changes in the zoning bylaw,

[47:10] the new bylaw in my apologies, not only are there changes to restrictions,

[47:13] but new definitions were imposed as well.

[47:15] Not includes, of course, introduction to three different types of root structures, the flat roof, the semi-flat roof and the slope roof.

[47:22] Now, our flat roof area encapsulates the entirety of our flat roof and the pair of heads as well.

[47:30] And that creates a flat roof area of 69.9%, which regulates our roof as a flat roof.

[47:36] A semi-flat roof, which is allowed to have nine meters in height, has a flat roof area between 35 and 65%.

[47:44] We're 4.9% greater than that, of course, right?

[47:48] So we are right. I just said that's threshold of being considered a semi-flat roof,

[47:51] which would negate the required with the pursuing a building height mirror.

[47:55] Next slide, please. Again, a refresher of our massing as well.

[48:00] You can see that there are different types of roof heights here as well,

[48:03] a combination of pair peds and the eaves heights as well,

[48:07] which helps modulate our massing in a way that, in some extent,

[48:11] reduces our impact of the surrounding area. Next slide, please.

[48:16] Residents of floor area. Now, this is the confusing one that us and applying

[48:21] department were trying to wrap our heads around. Hence, Madam Chair's explanation.

[48:25] The beginning of how our change is now at 4.9% required, right? We are pursuing a

[48:31] 53.60% RFA, we're 4.9% is allowed. We were working with the

[48:40] department earlier and as for the on the original bylaw we were actually 43.27% or 41% at

[48:48] 2.27% increase. Now we were complaining in the beginning and they indicated that anything

[48:54] over 3% increases typically are no no and we wanted to respect that as well right so we studied

[49:01] this surrounding area found a few other examples to see the next page that showcased our

[49:06] that are approved back in the day that remained at 3% or slightly lower next life.

[49:11] These are some examples in the various surrounding area, increased higher than 3%

[49:16] lower than 3% as well.

[49:18] Now, important to note that before we began our minor variance application, we found out about

[49:22] disease as only in Biola amendment, we actually really engaged with planning again.

[49:27] We wanted to make sure, hey, we were even introducing all these new variances, we want to

[49:30] get your approval in writing, of course, and then you understand the new impact associated with the

[49:36] dialogue, which, of course, actually triggers some changes to our softscape, but that's

[49:40] not what they're hearing or there.

[49:41] Next slide, please.

[49:44] Our max lock coverage, we are requesting 35% worth 30% is a loud, of course, under the merits

[49:50] of the initial by-law, 35% was the maximum allowed.

[49:54] I want to make it very clear that our coverage calculation for the dwelling itself was actually

[50:01] measured that 29.97% out of the lock coverage.

[50:05] The remaining percentage that accounts through the various active constitutions towards

[50:09] a frontier re-apportment furthermore, even with our lock coverage variance being presented

[50:16] here today, we are not pursuing any landscape invariance associated with our project.

[50:22] 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.

[50:28] I'm very answering them.

[50:34] So we're all I'm going to put you on the hot seat today.

[50:37] Sure.

[50:41] With everything that you've set today, it just seems that you just cloud right ahead with your plans versus

[50:53] read, checking, and reassessing what the impact of the new vial laws are for your building

[50:59] project.

[51:02] I mean, I find myself in the same position as Mr. Telalski, for with our first application.

[51:09] I don't see how this in any way shape or form aligns with the intent of the vial law.

[51:15] And you spoke about breaking down the massing of your, the whole.

[51:20] 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.

[51:30] Right, I see we're coming from Madden chair.

[51:32] I just want to make it very clear that before we actually pursue with our minor variance,

[51:36] when we were found out with the ZBA, we didn't re-engage planning to discuss our variance associated with that.

[51:42] So we wanted to understand severely that before actually coming to today's stage here, right?

[51:47] and they did speak to the mayor of our, of our, of our parents' and did assess that it was minor in nature.

[51:54] Now, I want to make clear that regarding our front facade from a 2D perspective, yes, it is an imposing wall,

[52:00] but that second floor is step back more than six feet from the front of the first floor, right?

[52:05] So, our impact to the massing is reduced from street state perspective right there.

[52:10] The mayor, the presentation I did present, even though it did touch on how we initially pursued

[52:15] Our variant is under the merits of the old by-law.

[52:18] The visuals are present today specifically with the side of our setbacks, rear yard setbacks,

[52:22] and the building heights still touch upon the notions and the regulations of the new bar, right?

[52:28] A portion of our...

[52:30] Building only encroaches into the side of the side, guide our setbacks on the north and south, the majority of our structures

[52:35] 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

[52:42] rear. Our building height, yes, is, numerically, 0.97 meters greater than what's allowed in the new by-law.

[52:49] 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.

