[1:01] Good evening. We're going to begin the meeting of the
[1:04] Oshwa committee of adjustment Copies. Of tonight's agenda are located
[1:08] on the table off to the side there. Please be
[1:13] advised that if anyone wants a written copy of tonight's
[1:15] decisions, they must leave. Their name and address with the
[1:19] secretary treasurer by filling out the form on the bottom
[1:21] of the agenda. It's not necessary for the applicant or
[1:26] the representative to fill out the form as the information
[1:28] will be forwarded to them automatically. Land acknowledgment the city
[1:33] of Oshwa is situated on lands with a traditional and
[1:35] treaty territory of the Mississaugi and the Chipwa Anishna bag.
[1:41] Of the signatories of Williams Treaties, which includes a Mississaugas
[1:45] of Scugog Island, Curve, Lake Hiawatha, Alderville, First nations and
[1:49] the Chippewas of Georgina Island. Rama and Bosa lay first
[1:53] nations. We are grateful for the initiation of egg who
[1:56] have cared. For the land and waters in this territory
[1:59] since time immemorial. We recognize that Osha's steeped and rich
[2:03] indigenous history and is now present in a home of
[2:06] many First Nations, Inuit and Mati people. We express gratitude
[2:11] for the diverse group of. Indigenous peoples who continue to
[2:13] care for the land in shape and strengthen our community
[2:17] as a municipality. We are committed to understanding the truth
[2:20] of our shared history, acknowledging our role in addressing the
[2:24] negative. Impacts that colonization continues to have on indigenous peoples.
[2:29] Developing reciprocal relationships and taking. Meaningful action towards. Reconciliation. We
[2:39] are all treaty people. Reconcili. Introduce the members of the
[2:40] committee tonight. We have Fred Eisman. We have Doug Thompson.
[2:47] My name is Dean Lindsay. I'm the chair of the
[2:49] committee and. Tonight, the assistant secretary treasurer is Vashahan Muhanathan.
[2:55] The role of the committee, the committee of adjustment is
[2:57] appointed to by city council to hear applications for minor
[3:01] variances to the city's zoning bylaw. And interim control bylaws,
[3:06] extensions, enlargements or variations to existing legal nonconforming uses consents
[3:13] for creation of lots, lot line adjustments, long term leases,
[3:17] creation of easements and validation of title. Tonight's meeting will
[3:21] proceed as follows. The meeting will the committee will deal
[3:25] with the minutes. Of the previous meeting. The secretary treasure
[3:28] will announce the application being heard on tonight's agenda. The
[3:32] chair will then invite the applicant or their representative to
[3:36] come forward. The applicant or the representative will be asked
[3:41] to briefly explain the proposal and answer any questions from
[3:45] the committee, any other members of the public, whether in
[3:49] person or via phone, who have questions or concern will
[3:51] then be invited to speak. The applicant will be given
[3:55] the opportunity to respond to the questions and concerns. The
[3:59] committee members will then discuss the application and make a
[4:02] decision. If you're speaking, please. Address your remarks to the
[4:06] chair. Please do not repeat any questions or concerns already
[4:10] raised by others. But focusing, but focus on adding new
[4:14] information. Those who wish to speak are asked to clearly
[4:17] give their name and an address to the secretary. Treasurer
[4:20] to be recorded in the minutes and in accordance with
[4:23] the Planning act. The applicant, the city or specified persons
[4:27] has defined under the Planning act may appeal the decision
[4:30] to the committee of adjustment through the Ontario Land Tribunal
[4:33] within 20 days of the date of the. Decision. Please
[4:36] be advised that decisions tonight of the Committee of adjustment
[4:40] are not final in binding until the appeal procedures have
[4:43] expired and there are no appeals to the Ontario land
[4:45] tribunal. So I ask the committee. Is there any conflict
[4:51] of interest tonight? Seeing none. Okay. Did we receive a
[4:55] copy of committee members? Receive a copy of the minutes?
[4:58] Yes. Okay. I propose that we move to accept the
[5:02] minutes of the Wednesday, August 27 Committee of Adjustment meeting.
[5:06] As forwarded. Do we have a second ordinance? I'll second
[5:09] it. Okay. The minutes from the previous meeting have been
[5:12] moved and seconded. The vote, please. Dean Linnity. Yes. Fred
[5:18] Eisman. Yes. Doug Thompson. Yes. Minutes are adopted.
[5:29] Okay, so the secretary. Will. Now call on the first
[5:36] application. The application being considered as Rafael a 2025 57.
[5:46] For 643ft with drive submitted by Noble Prime Solutions Limited.
[5:50] The purpose and effect of this revised application is to
[5:53] permit a single detached dwelling, which may include an accessory
[5:56] apartment with the variances in column one below. And so
[5:59] the requirements in column two below, as required by zoning,
[6:02] bylaw 1694 for a single detached dwelling. In Ar one
[6:06] e residential zone. The zoning items being requested are related
[6:10] to minimum parking space width minimum parking space length and
[6:14] minimum landscape open space in the front yard. Staff have
[6:16] no objection to the approval of this application. So I
[6:20] think. We have. Dan vir on the line. Yes, sir.
[6:26] Okay, go ahead, please. And please give a brief description
[6:30] of your application for the committee. Thank you so much.
[6:35] We are proposing a secondary dwelling unit in the basement,
[6:37] for which we have the zoning bilater requirement of three
[6:40] car parkings on a site. Unfortunately, we cannot fit. The
[6:43] third car parking. So we are seeking the variance for
[6:45] the reduced size of parking. Last time we talked to
[6:51] the city. And we amended our execution based on our
[6:53] last hearing, so. We amended our application with the new
[6:57] parking size of 4.62 meters instead of 4.2. Meters. But
[7:02] if we actually calculate the length of the parking till
[7:05] the walkway. We have almost 5.4 meters without any interference
[7:10] with the sidewalk, which is pretty close. To what the
[7:14] city requirement or for the length of the parking, which
[7:16] is 5.75 meters. So we are taking a variance for
[7:20] that, along with the minimum laps gaping of 50% where
[7:23] we are proposing a landscaping of 31.35% of landscaping is
[7:28] up frontier. So we went back and forth in the
[7:32] city, and it was quite a deeper discussion with the
[7:35] planet and ultimately came up with the plan which city
[7:38] staff can support. So we are aligned with the report
[7:41] that the city guide was represented, but I'll be happy
[7:44] to address any questions that the committee may have regarding
[7:46] this. Thank you. Many members. Any questions? To the applicant's
[7:51] representative. Seeing none. Do we have anybody here in the
[7:55] delegation? In the audience that wants to speak to this
[7:59] application. Okay seeing none. We receive no public comments on
[8:04] this. Does it turn? No correspondence has been received. We've
[8:09] heard the application. Motion committee. Yes, chair. I recommend that
[8:14] we accept report number eight, 2025 57 for 643 Fleetwood
[8:20] Drive. With the one advisory comment. Paul second. The application,
[8:28] motion to approve the application and has been seconded. Any
[8:31] other comments from the committee? Seeing none. Vote, please. Dean
[8:35] Lindsay? Yes. Fred Eisemond? Yes. Doug Thompson? Yes. Application is
[8:40] approved. Thank you, Mr. Rob. Thank you so much. Thank
[8:44] you so much. I appreciate it. On the agenda, we're
[8:48] going to move item a 2025 64 to the end
[8:52] of. The agenda. So we'll move to the next item,
[8:59] number three on the agenda. Which is item a, 2025
[9:05] 73 47 King Street East. The application being considered is
[9:11] file 820 25 70. For 347 King Street east. Submitted
[9:18] by Daniel Lawson. The purpose and effect of the application
[9:21] is to permit an accessory building ancillary to a single
[9:25] detached dwelling. With the variances in column one below and
[9:28] set of the requirements in column two below for an
[9:30] accessory building ancillary to a single touch dwelling in the
[9:34] r one C residential zone. The zoning items being requested
[9:37] are related to maximum height of an accessory building, maximum
[9:41] lock coverage for an accessory building. Maximum walk coverage for
[9:44] accessory buildings as a percentage of lot area and maximum
[9:47] lot coverage of accessory buildings as a percent of the
[9:49] main building staff have more objection to reapproval of its
[9:53] application, subject to a condition. And we have Susan Watson
[9:57] on the line. Hi, chair. I didn't have an answer.
[10:02] I'm going to try calling it back. One more time.
[10:08] Okay.
[11:51] For the members of the gallery. The representative has indicated
[11:54] that they were going to appear, so we're going to
[11:57] try to reach out to them. If we don't get
[11:58] them, we'll move this to the back of the agenda.
[12:06] Hello. We
[12:16] can move to death. Do it. Okay, so. We're going
[12:22] to move the item. Item number three, we're going to
[12:24] move this. To the back of the agenda so we
[12:25] can contact the representative. Okay, so now we're going to
[12:30] move to item four on the agenda, which is item.
[12:32] A 2025 70. 115 19 Sarasota Crescent, Crescently. I'll have
[12:40] the secretary treasurer read out the application. The application being
[12:44] considered is for file a 2025 71 for 1519 Sarasota
[12:49] Crescent. Submitted by Nostrad Jahan. The purpose and effect of
[12:52] the application is to permit a single detached dwelling, which
[12:56] may include an accessory apartment with the Ran Susan column
[12:58] one below instead of the requirement to column two below.
[13:03] As required by zoning bylaw 60 94 for a single
[13:06] statch dwelling in a r 25. Residential zone. The zoning
[13:10] items being requested are related to minimum landscape, open space
[13:13] in the front yard and minimum parking space length. Staff
[13:16] request that the application be denied. We have Das Rajahan
[13:26] online. Grab the representative for this application online. Yes.
[13:35] Okay, go ahead. Just state your name, please. And just
[13:40] briefly describe the application for the committee members. Good afternoon.
[13:49] Mr. Chair and the community. My name is Nishra Jahan.
