Transcript - Variance Reviews Yield Mixed Results - Committee of Adjustment meeting of April 1, 2026 at 7 p.m.

Variance Reviews Yield Mixed Results - Committee of Adjustment meeting of April 1, 2026 at 7 p.m.

Hey, good evening. Tonight's committee of adjustment hearing is being held by video conference and live streaming video on the town's live stream web page at opville.ca. This is the hearing to consider applications for minor variance and consents held under the authority of the planning act. Please keep in mind the intent of this process is to review the application that is before the committee, listen to the evidence, and then make a decision. This process is not intended to be used to resolve any concerns or disputes that may exist between the town, individuals, or organizations. If a request for a deferral is made and the committee grants such a request, the applicant or authorized agent must contact the secretary treasurer to schedule a new hearing date. In order to conduct an effective and efficient electronic hearing, we are have adopted the following process. If you're watching the live stream of this hearing on oakville.ca and you wish to speak to an item on the agenda, please call 9058156095. Again, the number is 9058156095. This number will also be posted on the live stream page at oakville.ca. Staff will be standing by to take your call. When you do call in, staff will ask for your name, item number that you wish to address, and your telephone number. Further instructions will be provided to join the video conference. When the chair of the committee pulls for interested parties, please press star six to unmute yourself. The applicant or agent will be given an opportunity to briefly explain to the committee the basis of the application and answer any questions that may arise. A maximum of five minutes will be provided for a presentation. You will need to take state your full name and address for the record and any submission beyond the five minutes will be at the discretion of the committee. All delegations must also state their full name and address for the record. A maximum of five minutes will be provided to make each presentation. All remarks and questions are to be directed to the chair. Any submissions beyond the five minutes will be at the discretion of the committee. The applicant or agent will then be provided with further five minutes to respond to comments made by interested parties and answer any questions from committee members. If the applicant or agent has concerns found in staff report particularly with any proposed conditions, this will be the opportunity to advise us. The matter will then be taken into committee for a decision and this will mark the end of all discussion. Any person desiring a notice of the decision for an application must provide a written request, preferably through email, to the secretary treasurer. Written notice of the committee's decision is to be mailed no later than 10 days for minor variance and 15 days for consent to the applicant agent or any other person who has filed a written request for such notice. The last day to appeal the decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal will be noted on the decision. Only the applicant, specified persons or public bodies may appeal the decisions of the committee to the Ontario Land Tribunal. In November of 2022, bill 23 legislation, the more homes built faster act, amended the planning act to remove appeal rights for members of the public. If no appeal is received within the prescribed time frame, the decision of the committee becomes final and binding and the secretary treasurer will then notify the applicant or anyone who has received a copy of the decision through written correspondence. People participating in the hearing are to be courteous to and respectful of the members of the committee, town staff, and any other person who has participated in this electronic hearing. Tonight's electronic hearing is being video recorded and available for future viewing at oakville.ca. Thank you. We have two regrets this evening. Mr. Stewart Dicki and Mr. John Hard Castle. Do I have any declarations of peculiar interests? I see none. Thank you, Madam Secretary Treasure. Is there anyone in the audience who has um made an interest to defer or withdraw an application? If you are interested in withdrawing it or defer an application, please raise your hand and secretary treasurer will invite you in to speak. Madam Chair, I have a couple of hands up. Uh I will move in Alex Merritt, one of the agents. One moment, please. Hello. Good evening. Go ahead. My name is Alex Merritt. I'm the agent for uh 1562 Venanishia Drive. Uh we would request a defer um because we received staff comments and would like to um work with staff to revise the design. Perfect. Thank you, Mr. Mr. Merritt. Um, any questions of Mr. Merritt? Okay. Uh, all those in support of the deferral. Okay. The application has been deferred. You'll see the secretary treasurer at your earliest convenience. Sounds good. Thank you very much. Thank you. Madam chair, I have another hand up. Uh, Joseph Mora. I can move him in as well. Madame Chair, can you hear me? Yes. Go ahead, Mr. Moore. Sorry, I don't know. My video is not working, but um I was um the applicant uh for uh 371 G Avenue