[52:59] And additionally, I do understand that, you know, with a new by-law, there is a need to make

[53:04] the nearest smaller houses. And with our side yard setbacks, we definitely try to encourage

[53:09] that, or we most certainly did. And for the more, and though we are pursuing that 35% lot

[53:16] of coverage, and typically when you see a lot of coverage variants, you see grotesque

[53:20] large amounts of width in front of our setback, or it's as we are setback,

[53:23] experiences. Again, even though on paper, we have side yard from our subject

[53:27] experiences, they are minor in nature and we're not incurring any landscape

[53:31] experiences.

[53:33] Yeah, but there's a huge cumulative effect that I'm going to ask

[53:36] to count staff to comment on this because when you look at it all of this

[53:40] together, it's not just a one-off. There is a cumulative effect of several

[53:47] very into this put together. It gives a huge impact.

[53:53] Yes, I'm sure. So yeah, so when the applicant first met with staff in January of this year,

[54:00] obviously as Mr. Elver Hold had mentioned, there were only two variances that were being saw at that time,

[54:07] which included Florieri ratio and their rear yard set back variances.

[54:11] When the by-law was approved by council amending provisions within 2014-014 on June 15th of this year,

[54:21] there were the four additional variances that were required to implement the proposal from an urban design perspective,

[54:28] and from a development engineering perspective, and from a planning perspective, the design of the dwelling in our opinion

[54:34] were still mitigated sufficiently in order to limit adverse

[54:41] on due impacts upon the budding properties and the streets

[54:45] gave us a whole.

[54:46] numerically the variances are increased and there are some

[54:50] additional ones being sought.

[54:53] But the intention purpose of the by-law provision for

[54:55] side or a setbacks is to ensure that there's adequately

[54:59] inadequate space to provide for a great

[55:02] soil and provide for appropriate setback distances from adjacent dwellings, which this proposal

[55:09] has met and there were no concerns from our development engineering team when they completed

[55:13] their review. One of the other new provisions that were included as part of this Bala update were

[55:20] total soft lanes keeping on the property and then a separate variance for or provision

[55:25] hurting me for front yard soft lanes keeping in particular, as well as soft lanes keeping in

[55:30] side yard. So there's three new provisions in total for soft landscaping requirements, which have

[55:36] all been met, which is an important thing that's also been added as part of this review to ensure

[55:40] that there's adequate stormwater runoff capture and areas for landscaping and for tree growth

[55:49] and placement, and then the other height variance being sought. So the intent again for the eight

[56:02] heights in maximum height permissions. So again, based on the design of the dwelling from the

[56:08] public right away and from adjacent properties, staff in staffs opinion it looks like a typical

[56:14] mancer in roof type of style. That a lot of dwellings that are recently constructed in the area,

[56:20] you know, west of third line and east of third line, south of bridge road, have very similar

[56:25] root structures and heights as well. So that was of steps analysis in terms of the overall height.

[56:32] Again, for a lot of coverage, staff note that there was a reduction in the two-store open

[56:38] below area, the step-backs included on the second floor of the dwelling, and the overall footprint

[56:43] of the building has been articulated. So it's to provide for interest along the side walls, for example,

[56:51] and some other front walls as well, just to, again, break up some of that massing.

[56:55] So, in staff's opinion, there was no concern with the lot-peverage variants.

[57:00] And then for floor area ratio and various setback, again, were variances that were previously saw at

[57:05] one staff and met with Mr. Overhold in January. So, in staff's opinion through planning and development,

[57:13] urban design and development engineering, there were no concerns in our opinions,

[57:18] the experiences that's presented our minor in nature,

[57:22] desirable for the appropriate development of land,

[57:24] in keeping with the official plan, and in keeping with the zoning by-law.

[57:28] That was approved in June 15, the 2026,

[57:33] and although recently approved by council,

[57:35] through our discussions with Mr. Overhaul,

[57:37] and the work done, and the design of the dwelling

[57:40] to help mitigate some of the impacts, and no concerns

[57:43] from, again, engineering, fire, or any other sort of

[57:48] apartment that worries about flooding or life and health and safety issues, there were no concerns

[57:54] with that. So staff understand that although numerically, it intimately looks like there's a huge

[57:59] impact on the law. There are other dwellings in the neighborhood that are built at the same scale,

[58:05] some at a larger scale, and it was staff's opinion that with that said there was still

[58:11] behind the proposal and of our disapproval?

[58:16] Okay, thank you both.

[58:18] Anyone else have any questions?

[58:21] Go ahead, Mr. Kalski.

[58:23] Thank you.

[58:24] I'm Chair, I do share your concerns with any of the impacts

[58:29] from the particular side yard and height.

[58:32] The question for Mr. All here.

[58:38] I'm struggling with this staff report.

[58:41] just like the first one with the comments that you just made in response to the chair.

[58:49] The analysis that stated is consistent with recent bills in the neighborhood.