[13:52] I'm speaking on behalf of the owner. Our current proposal.
[14:00] Is we are come the second time to this hearing.
[14:03] Previously on August 27 hearing. We had the parking space.
[14:10] Length for the third parking as 4.45. And the reduced
[14:15] landscape. Open space in the front yard was 43%. From
[14:20] there we have consult. Consulted with the staff. And revised
[14:26] and improved. On the parking space length for the third
[14:30] party at 4.7 meters. And. The landscape. Open space at
[14:36] the front here is 42%. I would request. Just for
[14:42] the presentation. Sorry. Just repeat that last number you had.
[14:49] The parking length. Couldn't hear you. Yeah, just repeat the
[14:53] I didn't hear the parking lake. Just repeat your number
[14:56] again, please. Yes. So. The target parking space have reduced
[15:04] parking length at 4.7 meters, but we have improved from
[15:09] our previous proposal, which was 4.45. After a consultation with
[15:15] staff, we have increased it to 4.7 meters as length.
[15:26] Okay, go ahead with your. Sorry I interrupted you there.
[15:31] Just continue on. Yes. So I have a presentation to
[15:37] make. If the staff. Can show it on the screen,
[15:41] please. Follow along.
[15:52] So the committee members have hard copy of the presentation.
[15:57] Okay, go ahead. Yes, thank you. We want to reflect
[16:03] on the staff comments and want to respond. The first
[16:09] comment that we received was proposed parking length of 4.7
[16:13] meters is too short. To reasonably accommodate various lengths of
[16:17] vehicles and is likely to result in vehicles overhanging on
[16:21] city property and obstructing the cut for pedestrians. Our response
[16:27] on that is. Historically, committee has approved 4.6 meters. The
[16:35] parking space. Parking space length. And like, even today, the
[16:39] previous application, 643ft Fleet Road, was approved for 4.6. Meters
[16:45] length. We have improved from there. Our proposal is 4.7
[16:51] meters and. We are hoping that this is a minor
[16:56] variance. Because for a 4.6 meters can accommodate. A wide
[17:02] range of vehicle sizes. Ours will. Two, because it's 4.7
[17:07] meters, so. There's no risk of overhanging onto CD property.
[17:13] As we are not going beyond the city property line.
[17:16] The boolean verb itself is 4.75 meters wide. And it
[17:23] leaves a clear 3.25 meters buffer after allocating 1.5 meters.
[17:29] Pedestrian access. This will ensure that there is no obstructive.
[17:37] There is no obstruction for the traditional movement and it
[17:40] will maintain the public safety. If you see the dotted
[17:44] line. As I have shown. The 1.5 meters at the
[17:49] front. If we keep it clear for pedestrian and we
[17:53] still have 3.25 meters. Free. Which is the city property
[18:00] and. After 3.25 meters, our parking space starts. The second
[18:05] point that staff made was vehicle entering an exiting garage
[18:09] may be obstructed. By bakery park in the accessory apartment
[18:13] space, which is the third space causing difficulty for ingressive.
[18:18] Rest on vehicle. Go ahead. Sorry. After consulting.
[18:30] Okay. Thank you. After contacting with the city staff as
[18:33] we revised, and we improved the parking layout. As 4.7
[18:39] meters. It leaves the clearance of 2.3 meters, if you
[18:42] can see. The blue line. In that presentation. Or in
[18:49] the ppT. Printout from the garage door. To. The third
[18:57] party space we have. A clear 2.3 meters, 7.5ft clearance.
[19:03] And we believe that. This configuration will support safe ingress.
[19:12] And we will be able to maintain the angle, minimum
[19:16] angle, between the garage and the parking space. To ensure
[19:20] smooth vehicle access. Regarding the safe ingredients, we are open
[19:26] to any reasonable condition that committee might want to impose.
[19:32] May be limiting space for compact vehicles to further address
[19:36] this concern, but. From the point of view of clearance
[19:41] from the front of garage garage door to the third
[19:45] parking space. We have cleared 7ft six inches. Clear. And
[19:52] it will be believed that that will be enough for
[19:54] the manufacturer of the vehicle, so that. Car from the
[19:58] parking space. One can get out and come through parking
[20:02] space. Two to the road. In the next slide. We
[20:09] have. Referred factual reference to a previous example. This one
[20:14] was approved by committee in January 23, and they had
[20:19] parking sizes 2.6 by 5.4. They had. The front distance
[20:26] from the front property line to the garage wall at
[20:29] 20ft. And ours is. 23ft. They had distance between frontal
[20:37] garage door. To their third parking space, zero centimeter. We
[20:44] have 2.3 meters. And for them? The pressurely tendon was
[20:49] approved. So, looking at the history of approval that the
[20:53] committee made, we are requesting. Our magrograms to be approved.
[20:59] In the next slide we have commented on. The staff
[21:04] advice of the stereo location. We really acknowledge and appreciate.
[21:10] This addition for alternative design to relocate fear. However, as
[21:13] we discussed in previous meeting, we are not able to
[21:17] consider. For several key concerns at this point. Which are
[21:23] overall design integrity of the neighborhood, dysfunctional layout, efficient movement
[21:28] of hard, powerful items, and appliances safety and visibility lighting
[21:34] at the front of the front porch. Most importantly, the
[21:37] financial burden, the house owner will have. The owner have
[21:43] a discussion with several contractors, and he shared one of
[21:46] the code, which is at the last slide you can
[21:50] see the quote is dollar 10,000. And this is for
[21:56] the front landscaping. Driveway widening and still a relocation together.
[22:02] And this is a substantial amount for the owner, apart
[22:06] from. The other. Financial. Expense that he will have when
[22:13] he will convert it to second unit. So we are
[22:17] requesting. To the committee. To accept. Our variances, which are
[22:24] third parking space length, that's 4.7 meters. We have. Compliance
[22:29] in regards to the width. We also request variants for
[22:34] the landscape open space. Thank you very much. Thank you.
[22:39] I'm going to ask the just before I return over
[22:42] to the committee, I'm going to ask the staff, since
[22:44] you've made a presentation and it's regarding staff comments, I
[22:48] just want the staff to just briefly comment on a
[22:51] couple of points. If they could. Through the chair. So
[22:58] going point by point, I guess the first point that
[23:00] was made was that the previous application for Fleetwood was
[23:04] approved. For 4.65 a meter length. So the difference in
[23:09] that situation and the situation. As noted in the staff
[23:13] report for Fleetweb, the front lot line for Fleetwood is
[23:16] not parallel to the road. It goes away from the
[23:20] road as it goes further south. So that reduces the
[23:25] length that's available for Fleetwood. And that's why we mentioned
[23:28] that when you measure it to the sidewalk, you get
[23:30] 5.4, which is ample space to fit cars of different
[23:34] various lengths, and that's before the sidewalk, so there's no.
[23:37] Real encroachment into the boulevard or such, or obstruction into
[23:41] the sidewalk. Whereas in this case there is no sidewalk
[23:45] for Sarasota. However. The city does not permit the parking
[23:54] lot vehicles on the boulevard, according to our traffic bylaw.
[23:58] Traffic and parking bylaw. And then with respect to. The
[24:05] previous filed for a 2024 125 for 1860 $2 equrezant
[24:11] so I think the situation there is. The parking size
[24:14] is being provided are 2.65.4. Which our sizes have been
[24:18] supported by staff historically. Again, you have ample length to
[24:22] maneuver vehicles in. And out of the parking space, in
[24:24] and. Out of the driveway without having to rely on
[24:28] the municipal boulevard. Further, the distance between the garage and
[24:32] the parking space isn't a primary concern. With respect to
[24:36] Sarasota based on staff's recommendation to relocate the steps. So
[24:41] in this situation, Staff recommended to the relocation of the
[24:44] steps in order to achieve at least 5.4 meters. Length
[24:48] which, as shown by the examples outlined by the applicant,
[24:51] had been approved and further, it would ensure that there's
[24:55] no tandem situation between the parking spaces and the garage
[24:59] space. So when we assess these applications. We advise on
[25:03] staff. 's suggested option, which was communicated to the applicant
[25:09] several times. We don't look at. We're not here to
[25:14] assess various alternatives. If there's an alternative where staff supports
[25:18] we'll provide that recommendation to the applicant. And it's for
[25:21] the applicant to either. Take into account tabs, advice, or
[25:24] to go with the proposal, as is the changes being
[25:27] made. On the subject proposal or have not been approved
[25:30] by or have not been recommended by staff and. We
[25:33] maintain that the relocation of the steps is a best
[25:35] way to provide the required parking space. Further, the committee
[25:39] has approved. Another. Similar application. On Sarah. Soda. Which is
[25:45] for, I believe, 1544 serves with a question. When the
[25:49] applicant was. Amenable to relocating the steps, and they subsequently
[25:52] did so and obtained their building permit application. Thank you.
[25:59] I'll turn it over to the committee. Committee, any questions?
[26:03] Go ahead. Yeah, just through you, chair. To the applicant.
[26:14] and thank you very much for your detailed proposal very
[26:18] much appreciated but again I have to agree with. The
[26:19] previous stance on the easiest location would be stair location.
[26:25] For my view. And I just notice, and I do
[26:27] thank you for the quote. You've attached to. But just
[26:32] bear in mind that a lot of those costs associated
[26:34] with this estimate. Are over and above. The stair relocation
[26:41] like there for other projects that you may need down
[26:45] the road. And it's great to have an all encompassing
[26:47] quote, but. I don't think. A pure. Stair movement. Moving
[26:54] the stairs would be. As substantial. That's all. Thank you.
[27:00] I just have a question, too, to Ms. Jana, too.
[27:02] Again. We discussed this, where the application came forward last
[27:07] time and again, and staff has reiterated that. The movement
[27:12] of the precast stairs would. Give you 4.5 meters because
[27:18] again, If I hear right what you're asking the committee,
[27:23] Is you're asking committee to go 4.7 and quite possibly.