uh based on the uh comments from the town uh planning department. Um I have spoken with Brian O'Hare and um we're scheduling a meeting to uh discuss um the project with uh the town before we present as we may make a few changes to the drawings. Very well. Thank you, Mr. Mora. Any questions of Mr. Mora? I see none. All those in support of a deferral. Okay. The application has been deferred. You'll see the secretary treasure at your earliest convenience. Thank you. Madam Secretary Judger, I have a a note for uh application 047 of 2026 uh 266 Jennings present. Yes, Madam Chair. I would like to uh request such deferral for that application. Um the agent emailed me last week, a week ago today on Wednesday, March 25th to say that they had just posted their signs on the property. Um based on that info, the signs weren't posted for a minimum of 10 days, which is the requirement of the planning act. Very well. And uh the uh application is hereby deferred for insufficient notice. Thank you, Madam Chair. He does have his hand up. Would you like me to move him in? Okay. Yes, go ahead. Mr. Castillo, good evening, madam chair, members of the committee. Um, I'm just I just wanted to ask um yeah, we we were there was some comm miscommunication at my office for the signage. Uh, and I just we don't really want to defer if possible. Uh, we got uh positive uh comments from planning uh no other comments. So, and our true viruses, we believe they're pretty minor. Um, so if I know if it's possible, we like to to proceed, but if not, we understand. It's not, Mr. Castillo, it's part of our procedural uh bylaw that if there is insufficient notice to the public, we do have to defer the application. It's not a choice. Okay. Okay. So, uh you'll see the secretary treasurer and she'll get you in as soon as possible. Okay. Understood. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Have a good night. Yes. Sorry, Madam Chair. Can I just ask um would you be voting on this on a motion to defer? Usually, we don't uh vote on the motion to defer when it's uh when it's insufficient notice. Understood. Okay. Just checking. Thank you. Yeah. Now you've gotten me confused. Do we did we usually do we usually do Michael? Do we usually vote? I don't think so. I think it maybe belts and suspenders call vote. Okay. just in case and then we'll check the the the the procedures again. Um okay. Um okay, there's insufficient notice for application 047 at 266 Jennings Crescent. Um all those in support of a deferral for insufficient notice. Okay. Well, it's been uh deferred and uh Mr. Castillo will see you at his earliest convenience. Okay. Anyone else? Madam Secretary Treasurer? Madam Chair, I see no more hands up in uh in the meeting. Okay. We have no consent to applications. We'll proceed with the first item on our agenda and that is application 005 2026 deferred from January 21st of 2026 at 447 Pine Grove Road. I have Peter Vazarus here as the agent. Mr. Vz, are you with us? Hi. Uh, can you guys hear us? Now we can. Okay. I was expecting Peter to be talking. Uh, okay. And who is with me at the present moment? Uh, this is Sorb. I am one of the owners of the property. And I'm Ken. Okay. Um, do you have your cameras on? I can cry. Just one second. And I am showing Mr. the meeting. Oh, okay. Yeah, you are showing as Peter. Are you prepared to present yourself or would you rather wait for him? We have one more uh person joining on as Peter as well. Hello. Oh, there is Okay, there. Sorry, a little bit of confusion there. I had to reload the screen. Okay, now we see you and we can hear you. Go ahead. Thank you. For the record, my name is Peter Vzikas of Empire Design Company. Here to represent the owner, Sir Robin Kieran at 447 Pine Grove Road, application 5206. Okay, go ahead, Mr. Vzikas. We have uh been deferred. This is our second time around with this application. We have been dealing closely with staff planner who has been dealing closely with the zoning staff as well and we've come to an agreeance where it meets all the requirements of the uh planning guidelines liverable Oakville as well as the zoning guidelines as closely as possible. We've reduced uh the RFA by almost 6% and we've eliminated the the variance of coverage that we had previously. So, we're very very close to uh what the bylaws require and everybody is in agreeance to these two variances. Okay. Very well. Are there any uh questions of um Mr. Rozikas or the applicant? Go ahead, Miss Price. Yes. Um, I was reading the reports and the fire department has some concerns about the um, setbacks and I was just wondering if you the owner has spoken to the fire department. If I may speak on that item, we we did read the comment and we are uh, we're obliged to reduce the window well to a projection of 12 in which still leaves about 1 meter for passage. Okay. So, it has been addressed then. Okay, that's fine. Other questions or items of clarification? Okay, I see none. Has anyone called with interest for this application? Madam Secretary, Treasurer? No, Madam Chair. There have been no calls and no one has their hand up. Okay. Thank you. Um, who would like to move a motion? Go ahead, Miss Price. Taking into consideration my site visit, the reports provided by the agent and staff and the fire department and there being no letters of