[58:57] Of course it will be because recent bills in the neighborhood were allowed to have 1.2 meters

[59:04] side yards up back and nine meter, going height. Council said enough, we want

[59:12] wider side yards, lower buildings, less coverage, and yet analysis is, well, it's

[59:22] consistent with what was built under a different bylaw, which the town made a

[59:28] just a decision to change. So, a similar, my question to Ms. McNight,

[59:40] how please explain to me

[59:41] how you believe that the variance in particular in this case height, the new knowledge

[59:49] it's not as significant as the previous one on the side yard. Although, it is concerning that

[59:55] where they chose to try to reduce the side yard is putting the dwelling right up and

[1:00:00] 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

[1:00:13] 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

[1:00:29] the intent of the farmers only by a lot of the council chose the church.

[1:00:35] So if you have a three-man chair to members of the excuse question, one of the other things

[1:00:40] that we look at obviously, you know, as part of our analysis is, you know, existing neighborhood

[1:00:45] character and, you know, although, again, council did just recently approve the by-law

[1:00:50] in June of this year, the existing character of the neighborhood and existing dwellings, you

[1:00:59] what's being proposed to, again, that existing character.

[1:01:05] And, you know, the intensive, the minor variance process,

[1:01:08] although the 2026-088 by law is, you know,

[1:01:13] two and a half months old still allows for

[1:01:17] variances to be made even to the new provisions,

[1:01:21] so long as there are no issues with

[1:01:25] training, drainage, setbacks, privacy, overlook, shadowing, all of the usual mechanisms

[1:01:31] through which staff review, the proposals, and so staff are aware and cognizant that there

[1:01:37] was a lot of time and effort and you know, organization through by staff to prepare the new

[1:01:44] bylaw that was, again, approved two and a bit months ago, but with that said, you know,

[1:01:51] 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

[1:02:13] 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

[1:02:25] 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

[1:02:38] distances for the side-darts setbacks that can be appropriately rated and accommodated

[1:02:44] swales, again, with the height as proposed, with the design of the dwelling and the

[1:02:49] mitigation efforts that Mr. Overvolt undertook from first meeting with us in January,

[1:02:56] staff were still of the opinion that, again, although the by-law is still fairly new. In

[1:03:01] this case, it doesn't make sense and represents good planning to move forward with the application

[1:03:06] as is because all of the major concerns have been addressed from an engineering urban design and planning standpoint.

[1:03:15] I'm not

[1:03:38] sure you're muted.

[1:03:42] I just realized that when I didn't get an answer to my question, I have loads.

[1:03:47] Anyone else have any comments or items of clarification?

[1:03:54] Okay, I've seen that.

[1:03:55] Has anyone called with interest for this application of Adam Secretary Treasurer?

[1:03:59] Madam Chair, there have been no calls and no one has their hand up.

[1:04:03] Then we'll take the matter into committee who would like to remove a motion.

[1:04:12] Go ahead Mr. Tofti.

[1:04:15] Good, Chair. I'm going to be consistent.

[1:04:20] I don't believe the cumulative impacts are

[1:04:23] minor, but I also do not believe that the Siberia setback and high-variances make the intent

[1:04:33] of the news on in Baila. If we're going to judge, how is this going forward based on what was built

[1:04:43] under the old Baila, I'm not sure why the count changes on in Baila.

[1:04:50] Again, similar to the original one,

[1:04:53] the applicant, I don't know if you're trying to be to make some changes. So,

[1:04:57] mitigate the impact of the variance is under the new Baila, the chose not to.

[1:05:05] 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.

[1:05:14] My interior cannot find that this meets the foretest of the funding.

[1:05:18] It cannot believe it's intended to be going by a law or the cumulative impacts desirable.

[1:05:25] Thank you, Mr. Toth. Is there a discussion on this recommendation?

[1:05:30] Mr. Hardcastle.

[1:05:32] Thank you, Madam Chair. I won't take up too much of the committee's time here. I will

[1:05:39] simply echo the comments of the member 12 ski here. This, the cumulative impacts of this

[1:05:46] application in the lack of regard for the new zoning by our significant in my decision-making

[1:05:51] and I'll follow the recommendation of floor. Thank you, Mr. Harpeth. Anyone else?

[1:06:00] Okay. The recommendation

[1:06:03] is to deny the fabrication, all those in sport, the application has been denied,

[1:06:11] and none of those.

[1:06:15] Thank you.

[1:06:17] Another good night.

[1:06:35] We have minutes to confirm for August the 19th.

[1:06:40] Thank you, Miss Price.

[1:06:46] And motion to adjourn.

[1:06:49] We are adjourned.

[1:06:50] Thank you, Mr. Hartcastle.

[1:06:51] At 8 o'clock on the dot.

Committee of Adjustment

Agenda

Transcript