[27:28] Make a caveat that all these small cars would be
[27:30] there. That's something that the committee is uncapable of doing
[27:34] so. It either has to meet the variance requirement, meet
[27:37] the four tests or else it can. So I guess
[27:40] the question is. It's back to the stair would give
[27:43] you ample room, which would be an acceptable. So. You
[27:48] looked at that and reviewed that, and I know you've
[27:51] got a quote for it. But you have looked at
[27:54] that, and again, there is examples where that has been
[27:56] allowed and. It's been an acceptable. Alternative design that would
[28:02] accept. For this. Year. Can
[28:11] I add one more information? Sure. Please do. So. About
[28:21] the example that we shared. That I shared 1862 download
[28:24] the press. They did not have any. Walkway or pedestrian.
[28:31] Provision at the front. I'm not sure. How? Many 50
[28:37] Google Maps. There's no walkway in front of the property,
[28:40] so definitely then to leave. Some part where the pedestrian
[28:48] exit, but I do not see from their proposal we
[28:51] are occupying. Up to the street level? Does your parking
[28:55] spaces are occupying up to the street level? So based
[28:59] on that fact, I was requesting. That this property did
[29:05] not leave any. Space for the pedestrian access yet approved.
[29:15] So if you can reconsider. This. Matter that I just
[29:23] discussed. Okay. Thank you. Anything else from the committee? Do
[29:31] we have any delegations here to speak on this application?
[29:35] Seeing none. Okay, so you've heard the application, so I'm
[29:38] going to move a motion that the application. Oh, I'm
[29:41] sorry. Come forward. Yeah, okay. Yes, you're welcome, certainly. Welcome
[29:48] to come up and add anything you have, anything new
[29:51] that you can add. Yeah, actually. I don't have. Additional
[29:57] some things just to add few points. i do appreciate
[30:03] your comment mr pet that regarding the Code we provided.
[30:08] I accept. Your comment that it is not only the
[30:12] relocation cost. So our intention was to give you. The
[30:18] information that we already explored various options. That was the
[30:23] intention. Okay. And secondly. I just want to add that.
[30:30] Since last, as advised by the committee last time. We
[30:35] reached out city staff several times. We have lot of
[30:39] emails, communication, back and forth, communications. And the alternative one?
[30:46] This time, the proposed design. Actually. The maybe option better
[30:54] option. We try to improve based on the solution from
[30:56] the CTS staffs. How about that side? It may not
[31:00] be accepted, but this could be one alternative options other.
[31:04] Than the relocations. we got from So that was our
[31:07] intention. Okay, maybe this one. And when we found this
[31:11] idea. We believed that. This is way mass improved than
[31:17] our fast proposal. But. I did not get the basic.
[31:25] Reasoning that it was not supported. And our analysis was
[31:31] identify these two core reasons. That mentioned in this report.
[31:38] One was. This reasonably accommodate. It is too short. It
[31:46] is too short to reasonably accommodate. That was one of
[31:49] the comment. But. My agent already described that historically we
[31:55] saw 4.6 was pawns of approvals. Was approved. So we
[32:01] believe that 4.7 might be a good option. So that
[32:05] was our understanding. But. you might be considered this different
[32:12] way I appreciate your thought, but our understanding was maybe
[32:14] 4.6 is good enough to be approved. Second. Comment was.
[32:21] That. Existing Garris may obstruct. Obstructly concluded that it will
[32:30] overstart or it shall overstact. So that is not. I
[32:37] would say not. Solid argument, but yeah, probably. We don't
[32:41] know. But we have provided some example that we have.
[32:47] Enough. Clearance between the parking. Carriage vehicle and between the
[32:53] accessory parking 7.5ft clearance. Our perspective, that is. Way more
[33:01] clearance. To ingress aggressive of this park vehicle in our
[33:06] parasitic. Because, say, for example, when I parked a vehicle
[33:11] parallel parking in a street, how much clearance I keep
[33:14] in front of my car maybe 2ft. But I am
[33:18] still able to get in, get out of this parallel
[33:21] parking from the estate or. Any parking parallel parking lot.
[33:24] That was our idea. Or that was our belief. I
[33:29] am not an expert on this, but those. Were our
[33:33] understandings. It's up to committees. This hide. You will be
[33:36] convinced with our argument or not. But I can say
[33:41] that. Ctstab did not say it shall obstruct or it
[33:47] will overstrack. But. There is suspicion. It may. So based
[33:54] on those facts, I would still request to approve in
[33:59] our case, but. I really appreciate that. Alternative design could
[34:05] better fit. I really appreciate that. No doubt. But. If.
[34:13] Our proposed current purpose design approved. Then why not? That
[34:18] would be my question. If it fits your expectation, then
[34:22] why not? That is my question. I'm going to say
[34:26] it again, is that. The alternative design. Gives you. 4.5
[34:35] meters or 5.4 meters. So there wouldn't be any discussion
[34:39] or any clarity. Need for clarification on how much ingress
[34:43] egress to get there, or the space between the vehicle,
[34:46] it's going to give you plenty of room. The alternative
[34:49] design. That's the challenge. Because. The current design. Is based
[34:57] on. While we might be able to get people through,
[34:59] we might not be able to get through. And staff
[35:01] has said very clearly. It would be obstructed. And would
[35:05] not give people enough space. You're moving of the alternative
[35:11] design gives you 5.4 and meets what you need. I
[35:18] accept. Your thing that. That could be the 5.4 we
[35:25] could make. Yeah. Okay. If you see this design, it
[35:29] could be also extended to 5.4 meters right now. We
[35:34] reduced 7.4.7 y because we want to keep more space
[35:39] in the design. So that easily we can come out,
[35:41] but actually it can fit more than more than 4.7
[35:44] it can go up to 5.4 if you see the
[35:46] drawing. Yeah. There is more clearance, but. Why do we
[35:54] keep 4.7 in the drawing? Because we want to keep
[35:58] more space, so. That we can maneuver the. Garaged park
[36:02] easily, but we do have a space 5.4 but we
[36:06] did not show. So that easily it can go. We
[36:10] have a space. We cannot say that we don't have
[36:13] a space. We have a space. Right. I'm just going
[36:18] to add this, too, and I think it's important for
[36:19] context. Is the committee has to review every application. And
[36:23] every application have to review is based on what? They
[36:26] call the foretest. So, as a request, minor nature, is
[36:30] it desirable for the appropriate development. And use of the
[36:32] land, building or structure, and these are the key ones,
[36:35] in the opinion of the committee. Is the general intent
[36:38] purpose of the official plan maintained and in the opinion
[36:41] of the committee is the general intent and purpose of
[36:44] the zoning bylaw maintained, and those are the four tests
[36:46] that need to be met. Do you have anything, dad?
[36:51] Anything else? No, that's not. Thank you very much. Just
[36:53] turn. Your mic off, please. Thank you. Committee. Any questions?
[36:58] Okay, I'm going to move a motion that the application
[37:01] be denied that. It does not meet the four tests.
[37:06] And it's as set out in the four tests, as
[37:09] set out in the procedures. And I will second that.
[37:17] We've got a motion to deny the application. We have
[37:19] a motion to second. Can we. Have a vote, please.
[37:25] Dean Lindsay? Yes. Fred Eismont? Yes. Doug Thompson? Yes. Application
[37:30] is denied. So. What I would suggest to do. And
[37:38] the same thing I suggested to you last time is
[37:40] the city staff has been more than open, and you
[37:42] admitted that you've had a number of emails going back
[37:44] and forth. You can continue your work with the city
[37:47] staff and look at the procedure. And again. And I
[37:50] said this last time. Staff do an excellent job working
[37:54] with applicants to try to make sure that it meets.
[37:58] The tests and maintains the bylaw and maintains. The work
[38:04] required through planning. Unusual because I've
[38:14] given you an opportunity to speak. We've had a vote,
[38:16] but. Go ahead. I want to give you a chance
[38:17] to. Sorry about that. Yeah. I do accept. So in
[38:23] that case. Can I go back to this question again?
[38:27] So in that case, you are saying this if it
[38:29] is denied. What are the alternative options? I could accept
[38:35] the city's relocation approval. That will be. Then last option.
[38:40] You have the ability to appeal the decision that you
[38:43] have the ability to appeal the decision tonight. And then
[38:47] you have the ability to work with the staff and
[38:49] come back with an alternative design. Because this design has
[38:52] been denied by the committee. Well, actually, this. We have
[38:56] spent a lot of time on this file. We don't
[38:59] want. To more drag this file we want to close.
[39:04] Actually, my intention is to close. This if you are
[39:08] not accept with our alternate hazards design today, so probably
[39:12] we will go ahead. With this city's relocation plan. So
[39:17] that will be my last, because we don't want to
[39:19] drag this more. It will be the city's time and
[39:24] effort and our side effort and time. So I want
[39:26] to close this file, so. We will agree with this.
[39:29] It is relocation. And I thank you for being here.
[39:32] And again, you've appeared twice. And again, I thank your
[39:35] representative. And I think. We've had a very good discussion
[39:39] about this. Your representative. Can also advise you of the
[39:44] next steps. And again. And staff can also advise you
[39:48] of the next steps. Okay. Yeah. Thank you very much.
[39:51] Thank you. Bye. I think you need to stay. We're
[39:55] going to move now. To item number nine. Yeah. We're
[40:03] going to move to item number nine. ms jana because
[40:10] you're the applicant on that so we're going to move
[40:12] that item up on the agenda so i'll have the
[40:15] secretary treasurer Read application a 2025 78. The application being
[40:19] continuous for file a 2025 78 for 184 Selena street.
[40:25] Submitted by no shrat Jahan. The purpose and effect of
[40:28] his application is to permit a single touch, dwelling and
[40:31] an accessory building ancillary to a single detached dwelling. With
[40:34] the variances in column one. Below instead of the requirements.