opposition, I find the application to be minor in nature and is in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the official plan and zoning bylaw and is desirable for the appropriate development of the land. The proposed development maintains and protects the character of the existing neighborhood and does not present any unacceptable adverse impacts. The proposed setbacks and one-story architectural elements help to break up the massing and scale of prop of the proposed dwelling. In conclusion, I believe the four tests of the planning act have been met and I recommend the application be approved subject to the following conditions. the dwelling be constructed in general accordance with the sub submitted site plan and elevation drawings submitted with the application dated June 25th and that the approval expires 2 years from the date of the decision if a building permit has not been issued for the proposed construction is there discussion on these recommendations I see none those in report application has been approved. None opposed. Excellent. Thank you very much. Have a good evening. You too. Okay. application uh 028 of 2026 deferred from March the 4th at 144 Mila Drive. I have Shenang Tar as the agent and I do note that we do have a letter of objection from a Michael and Judy Love. Hello. Good evening chair members. Good evening. Go ahead Mr. Tika. Yeah. So my name is uh Shivang Tara. My company name is Relive Solution Inc. and I'm the applicant at the property 144 Mila Drive. Um so what we are doing over there we are actually planning to put a secondary suite in the basement. In order to get that thing done we have put the side entrance like a below grid entrance from the sideyard. We do have have a existing pool at the back and we actually want to because of the privacy of the family we don't want to go on the backyard for the separate entrance. So that was the reason we decided to do the uh separate entrance from the sideyard as per the zoning bylaw requirement. The minimum encroachment on the sideyard is not permitted. However, we are going with 0.18 m. Um after going through the plan review and all the discussions with the planning department uh the comments were actually in our favor and we have actually gone through regarding all the points as well and we completely align with the decision by the committee. If committee has any questions we would be more than happy to answer those. Uh secondly we do saw the letter that has been sent by the neighbors and uh me and owner owner actually talked to them as well regarding the same thing. So just to give you a little bit of heads up with that, there was a previous owners on this property. They were not allowing them to put the fence on that side or maybe not cooperating with them. We're not sure about it. But when uh this he's the new owner who is just 2 years old in the on this property and regardless being whatever the pre neighbors have consent, we are also ready to you know help them if they need any sort of uh you know like some something with the fencing, they need some help or something like that. We are completely aligning with that. We also try to talk to them if something that we can help them in putting that fence so that they should not feel uh like not comfortable or they should have any issues. So being a good neighbor gesture uh my owner the owner is ready to help them out in that case as well. Okay. So have you spoken to them and have you resolved the issue is that is the question through the chair members. I have owner also with me uh on we are together and uh so he had got a chance to try to talk to them. He can uh tell about this. Yeah, I tried to speak to them madam chair but unfortunately was not able to you know catch hold of him. Um I tried you know knocking the door twice but uh I don't know whether they are available or not. they are not able to I'm not able to reach them but I did took the contract from the fence uh you know company you know if there is any damage to the fence I still able to resolve it I should be able to you know fix that fence whatever the concerns they have to the second question but the first question I was not able to answer that it's purely on the earlier uh you know um earlier owner that has you know come up with there is a distance between the earlier owner I'm a new owner and I'm just 9 months old to this property and I have taken the contract from the fence department as well like if there are any concerns with the fence I should be able to replace it and solve that. Okay, thank you for that clarification. Madame Secretary Treasur is there is Mr. Michael and Judy here in attendance? Have they raised their hand? No, Madam Chair, I don't see them online. Okay. Are there any questions uh from committee members to the owner or the applicant? Okay, I see none. So, if there are no uh further comments or questions or items of clarification, we'll take the matter into committee. Who would like to move a motion? Go ahead, Mr. Towski. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I'll move that this application be approved as applied for find that it meets the four tests of planning act. I don't believe the variance will have an impact. Madam chair, I would note that there is a letter of objection. That letter does speak to previous um items that are subject to this application in front of us and also seems to suggest that the additional dwelling unit is in violation of the bylaw which is not the case. It's just the variance on the staircase that's permitted. Madam chair, I would make that approval subject to two conditions. that the uncovered access stairs be constructed in general accordance with the site plan submitted dated August 2025 and that the variance expire if the building permit hasn't issued within two years of the decision. Thank you Mr. Taski. Is there discussion on this recommendation? I see none. All those in support. Okay. The application has been approved. None opposed. Thank you very much. Thank you. Have a good night. Okay. Um, application 043 of 2026 at 346 Ashbury Road. Again, that's application 043 of 2026 at 346 Ashberry Road. I have Tamir Rafi here as the agent. Hello. Good evening. Go ahead. Go ahead, Mr. Rafi. Yeah. Uh my name is Premier Rafi. Uh I'm speaking uh well my address is 443 Highside Drive in Milton and I'm speaking today on behalf of the owner uh of this property at 346 Ashbury Road and uh I uh we have three variances. One of them is related to uh window well width and then uh one is for RFA roughly 3% and lot coverage roughly 2%. I'm aware that we received uh feedback from the committee regarding um uh a recommendation uh to refuse this application. I respect the uh commentary. I'm very surprised to hear uh to read this uh feedback on this specific case and that is because I have examples of homes right across the street that have that are very similar in massing. So, we have twostory homes with the massing um with similar massing with the same tall walls at uh the three homes that are right across the street, 341, 345, and 349 Ashbury. As a matter of fact, 345 Ashbury has the same tall columns. Do you mind switching to the front elevation? Yeah, it has the same tall columns as this one. And uh they all have the French chateau look or or traditional style uh as this one. So um I I would actually disagree that that this is uh odd in the area. I feel like this house is very in line with the immediate neighborhood. I understand that next to it on both sides are bungalows uh next to both sides of 346 Ashbury. However, um we uh we know that these neighborhoods, they go through a evolution and they're changing and these houses are being bought up and turned into two-story homes. Um so, uh I'm I'm sure that's there's an understanding that that that that that's happening. Uh I have also three homes with the furthest one being seven homes away um which are 511 Wildwood that has a RFA of 44.4% 4% which was approved. 507 Wildwood 44.4% RFA and then 494 Wildwood with 44.4% RFA. All three of these are asking for more RFA than we do and uh the last one also has a lot coverage variance that was approved. Now um the finishes are similar than the ones across the street. They're all or on the street. They're all stone finishes. Some of them have stuckco. Uh with us being full stone is actually an upgrade to that. Um the uh we received a letter from the neighborhood uh from a neighbor at 450 at 350 Ashbury. Uh the concerns that were pointed out there were regarding grading. Um uh first one was regarding grading. I'm happy to address it. We have professionals on board um professional uh land surveyors uh and grading engineers that will ensure that there's no spillage and no lock coverage issues uh with rainwater. And uh besides the besides the fact that that's not a zoning matter that's discussed uh at in this hearing. Uh we're ensuring that we have the right professionals on board to address this. Uh regarding the overlooking of the backyard, um the windows were addressed there. Um we have we're not asking for a height variance or width variance. Um so we're not going uh any further in height than what is already permitted by the zoning bylaw. And and regarding windows, there's no restriction. Um and I and I frankly don't think that we're exceeding it by uh any unreasonable amount. So, uh I'm happy to uh suggest as a condition if it helps to have some sort of privacy. Maybe we uh discuss increased taller uh fence height between our property and the neighbor or anything that will help there. Um and uh uh I think well that's about it. I would just say if there's any conditions that we can incorporate to assist with this, I'm happy to explore and uh I'm happy to also answer any questions and hope that given the uh information that I just shared about similar homes immediately across the street and very close in the area uh that we can have a reconsideration uh here and receive approval. Thank you. Okay, while we're on this page, Mr. Can you comment on the fact that the the the chimneys are above the 9 m height requirement according to what staff have commented? So the the chimneys they have to be we have to have uh I quote a three um an increase by at least three feet from the tallest point that's surrounding that's within a radius of 10 feet. So it's it's actually normal. They as per my understanding they're not accounted for in the um but they do add to the massing and the height of the building. Okay. I I I'll say to this that I'm very happy. Let's take those out. It can be included as a condition. I'm very happy to take those out. They