[40:39] In column two below, as required by zoning bylaw 60
[40:41] 94 for a single detached dwelling and an accessory building
[40:45] ancillary to a single detached dwelling in a r two,
[40:48] r three, r. Five, c, r six, b and r
[40:50] seven a residential zone. The zoning m is being requested.
[40:54] I'll relate to maximum lack coverage, minimum front yard depth.
[40:58] Minimum interior side dry depth for an accessory building. Maximum
[41:01] lot coverage for accessory buildings as a percentage of the
[41:04] lot area. Maximum lot coverage of all accessory buildings as
[41:07] a percentage of the main building. And maximum ground floor
[41:10] area of all accessory buildings. Staff request that the. Application
[41:13] be reserved. Hey, Mr. Could you briefly describe the application
[41:18] for the committee? Good afternoon. Comedy. Mr. Terra, my name
[41:23] is Nishra. I'm representing for the property. 184 seminar street.
[41:32] At the time. When we applied for minor variance application.
[41:38] We have only one variant. At first zoning notice, which
[41:43] was minimum. Five year death for the Adu. As we
[41:50] went. Through as the community staff went through the full
[41:56] review. With the building department. We figured that there are
[42:01] other variances in this property. So we have decided to
[42:07] work with the staff, reserve this application, have a full
[42:12] discussion with them. How we can improve. These variances, so
[42:16] I'm requesting the committee to reserve this application. Thank you.
[42:21] Members of the committee, any questions? Just through. You chair
[42:26] for the applicant. I was just curious. With the closed
[42:30] entrance way. Is it also a home based business or
[42:34] professional office? At 184 Salina Street. At this point, I
[42:41] do not have any knowledge of any business. I do
[42:46] not know if the owner has any. Business out there,
[42:53] so. I have to ask the owner. Okay, thank you.
[43:01] any other questions for the committee to ms shannon Is
[43:04] there any members of the public here to speak of
[43:06] this application? Okay seeing none. So. The city is requesting
[43:12] a reserve of decision. And again. And the applicant is
[43:15] actually requested that too. So I'll entertain a motion. Mr.
[43:21] Chair. I move that for application a 2025 78. The
[43:27] decision is to reserve. Second or on that I will
[43:31] second that. Any other comments from the committee? Seeing none,
[43:37] vote, please. Dean. Wendy? Yes. Fred Eismont? Yes. Doug Thompson?
[43:43] Yes. Application is reserved. Thank you, Ms. Jenna. For your
[43:46] parents. Thank you. Thank you, Baya. Bye. Which one? The
[43:52] king. 47k. Okay, we have them ready. Okay.
[44:03] So we're going to move back to application a 2025
[44:06] 73 47 King street and do we have Susan Watson
[44:10] on the line? Actually, I'm here in person. I was
[44:15] watching, and I was like, there you are. Very good.
[44:18] All right, so do you want to read that out
[44:21] again, or do we need to? I'm going to have
[44:24] the secretary try to read the application and again for
[44:26] us. Thank you. The application being considered for final a
[44:36] 2025 70. For. 347 King Street, east summit by Daniel
[44:43] Lawson. The purpose and effect of our application is to
[44:46] permit an accessory bowling ancillary to a single detached dwelling.
[44:50] With the variances in column one below. And so the
[44:52] requirements in column two below for an accessory building ancillary
[44:56] to a single detached dwelling in a r one C
[44:58] residential zone. The zoning. Items being requested are related to
[45:02] maximum height of an accessory building, maximum lock coverage for
[45:05] accessory buildings. Maximum lock coverage for accessory buildings as a
[45:09] percentage of the lot area and maximum lot coverage of
[45:12] accessory buildings, as a percent of the main building staff
[45:15] have no objection to the approval of this application subject
[45:18] to a condition. Just again describe. Your name for the
[45:26] record, please, and just describe the application for the committee,
[45:28] please. So it's. Susan Lawson. I'm here on behalf of.
[45:33] The homeowner, Colleen Glenn. So an application was submitted. To
[45:39] construct a two story garage. And in dealing with this
[45:44] city, obviously we had to apply for two minor variances,
[45:48] one being obviously the lot coverage. It exceeds it a
[45:52] little bit. Along with the height as well. So this
[45:57] was originally. Scheduled last month and got put over to.
[46:03] This evening. So the reason of building is so that
[46:07] they can store their vehicles and have a storage area.
[46:11] Above their garage. They currently have a garage, and we're
[46:14] going to be tearing that down. So we're just making
[46:16] it a little bit bigger and a little taller. There
[46:20] was a committee. Any questions? To Miss Wasp? Just for
[46:23] you, chair, Ms. Watson. I know what's on the plans,
[46:27] but. You did stipulate that the grove won't be used
[46:31] for a residential. Dwelling or accessory residence. Okay, thank you.
[46:37] Originally it was set that way. And then the homer
[46:41] got a little nervous and said, with all the costs
[46:43] and things associated with it. So we ended up taking
[46:47] that, revising it the plans again, and it will not
[46:51] be ever used. As a dwelling. For another unit of
[46:56] any kind. Okay. Any other questions from the committee? Do
[47:02] we have anyone here in the delegation to speak on
[47:05] this? Application seeing none. We receive no public comments on
[47:09] this. The term no correspondence has been received. All right.
[47:12] So you hear the application committee motion? Yes. For you,
[47:16] chair, I'd like to propose. That we accept. Application eight
[47:20] 2025 73 47 King Street east. With one condition and
[47:25] one advisory comment. Do we have a seconder. All second.
[47:31] Motion to accept the application. With conditions. And any other
[47:36] questions from the comments from the committee? Seeing none. Okay,
[47:39] vote, please. Team Wendy. Yes. Fred Eiswan? Yes. Doug Thompson.
[47:46] Yes. Application is approved with the condition. Thank you for
[47:49] being here. Thank you. Thank you all. Have a good
[47:52] evening. We're going
[48:02] to move to item five on the agenda, which is
[48:04] item a, 2025. 74 830 or mom, drive, and I'll
[48:08] get the secretary treasurer to read out the application. The
[48:12] application being considered for file a 2025 74 for 830
[48:17] Orman drive. Submitted by Mark Carlo santana. The purpose and
[48:22] effect of the application is to permit a single detached
[48:24] dwelling with the variances in column one below instead of
[48:27] the requirements in column two below. As required by zoning
[48:33] bylaw 1694 for a single detached dwelling in Ar one
[48:37] e. C. 45 residential zone. The zoning items being requested
[48:42] are related to a minimum ruler depth and maximum lock.
[48:45] Coverage. Staff have no objection to the approval of this
[48:48] application, subject to conditions. So do we have Mr. Santan
[48:53] on the line? Hello. Good evening everyone. Good evening to
[48:58] the committee of the Jackman. Great. Please just briefly describe
[49:04] the application for the committee, please. Again. You'll repeat that.
[49:09] Just provide a brief. Explanation of the application, please? All
[49:18] right? Yes. By the way, my name is Mark Savannah.
[49:21] Again. I'm representing the owner. For the application. We would
[49:29] like to have a variance. For glock coverage and rear
[49:33] yard setback. The project calls for. A small sunroom addition
[49:40] at the rear portion of the property. And due to
[49:44] the limitations. So there's a desired dimension. That the client
[49:52] wants. But unfortunately, that means that. The rear yard setback.
[49:59] And the lot coverage cannot be complied with. But I
[50:03] do believe that it is of minor. In nature. And.
[50:10] I would hope that the committee would be able to
[50:13] permit it. And I believe that it doesn't negatively affect.
[50:20] The overall fabric of the structure. Good. Thank you. Members
[50:30] of the committee. Any questions? For the. Is there any
[50:34] members of the delegation here to speak on this? I
[50:40] just have one comment. If you receive the staff report
[50:44] on this. It was just read out. Have you reviewed
[50:48] the staff report, Mr. Yes. With the conditions. You're aware
[50:56] of both the conditions and advisory comments. Yes, I'm aware
[51:01] of the conditions. With the maximum height and the maximum
[51:06] width. Yes, the maximum. Height? Yes. Okay. That's why you
[51:13] said you've reviewed them. You don't. Have to read them
[51:15] out verbatim. I'm fine with that. Okay. Committee. Any other
[51:20] questions? Okay, motion. Yes, Mr. Chair. I move that we
[51:25] accept report a 2025 74. 830 arm and drive. Subject
[51:34] to the conditions. And advisory comments. Very good. Do we
[51:40] have seconder? I'll second that. We have a motion to
[51:44] adopt the application. With conditions, advisory comments, and we have
[51:48] a second or any other comments from the committee seeing
[51:50] none. Vote, please. Dean. Wendy? Yes. Fred Eismo? Yes. Doug
[51:56] Thompson? Yes. Application is approved with conditions. Thank you, Mr.
[52:01] Santana. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, so we're
[52:07] going to move to the next item on the agenda,
[52:09] which is item a 2002 575989 Lockheed drive. And I'll
[52:15] have the secretary read out the application, please. The application
[52:20] being considered to file a 2025 75. For 989 Milwaukee
[52:26] Drive. Submitted by Bali Mohammed of Mekwazing. The purpose and
[52:31] effect of the application is to permit a single detached
[52:34] dwelling, which may include an accessory apartment with a minimum
[52:38] landscape open space of 46% in the front yard, whereas
[52:41] zoning bylaw 60 94 requires a minimum of 50%. Landscape
[52:45] open space in the front yard for a single touch.
[52:48] Dwelling in the r one e 32 residential zone staff
[52:51] have no objection to the approval of this application. So
[52:55] do we have Sayad shams on the line? Good evening,
[53:01] Mr. Chairman. This is Shamse online. I am going to
[53:04] authorize agents acting on behalf of the property owners. Fix
[53:07] repent Street, Mississauga Macwez Inc. Great. Thank you please go
[53:11] ahead and briefly describe the application for the committee? Thank
[53:17] you, Mr. Chairman. The application before the committee is where
[53:19] you're seeking a variance for. Open landscape area. That required
[53:25] minimum open landscape space in the front yard for a
[53:28] single detailed dwelling is 50% we are proposing an extension
[53:31] of the driveway to accommodate two parking spaces on the
[53:35] driveway, which would facilitate an accessory apartment in the basement
[53:41] due to the extension of the driveway. The landscape open
[53:44] space. In the front yard is reduced to 46%. There
[53:50] is only a 4% difference between the required and proposed
[53:53] open spaces. We believe that. The Greens need support tests
[53:58] of the Planning act and its minor in nature, and
[54:01] we request the community kindly concerns as an application for
[54:05] them and approved. Thank you so much. Any questions? I'll
[54:07] be glad to answer. Members of the committee. Any questions
[54:10] for the representative? Okay, see, none. Is there any members
[54:14] of the delegation here tonight to speak on this application,
[54:18] seeing none. We receive no public comments on this. The
[54:23] general correspondence has been received. Okay. All right. Hearing the
[54:27] application committee vote in his order. Yes, Mr. Chair. I
[54:35] like to propose that we accept report number a 2025.
[54:41] 75 989 Lockheed drive with the four advisory comments. Also
[54:50] to adopt the application with a secondary. All second, give
[54:55] a motion to adopt the application. And second, any other
[54:57] comments from the committee seeing none. Vote, please. Dean Lindsay?
[55:01] Yes. Fred? I spot yes. Doug Thompson? Yes. Application is
[55:06] approved. Give us your samps. Thank you. Okay, so we're
[55:13] going to move to item seven on the agenda, which
[55:16] is application a. 2002. 576248 Cosgrove drive. The secretary of
[55:25] treasurer to read out the application. The application being considered
[55:30] is for file eight, 2025 76. For 248 cost Grove
[55:36] Drive. Submitted by Valudin Mohammed of Macwares, Inc. And the
[55:40] purpose and effect of his application is to permit a
[55:43] single detached dwelling which may include an accessory. Apartment with
[55:46] a minimum landscape open space of 45% in the front
[55:49] yard, whereas zoning bylaw 60 94 requires a minimum of
[55:52] 50% landscape open space in the front yard. For a
[55:55] single detached dwelling in the r 210 residential zone. Staff
[55:59] have no objection to the appeal. Robbers application. Mr. Shams,
[56:04] are you on the line? Yes, Mr. Chair. Before the
[56:09] committee again gets for open landscape areas reduction in the
[56:13] front yard. However, I would like to note that there
[56:15] is no production from what is existing through the builder
[56:19] that was built initially. The regulation comes in when it's
[56:23] an accessory to running to the. Best of my knowledge,
[56:29] where we require 50% to the open space. So based
[56:33] on that. We have only 45% of the factory, which
[56:36] is largely broken space, so detection of 5%. Is being
[56:40] requested in this instance. Again, I feel that this meets
[56:44] the forecast of the planning act, and there's minor in
[56:47] nature. I would request the committee to kindly give proof
[56:50] of this application and any questions I will. Gladly answer.
[56:53] Thank you. Thank you. Any questions? For the representative from
[56:58] the committee seeing none. Is there anybody in the gallery
[57:02] to speak on this application? Seeing none. Did receive any.
[57:06] We received no correspondence for this application. The return. No
[57:10] correspondence has been received. Hearing to the application committee vote
[57:15] in disorder. Yes, Mr. Chair. I'd like to move to
[57:20] accept report a 2002 576248. Cosco Drive. With notes to
[57:29] advisory comments. Also to accept the application. With the advisor
[57:35] comments. And do we have a secondary? I will second
[57:39] that motion. Okay. To adopt application along with the second
[57:43] or any other comments from the committee seeing none, vote,
[57:46] please. Dean Lindsay? Yes. Fred Eismart? Yes. Doug Thompson? Yes.
[57:53] Application was approved, Mr. Shams. Thank you very much. Have
[57:57] a good evening. Move to the next item, item eight
[58:00] on the agenda, which is a 2025 77, which is
[58:04] 505 cavanish court. I'll get the secretary to read out
[58:07] the application. The application being considered is profile a
[58:17] 2025 77. For 505 cabin dish. Court submitted by Lawrence
[58:23] Kenugio and Bernice Dei Titu, the purpose and effective is
[58:28] application is to permit a single detached dwelling, which may
[58:31] include an accessory apartment. With the variance of column one
[58:33] below. And serve the requirements on column two below as
[58:37] required by zoning ballast 1694 for single dwelling in a
[58:41] r 1D residential zone. There's only items being requested are
[58:45] related to minimum parking space width and minimum parking space.
[58:48] Length. Staff have no objection to the approval of his
[58:51] application. All right. Do we have Bernice Gatti, too? Good
[58:59] evening, chair. I'm looking down. Sorry, I got to start
[59:03] looking up. Good evening. Chair. You got Alan? Shahe. I'm
[59:06] here on their behalf. And. Good evening, committee. Good. Thank
[59:09] you. Go ahead. The proposal is. For self contained basement
[59:15] apartment. And we are requested, or required, I guess, to
[59:20] extend a driveway by about 0.6 meters. We had proposed
[59:24] to do it. On the east side of the driveway,
[59:28] but the city staff had contacted us or via email
[59:33] and proposed that we do completed on the opposite side,
[59:37] which is the west side of the driveway, which we
[59:39] are in agreement of. Members of the committee. Any questions
[59:43] for the applicant? So that change wouldn't be reflected on.
[59:53] This drawing or is this up to date, then? or
[59:58] that's a proper can i see which one you have
[1:00:07] To put this out. Due to trading issues with.
[1:00:17] Any other questions from the committee? no is there any
[1:00:26] members of the public here to speak of this application
[1:00:28] Seeing none. We received no public consultation on this. Did
[1:00:31] the chair. No public comments have been received. All right.
[1:00:35] During the application committee voted is in order? Yes. Chair.
[1:00:41] I'd like to propose we accept. Report number eight, 2025
[1:00:46] 77 for 505 Cavendish. With the three advisory comments. To
[1:00:51] adopt the application. We have a seconder. Second. To adopt
[1:00:57] the application. We have a seconder. Any other comments from
[1:00:59] the committee? Seeing none vote please. Dean Lindy? Yes. Fred
[1:01:04] Eismont? Yes. Doug Thompson. Yes. Application is approved. Good. Thank
[1:01:09] you. For your appearance tonight. Thank you. Thank you, chair.
[1:01:12] Thank you, committee. Move to item ten on the agenda,
[1:01:15] which is? A 2025 79, which is 1135 Plymouth
[1:01:25] Drive, and I'll get the secretary to read out this
[1:01:29] application. The application being considered is for file a 2025
[1:01:33] 79 for 1135 Plymouth Drive, submitted by Arya and Gopi.
[1:01:39] The purpose and effect of his application is to permit
[1:01:42] a single search dwelling which may include an accessory apartment.
[1:01:45] With the variances in column one below, it's just. The
[1:01:48] requirements of column two. Below, as required by zoning by
[1:01:52] law 1694 for a single status dwelling in the r
[1:01:55] one e 31 residential zone. The zoning item is being
[1:01:58] requested. I relate to minimum parking space length, minimum parking
[1:02:02] space length and landscape open space in the front yard.
[1:02:05] Staff have no objection to the approval of this application.
[1:02:09] We have Arvind Gopi on the line. Yes. Okay, go
[1:02:17] ahead. Just state your name for the record. And provide
[1:02:21] a brief. Description of the application, please? Good evening, committee.
[1:02:26] My name is Arwin Gopi. I'm an architect and I'm.
[1:02:29] Representing the honor for this application. So the honorary is
[1:02:35] doing. A legal basement, and we need an additional parking
[1:02:40] requirement. So we had to reduce. The landscape. Open space
[1:02:45] in the frontier. That's one of the regions we are
[1:02:48] asking for. And another one is the reduced parking space,
[1:02:52] which we need for the legal basement. So the width
[1:02:56] and length also need to be reduced because of these
[1:03:00] site conditions, as per people where he's. Done its site.
[1:03:04] Yeah, that's all about the application. It's very minor in
[1:03:07] nature. Members of the committee. Any questions to the representative?
[1:03:17] Seeing no questions. i don't have any questions Is there
[1:03:22] anybody here in the gallery want to speak of this
[1:03:24] application? Seeing none. We didn't receive any public consultation. The
[1:03:30] internal correspondence has been respondents okay hearing the application. Committee.
[1:03:36] Mr. Chair, I'd like. To. Move that we accept. Report
[1:03:44] a 2025 79. 1135 Plymouth Drive. With notes to the
[1:03:50] advisory for advisory comments. We have a motion to adopt
[1:03:56] the application with advisory comments. And is there a seconder?
[1:03:59] I will second that we have a second or any
[1:04:02] other comments from the committee seeing none. Vote, please. Dean
[1:04:06] Lindsay? Yes. Fred Eismar? Yes. Doug Thompson? Yes. Application is
[1:04:11] approved. Thank you, Mr. Gopi. Thank you so much. Good
[1:04:15] evening. Okay, so we'll move to item eleven on the
[1:04:19] agenda, which is item a, 2025. 80. 317 Thornton Road
[1:04:25] north. I'll get the secretary to read out the application.
[1:04:31] The application. Bring concealers for file a 2025 80 for
[1:04:35] 317 thor ten road north. Submitted by bentbolt. The purpose
[1:04:40] and effect of this application is to permit a single
[1:04:42] statch drawing. Which may include an accessory apartment with the
[1:04:45] range who's in column one below external. Requirements in column
[1:04:52] two below, as required by zoning bylaw 1694 for a
[1:04:55] single detached dwelling. Any r one c residential zone. There's
[1:05:00] any items being requested are related to a minimum landscape
[1:05:03] open space in the front. Yard parking space location and
[1:05:06] minimum parking space width. Staff have no objection to the
[1:05:09] approval of this application. Just please state your name for
[1:05:12] the record, please. Provide a brief description of your application.
[1:05:20] Good evening. My name is Brent Bowl. And the purpose
[1:05:24] of. This application is that? My parents, who is of
[1:05:30] age now, is getting older. They live with me and
[1:05:32] they will be living with me for a long time,
[1:05:35] until. Probably when they're no more. So it's getting hard
[1:05:39] for them to basically get around the house, and the
[1:05:41] hot mushrooms are upstairs and downstairs taking stairs, so I'm
[1:05:45] converting. The garage into. A living space for them to
[1:05:50] have one area where. They could. Have. Their existing garage
[1:05:57] into an accessory apartment, basically. So. It requires minor variants
[1:06:04] for the parking spot, and I believe that that is
[1:06:09] something that we could do minor variants, and that is
[1:06:13] the purpose of. This application. Thank you. Members of the
[1:06:18] committee, any questions to the applicant? Yeah, just through you,
[1:06:22] chair for Mr. Bowl. I notice there's also. A proposed
[1:06:29] sunroom, but that's not part of. This motion. It's just
[1:06:34] to convert the garage into living quarters. I believe. That
[1:06:41] was also part of that. But right now. Our main
[1:06:46] focus is. For the ancillary, just the variance. For the
[1:06:53] parking space. The reason I'm asking is just I noticed
[1:06:57] that. On the diagram. It is a proposed sunroom for
[1:07:06] owners use. Obviously, maybe not your parent, so I was
[1:07:11] just wondering if that was part of. The proposal at
[1:07:16] this point, yes. It is. Thank you. Staff. Is there
[1:07:25] any clarification? Is there anything that we need clarified on
[1:07:27] that or you got your answer. You're fine, okay? Any
[1:07:32] other comments from the committee saying? None. Okay. And what
[1:07:35] I did ask is anybody in the delegation to speak
[1:07:38] on the application. And we received no public consultation of
[1:07:44] this one. The chairman public correspondence has been received. Okay
[1:07:48] hearing. The applicants motion. Is in order. Yes, chair. I
[1:07:54] propose that we accept application a 2025 80. At 317
[1:08:00] Thorton Road north with the one advisory comment, and I'll
[1:08:05] second that application. Any other comments from the committee? Seeing?
[1:08:10] None. Okay, a vote, please. Dean lindsay. Yes. Doug Thompson.
[1:08:18] Yes. Application is approved. Thank you for your appearance. Thank
[1:08:22] you. To move to item twelve on the agenda, which
[1:08:26] is a 2025 81,035 grand. Lee court. So have the
[1:08:36] treasurer read this application. The application. Bring Cassilla to file
[1:08:40] a 2025 81 for 1035 Grandley Court submitted by Iman
[1:08:46] Prit Singh Basur. The purpose and effect of his application
[1:08:49] is to permit a single detached dwelling, which may include
[1:08:52] an accessory apartment with advances in column one below and.
[1:08:59] Set the requirement to column two below, as required by
[1:09:01] zoning bylaw 1694 for a single detached dwelling in ar
[1:09:04] one e residential zone. The zoning order has been requested
[1:09:08] only to a minimum. Parking space width, minimum parking space
[1:09:11] length and minimum landscape open space in the front yard.
[1:09:14] Staff have no objection to the approval of this application.
[1:09:18] Well, just turn on your mic and please state your
[1:09:20] name for the record, please. Sure. Good evening. Committee members,
[1:09:25] staff and chair. So, my name is Mandrit Singh and
[1:09:29] I'm the. Owner of the 100:35 grandly coat. Our purpose
[1:09:34] of this application is to add, add. Additional single dwelling
[1:09:39] unit in the basement. With a minor variance for minimum
[1:09:43] parking space width as 2.6 and as per zoning. It's
[1:09:49] 2.75 meters and minimum parking space length as 5.6 meters,
[1:09:55] which is 5.75 as per zoning. And minimum landscape open
[1:10:01] space for the frontard, which is 42% and as per
[1:10:06] zoning it's 50%, so. That's our points for the minor
[1:10:11] variants. Good. Thank you. Any questions? The applicant. Do we
[1:10:19] have any. Is there any delegation to speak on this
[1:10:21] application? Receive no public consultation on this. The general correspondent
[1:10:28] has been received correspondence. Okay, so motion is an order,
[1:10:33] Mr. Chair. I move that we accept report a 2025
[1:10:38] 81 at 1035 Grandley. Court, subject to. Note of the
[1:10:45] advisor comment. Motion to adopt. Do I have a seconder?
[1:10:49] I will second that motion. Okay, we have a motion
[1:10:52] to adopt and seconded. Any other comments from the committee?
[1:10:55] Seeing none. Motion. Vote, please. Dean Lindsay? Yes. Fred Eismat.
[1:11:02] Yes. Doug Thompson. Yes. Application was approved. Thank you for
[1:11:06] your appearance. Thank you. We're going to move to item
[1:11:10] 13 on the agenda, which is a 2025 82. 419
[1:11:15] King West. I don't get the application. The secretary treasurer
[1:11:23] read out the application, please. The application being considered for
[1:11:27] file a 2025 80. King Street west. Submitted by the
[1:11:32] big Leery Group. The purpose and affectiva's application is to
[1:11:36] permit a type two partner to be located within 120
[1:11:39] meters of another tattoo parlor where a zoning Balla 60
[1:11:42] 94 requires tattoo mullers to be located no closer than
[1:11:46] 150 meters. To another law occupied by the same use.
[1:11:50] In a PCCA one plant commercial center zone. An additional
[1:11:53] purpose in the fact that was application is to promote
[1:11:56] a tattoo partner to be located within 120 meters of
[1:11:59] another tattoo parlor, whereas owning bylaw 60 94 as amended
[1:12:04] by bylaw 82. 2025 requires tattoo powers to be located
[1:12:09] lower, closer than 800 meters to another law occupied by
[1:12:12] the same use and a PCCA one plant commercial central
[1:12:16] zone staff have no objection to the approval of this
[1:12:19] application. Do we have Laura on the line? Yes, I'm
[1:12:27] here. Okay, just state your name for the record, please,
[1:12:29] and provide. A brief description of the application, please. Thank
[1:12:36] you, Mr. Chair. My name is Laura Lavelle Kentosopoulos and
[1:12:39] I'm. The senior planner at the Bigli area group representing
[1:12:43] the owners, 4119 King Street West. Yashawa center more blamely.
[1:12:50] I'll try to be quick because I know we're at
[1:12:51] the end of the night here. So we have committed
[1:12:54] this minor variant, as mentioned. To permit a tattoo parlor
[1:12:58] located within a unit within the OSha shopping center. We
[1:13:02] are requesting this site specific reduction. From 150 meters to
[1:13:07] 120 meters. I would also like to note that the
[1:13:11] actual location of the unit is more to the south.
[1:13:13] Of the Oshawa center near Death street. Well over up
[1:13:17] to 650 meters away from the existing tattoo hardware used
[1:13:20] today. We reviewed the applicable planning policy and with both
[1:13:25] variants is consistent with the provincial planning statement and satisfied
[1:13:29] foretest of minor variance planning on and I would comment
[1:13:33] that in relation to the intent of this zoning, bylaw.
[1:13:37] We understand from. That report that the intent of this
[1:13:40] separation between tattooing Carlo uses is to limit the concentration
[1:13:44] of uses which impacts the deathstream of the environment along
[1:13:48] main shopping and pedestrian streets. Since this location is within
[1:13:52] a shopping center, will not have any passed on the
[1:13:55] streamscape and we find it consistent with the intent of
[1:13:57] the bylaw. Additionally, we note Boston center is much larger
[1:14:01] than other laws. Over 800 meters deep, 400 meters wide,
[1:14:05] surrounded by parking. So there's ample distance from other similar.
[1:14:10] Uses. Thank you to the committee. Let me know if
[1:14:12] you have any questions on the proposal. Thank you for
[1:14:15] your detailed application. Any members of the committee with a
[1:14:19] question? I just have a question. To stop. I think
[1:14:23] you've explained it, but I want to put this question
[1:14:25] to staff, so on. The outset, reading the application. It's
[1:14:29] 123 meters. Is what is being requested. The initial bylaw
[1:14:37] is 150 meters. And then there was a revision to
[1:14:40] the bylaw of 800 meters. How do we determine the
[1:14:43] length? Is there a length on from this application? Maybe
[1:14:49] you can just explain that to me. Is it to
[1:14:52] the quarter of the shopping center or does it go
[1:14:56] to the actual. Location of the new proposed tattoo shop.
[1:15:02] Do the chair. So the way that the distance is
[1:15:05] measured, it's from the shortest distance. Between the two closest
[1:15:08] points on the property lines. Of the two walls occupied
[1:15:12] by the same use, which in this case is a
[1:15:14] tattoo polar. So the requested variance of 120 meters. That's
[1:15:18] the shortest distance between the two property lines of those
[1:15:22] same uses. So this doesn't take into account the actual
[1:15:26] location of the proposed tattoo. Parlor, which would be at
[1:15:29] the south side of Oshua Center. So if you were
[1:15:32] to measure it from the actual unit, from unit to
[1:15:35] unit, it would be. Much greater than. Moreover, 600 meters
[1:15:39] in between. So the committee has done any. There's no
[1:15:44] violation of any city bylaw. To allow this. It looks
[1:15:47] like it's outside of what those bylaws are originally. Intended
[1:15:50] for. Okay, good. Thank you for that answer. Do you
[1:15:54] have anything else that you wanted, Laurie? You just heard
[1:15:56] the question. Do you have any? Comments to that. No,
[1:16:00] I think that was well answered. Thank you. Great. Thank
[1:16:03] you. Any delegation? No delegation. We received. Correspondence on this.
[1:16:13] One was received. Okay. Hearing. The application committee motion is
[1:16:19] in order. Yes, Mr. Chair. I'd like to pose that.
[1:16:23] We accept report number eight. 2025 82 419 King Street,
[1:16:28] West Oshwa Center. And there's no conditions or advisory comments.
[1:16:36] I'll second that. The motion to adopt the application. And
[1:16:42] seconded. Any other comments from the committee? Seeing none, vote,
[1:16:46] please. D Lindsay? Yes. Fred Eisemot? Yes. Doug Thompson? Yes.
[1:16:52] Application is approved. Thank you for your parents. Thank you.
[1:16:59] So we're going to go back now on the agenda,
[1:17:01] back to item number. One, I think. Item number one,
[1:17:11] we're going to go back to item a, 2025 57,
[1:17:15] which is 643 Fleetwood Drive. Oh, I'm sorry. A 2025?
[1:17:23] 64 8180. Get the secretary to read the application. The
[1:17:30] application being considered is for file 820 25 64 for
[1:17:34] 185 Orchard View Boulevard, summoned by Greg McCullough the purpose
[1:17:39] and effect of this application is to permit an accessory
[1:17:41] building which may include an accessory apartment auxiliary to a
[1:17:44] single touch dwelling with a maximum height of 6 meters,
[1:17:48] whereas zoning by line of 1694. Permits a maximum height
[1:17:50] of less the maximum height of the lesser of four
[1:17:53] and a half meters. Or the actual height of the
[1:17:55] main building on a lot for an accessory building, ancillary
[1:17:58] to a single detached drilling and the r one a
[1:18:00] residential zone. Staff requests that this application be denied. Greg
[1:18:05] mccullough on the line. Yes, you do. Okay, go ahead.
[1:18:10] Mr. McCullough, just briefly describe the application for the committee.
[1:18:14] Please. The purpose of the application is a caregiver suite
[1:18:18] for my elderly stepmother. We discussed it. In previous meeting.
[1:18:25] The planning department has an issue with the required height,
[1:18:30] so we revise the application I brought. It back in
[1:18:33] under the height of the existing building. We also were
[1:18:38] provided afterwards with the complaint. From the objection, from the
[1:18:43] neighbor, which we were able to review. And in discussions
[1:18:48] with the planning department. They requested that we come back
[1:18:53] with a wider or longer footprint. To reduce the height.
[1:18:59] Then that they would be more sympathetic to that than
[1:19:01] the height. We've investigated those options. And. What we found
[1:19:10] is. In order to accommodate. A wider or longer building,
[1:19:15] we would not be able to utilize. A substantial portion
[1:19:20] of the existing building, so we're being asked to cover
[1:19:23] the footings. They would have even uniformed the new building.
[1:19:28] We would have to reinforce roofs. We do have to
[1:19:31] elevate the building anyway. Because the required height on the
[1:19:34] first floor. So we would end up having to add
[1:19:39] substantial bracing to the roof. To accommodate the lateral loads
[1:19:43] that a wider edition would put on the building. And
[1:19:49] we don't feel that. warranted When what seems to be
[1:19:55] happening is a very strict and literal interpretation of not
[1:20:00] being. Substantially bigger. As an accessory building, even though that
[1:20:05] component was written previous to these being accessory dwellings doesn't.
[1:20:10] Seem to be reflective of the new purpose of intensification.
[1:20:14] And secondary dwellings on the same property when these are
[1:20:17] deemed accessory buildings or rules pertaining to that work exactly
[1:20:21] that garages and other spaces that work ancillary to the
[1:20:25] main building, where these are now sympathetic with the main
[1:20:28] building and growing places. When we review the neighbor's objections,
[1:20:35] the bulk of the objections are to the actual. Placement
[1:20:40] of. A secondary space, regardless of height or wind or
[1:20:46] anything they're concerned seems to be in the city of
[1:20:49] Oshwa is not dealing with rental units which have helped
[1:20:53] to do with this. Application. They're one concern about the
[1:20:57] height. Seems to be a misinterpretation of the plan because
[1:21:01] they believe that this is an addition that's going to
[1:21:04] take up the substantial part of the backyard. It's actually
[1:21:08] going to be just a small component. The privacy won't
[1:21:12] be impacted. We don't have windows above their fence as
[1:21:15] part of our application. So we feel that it addresses
[1:21:19] the neighbor's concerns as best as we can. We be
[1:21:23] able to utilize the built aspects of the property? To
[1:21:27] the maximum elevation is the right answer. And if we
[1:21:33] were to mask the larger building with a bigger footprint,
[1:21:36] we encounter setback issues. On all side. And we'll have
[1:21:40] to come right back again. And it also interrupts our
[1:21:42] proposed parking. Space. So that would have to be adjustment
[1:21:45] as well. It's a narrow lot. There isn't a lot
[1:21:47] of room to widen the structure. The minimal impact appears
[1:21:53] to be to go straight up. And the only objection
[1:21:55] that's seemingly relevant. Is one that isn't taking into account
[1:22:01] that it's not true ancillary. Building. As for 1994 by
[1:22:06] lock, but. It is more under the new or revised
[1:22:11] interpretations of what is allowed on residential properties. Mr. Mccullough.
[1:22:22] It seems to be. And again, you've read the report
[1:22:24] and it came back, it seems. To be the height
[1:22:27] of the building, but it's also the setback. Now, with
[1:22:30] respect. To the complaint from the neighbors. Again. You're aware
[1:22:36] that this committee. Has allowed these type of structures. As
[1:22:43] provided they meet. The bylaw, but. Regardless of.
[1:22:53] What the members or the residents say, or neighbors. If
[1:22:57] it meets the bylaw, then. It meets the intent and
[1:23:03] purpose of the official plan and the zoning bylaws. Right.
[1:23:07] So. Again. It meets that needs, even though the neighbors
[1:23:14] are concerned about it. And so we have. Approved applications.
[1:23:19] That meet that bylaw. In this case here, the challenge
[1:23:21] is that you're outside of that height restriction and setback.
[1:23:27] So. There's two issues with that. Because it's an existing
[1:23:36] building. We are a legal, nonconforming building. So our setbacks
[1:23:41] are legal because that's where the building is. The straight
[1:23:43] elevation does not change where setbacks occur. What they're proposing
[1:23:48] is that we do encroach. On the setbacks, and then
[1:23:50] we have to come back for a completely separate application.
[1:23:54] With an elevation component because we have to lift it
[1:23:57] anyway beyond what the 4.5 is. To accommodate the first
[1:24:00] floor or we have to tear the roof off. And
[1:24:04] we also have. To. Encroach. Because we're adding to it.
[1:24:10] Where now those legal, non performing status and laws. And
[1:24:13] we now encroach on three. Sides of the property instead
[1:24:17] of what we have now, which is sort of existing
[1:24:19] encroachment and again, we have to redo the entire. As
[1:24:25] built structure that's there to conform to something which. We
[1:24:30] are conforming to the bylaw and we are not higher
[1:24:33] than the existing building. But. The interpretation is it can't
[1:24:38] be more significant. It's a sticking point. Which is a
[1:24:43] value judgment, not. A tangible thing that we can achieve,
[1:24:48] so we're creating more step back issues. And more opportunity
[1:24:53] for issues. Then we're complying with the bylaw, so. We
[1:24:59] provide the application and process height of the building down
[1:25:01] to compliance with the bylaw. So that we can utilize
[1:25:04] what we have and utilize the ad built and maintain
[1:25:08] sort of the identity of the neighborhood better. Than if
[1:25:14] we amass a large, wide structure in the back, which
[1:25:16] then means that we're. Back here again. With multiple encroachments
[1:25:22] and a height issue. So for one pejorative. Sentence. We
[1:25:29] are in compliance, and we're going to become not in
[1:25:32] compliance with our application. On three sides and a high
[1:25:37] dish. Plus the additional cost of demolition removal. Which, for
[1:25:45] the sake of. An in law suite. Or caregiver suite.
[1:25:52] Seems to be. Financially punitive over the interpretation of a
[1:25:57] bylaw that was not intended to deal with this. Situation.
[1:26:09] You've made a couple of comments. I'm going to ask
[1:26:11] the staff to just. To provide some context to this.
[1:26:16] In terms of the actual setbacks themselves, the proposed setbacks
[1:26:19] from the rear lot lines and the interior lot lines
[1:26:23] do comply with the zoning bylaw, however, so we do
[1:26:26] have the maximum height restriction of four and a half
[1:26:28] meters based on. Those setbacks. So, for example. The idea
[1:26:33] is that perhaps we could accept a taller building as
[1:26:36] the setbacks get greater from the backyard. Right. So, based
[1:26:40] on its present location, Snap don't support the proposed height
[1:26:44] of 6 meters. That is too close to it's. Too
[1:26:46] tall compared to the setbacks to the rear lot line
[1:26:49] and interior lot lines, so. Our main concern is size.
[1:26:53] Based on that location. Mr. McCullough, did you hear that?
[1:26:59] Yes, I did. And again. The unfortunate aspect of the
[1:27:03] ad built. Certain nature of the lot does not allow
[1:27:06] any moving in. Any direction without. Cumbering somebody else, and
[1:27:11] with the neighboring properties, all be two story plus. It
[1:27:15] doesn't change the scope of the neighborhood. They all look
[1:27:18] down into my stepmother's. Backyard. This area has allowed. And
[1:27:24] again. We're trying to do this the proper way. We're
[1:27:27] trying to do everything right. If we jack it up
[1:27:31] and put a hallway between, it's an addition and then
[1:27:33] all of this goes away and it just looks worse.
[1:27:39] So. We're trying to utilize this as a standalone structure.
[1:27:42] We don't want it to look and appear as though
[1:27:45] it's anything but what it is, which is an ancillary.
[1:27:47] Building. But in terms of parking, in terms of backyard,
[1:27:51] there really isn't space on this lot. To accommodate everything
[1:27:55] that they want. So. It's such a massive change for
[1:28:01] one again, in compliance less than the height of. The
[1:28:07] existing building, which is what the bylaw states. There are
[1:28:09] other laws. The 4.5 also does come in, but. The
[1:28:14] setbacks are part of this application, but they will be
[1:28:16] on the next one. so in order to keep that
[1:28:23] pitch roof on that building we're still going to be
[1:28:25] over the 4.5 even if We widen, do the rest.
[1:28:27] So the committee did. So the committee did review the
[1:28:32] plans that were provided and the application. In detail. You're
[1:28:37] not able to move that structure back in order to
[1:28:40] comply. Or forward. We would have to move it towards
[1:28:44] a street, and then we can't utilize. Any of the.
[1:28:47] We have to demo the foundation, the driveway, and all
[1:28:50] of the Asville assets. So it require. It was never
[1:28:55] brought up. What that acceptable setback would be. So I
[1:29:00] don't know the exact number, but. There's under 5 meters
[1:29:04] between the house. And the structure. And for firecoat, we
[1:29:09] would be running into some issues with being that close.
[1:29:12] To. An existing building, so. It's not. A particularly. Sympathetic
[1:29:20] site. For relocation. And again, it requires a wholesale demolition
[1:29:25] of what we have. She's an elderly lady. She's trying
[1:29:29] to get her family to move in and. Help, so
[1:29:32] we're trying to keep cods down for. It can't be
[1:29:37] the only driving force, but it does have to be
[1:29:39] part of it. That. Any relocation requires. Completely. Designed and.
[1:29:48] Complete. Destruction of what is built over again, an interpretation
[1:29:54] of what it says in terms of it shouldn't appear
[1:29:58] to be mass bigger. Which it won't be. It's still
[1:30:01] the same narrow building, but just a higher. Footprint. It
[1:30:04] doesn't create a more opposing structure, and it still complies
[1:30:09] with all of the other aspects. A comment from a
[1:30:13] member of the committee. Thank you, Mr. Mccoll. I know.
[1:30:19] The lot, and it is a conundrum to get. What
[1:30:23] you hope to achieve, but I'd still like to believe
[1:30:27] that. There is a win win by. Further discussion. With
[1:30:32] the city. If you did explore. Moving that up closer
[1:30:38] to the street as our chair indicated. But I can
[1:30:44] appreciate the need for. That suite. For your in laws.
[1:30:51] But. It is a challenging lot. Whatever we decide, I
[1:30:56] hope that. You can continue to work. With the Sadi
[1:31:02] to come up with a scenario where it's a win
[1:31:06] win for everyone. Perfectly Frank. We haven't had much discussion
[1:31:11] with the city. They haven't proposed any. Sort of alternates.
[1:31:14] Just a straight zone. This is the first I've heard
[1:31:16] about moving. It forward. To accommodate any sort of setbacks,
[1:31:23] staff has now been coming with anything other than. We're
[1:31:27] going to deny, so it's difficult for us to work
[1:31:30] with the city. If we're not getting any information, this
[1:31:32] is not our wheelhouse. I'm not 100% sure we can,
[1:31:37] but we're willing to explore. We've? Changed drawings. We've done
[1:31:40] other things we're more than willing to accommodate, but. This
[1:31:44] direction only seems to appear in these meetings, and it's
[1:31:46] never brought forward. Prior to so that these solutions can
[1:31:50] be finished. And now we're going to kick in. Another
[1:31:55] 30 days down the road. Plus, we're into winter before
[1:31:59] we can even apply for a building permit. Yes, Mr.
[1:32:03] Mccallough. Go ahead. I did hear staff say that. Maybe
[1:32:13] repeat it again, that if it was moved, the height
[1:32:16] wouldn't be an issue. It could be because. It was.
[1:32:19] Maybe you explain that again. I'm just going to ask
[1:32:21] the staff to explain. That again. This situation based on
[1:32:25] its present location. Staff don't support the increased height of
[1:32:29] 6 meters. However, previous approvals for increased height for accessory
[1:32:34] buildings happen based on the fact that. Setbacks. For example,
[1:32:39] the one for king. Today I was considered provided a
[1:32:41] 17 meters setback. From the rear yard so we can
[1:32:44] support that as. There's no privacy issue or on the
[1:32:48] neighboring properties in the backyard where that wouldn't be the
[1:32:50] case here, as the building would be too tall. So
[1:32:54] it's 17 meters setback. We put it out in the
[1:32:56] middle of Orchard. Again. It's a non starter. Room for
[1:33:05] that setback to accommodate, so it's really not even an
[1:33:07] option. In this circumstance. Do you want to come in?
[1:33:13] Moreover, in addition to this achieving setbacks, the idea of
[1:33:17] the accessory buildings, which are meant to be ancillary to
[1:33:20] the main building is that they should be clearly incidental
[1:33:23] and secondary. To the main building. So when someone looks
[1:33:25] at the property, it should be easily identifiable. One is
[1:33:27] an accessory building, and one is a main building. So
[1:33:31] there's an issue with that as well. With this application,
[1:33:33] based on the proposed value. Again, this is a pejorative
[1:33:38] term that we have a tall, narrow building which. Is
[1:33:43] clearly will retain its heritage attributes. It still appears though
[1:33:46] just. The taller staple house. It'll be very clear that
[1:33:49] it's not the same building. Because it'll have a separate
[1:33:52] driveway. All of the boxes that you've asked for in
[1:33:56] that sentence are all ticks. If we widen the building
[1:33:59] and we make it bigger and we bring it forward
[1:34:02] and we do all the other things, then we are
[1:34:04] going to other than the height issue. We are going
[1:34:07] to create this perception that it is the main building
[1:34:10] because there will be two similar size buildings with a
[1:34:13] sprawl in a very small. Lot that now occupies all
[1:34:16] of your view when you pull into the driveway, but.
[1:34:21] As the staff said, we comply with the bylaw. It
[1:34:25] won't comply with the bylaw. It still requires setback approval,
[1:34:28] but it still. Requires a height approval. It doesn't comply
[1:34:31] with the bylaw. It still has to come. Back to
[1:34:34] the committee for all of these variances because it still
[1:34:36] won't comply. With the bylaws. You still need sep, Max.
[1:34:43] We're still going to encroach. We can't get away from
[1:34:44] the setback issues in the narrow space if we widen
[1:34:47] the building. So at no point are we going to
[1:34:49] comply with the bylaw. All we're doing is reapplying. With.
[1:34:54] The new variance. Application with now four areas of interference.
[1:35:03] Instead of one. But again, I would suggest. Again. Working
[1:35:10] with staff on this matter. I have tried to work
[1:35:13] with staff and all that comes back is this, which.
[1:35:18] We don't agree with. And I guess, like I said,
[1:35:20] we do have other options that we didn't want to
[1:35:22] explore that we bylaw. If their only option is that
[1:35:27] we add further width and depth and bring it forward.
[1:35:33] Then. We're going to be right back here again and
[1:35:36] again. We may support. If they don't support it at
[1:35:39] that point, then we wasted another 30. Days. And we
[1:35:44] don't appear to have any working relationship with the team.
[1:35:48] All we have is do it our way or else.
[1:35:50] And that's all we got from the city, and I.
[1:35:54] Assume this committee wasn't just a rubber stamp. But if
[1:35:58] that's the case, then. We'll vote other options. But the
[1:36:02] idea that we would find four areas of interference to
[1:36:05] avoid one. Based again on the only thing that is
[1:36:09] there is that it shouldn't appear. To. Mine bigger. And
[1:36:16] that's. The only sticking point in this entire. Discussion. Is
[1:36:21] that it doesn't appear to be something. Otherwise, we're in
[1:36:25] compliance. All of the rest of the issues we enter,
[1:36:28] if we widen. And we bring forward, we enter into
[1:36:31] a whole new world of problems and issues that may
[1:36:35] or may not be possible to even deal with. The
[1:36:40] idea of moving it forward. If it's 17 meters, can't
[1:36:43] happen. The idea of coming forward to get more floor
[1:36:46] space, enters into fire code violations. That can't happen. So
[1:36:50] all of these come into the realm of what if
[1:36:53] and probably not possible. Over the one sentence of it
[1:36:57] shouldn't appear to be such. Which is an opinion based,
[1:37:02] not a fact based. It's a narrow structure with some
[1:37:07] height that clearly is not going to be the main
[1:37:09] structure on the building. It's definitively not going to be
[1:37:12] viewed as the main. It'll always be. An ancillary building,
[1:37:15] and that definition was placed in there 30 years ago
[1:37:18] when this bylaw was written without the idea that you
[1:37:22] would have an ancillary dwelling. Not an ancillary building, and
[1:37:26] they're completely separate issues. We've heard your comments. Yes, we've
[1:37:31] heard your comments. The committee has heard their comments. Committee.
[1:37:38] Any further questions? I'm going to move a motion that.
[1:37:43] This application. A 2002 564185 Ocean View Boulevard. Orchard view
[1:37:51] boulevard. Be denied, as it does not meet the four
[1:37:56] tests as set out for the committee. And I will
[1:38:00] second that. Have any other comments from the committee? We
[1:38:05] have a motion to deny the application. A motion is
[1:38:07] second vote, please. Dean Lindsay? Yes. Fred Eismond? Yes. Doug
[1:38:14] Thompson? Yes. Application is denied, Mr. McCullough. I will tell
[1:38:18] you, and I said this at the outset of the
[1:38:19] meeting, is that you have the right to appeal this
[1:38:22] decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal. I'm going to just
[1:38:25] repeat that again. I didn't hear that. But that's okay.
[1:38:29] You guys have a good night. Thank you for your
[1:38:31] time. Okay. I just said you have the right to
[1:38:35] appeal. I wanted you to hear that. i did hear
[1:38:41] that thank you okay thank you Have a good night.
[1:38:43] Thank you. Okay. So that concludes.