actually uh decorative chimneys as we're venting directly to the outside. So I'm very happy to take those out if it matter if it matters we can include it as a condition. Okay. If we pan out please well also maybe one other thing uh I want to highlight if you if you just scroll back to the previous page of the site plan you see that we're uh and and and perhaps zoom in to where the house is. You see that we're that we're trying to break up the massing from a block to uh have um the porch further up and then we're pushing back the house. We break up the flatness with some bay windows and then the garage is even further pushed back to break to ensure to break up the mass the massing like we're aware of we aware of these of this commentary and uh this was our this was our means to address this commentary that we had already expected as we were designing this. Okay. Uh questions of Mr. from committee members. Go ahead, Mr. Towski. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um I I think can you explain why you haven't attempted to uh decrease the massing or the impact of the massing by you know having the second floor you know smaller than the first floor incorporating elements of the second floor into the roof as staff have suggested is um I I accept your evidence that other houses in the neighbor neighborhood have that received variances for coverage and uh gross floor area. But um it's not just a matter of numbers, it's how the applicant addresses the potential impact of that additional size. And I think what staff's concern is as are mine that you have not attempted to, you know, mitigate the impact of the mass through your design. Um I'm guess the way I understand the question is why we uh say didn't draw the roof line in certain areas to uh accommodate for the massing. I mean I think there's in my opinion I think that is one good way of addressing it from a curb appeal perspective but I think that there should be alternative options that are acceptable and Especially since dropping the uh roof in those areas will affect the interior of the space that uh that has the angled roof. The ceiling now has a 45 degree angle. It affects how furniture is laid out. uh if you want to design a four bedroomedroom home that already uh limits the size of the bedrooms to to a minimal and um and for that reason we tried different methods uh especially uh and and perhaps if we didn't have those three homes across the street that I find have a very similar look. I understand they that they didn't go through variance and received approval for it but they have the same look. None of them have the roof line drop. Um, and as a matter of fact, 349 Ashbury is a modern home that has no drop roof. It's just a uh boxy it's just a boxy home, for lack of a better term. Uh, had it not been for those immediate examples that are completely surrounding this home, I I would have considered it stronger. But for the for the reasons that I that I've given, I decided that we may have a strong case to stick with uh the roof lines and use other methods to reduce the additional uh to reduce the mass. Anyone else? Go ahead, Miss Price. Um, I noticed that the front door, you haven't made any effort to bring it down. So, it just increases the height. Makes the house look even taller than it is because of the way you've done the front door and the the arch above it. Like the whole to me, the whole thing seems very tall and boxy. And I was just wondering if you were had considered doing the front door, even making it. So, it's a bit it's been cut down a bit so it doesn't dominate the house. Look, I I hear your point. Um I hope, if you don't mind, I'm going to repeat with more emphasis the same point I made before. There's there's one house immediately across the street, 345, which has a very similar uh entry as this one. And the grandness is already there's already precedence for this type of grandness. And uh that's the reasoning why we why we believe that it's reasonable for us to have the same. Okay. Any other questions? Um, has anyone called with interest for this application? Madam Secretary Treasur, Madam Chair, there have been no calls and no one present has their hand up. Okay. Okay, if there's nothing further, who would like to move a motion? Go ahead, Miss Price. Okay. Taking into consideration my site visit and the reports provided by the agent staff and the letter of opposition, it's my opinion the application does not maintain the general intent and purpose of the official plan and zoning bylaw and is not minor in nature and is not desirable for the appropriate development of the subject land. The proposed drawings will result in a dwelling with a mass and a scale that appeals larger than those in the surrounding area. In conclusion, I believe the four Tesla planning act have not been met and I put forth a motion that the application be denied. Okay. Is there discussion on this recommendation? Mr. Talowski. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to be supporting that motion, but I'd just like to add that I I have no doubt that the applicant could build a conforming house which is similar to others in the neighborhood. That's not the issue here. The applicant has come before the committee seeking variances and my opinion has not addressed the impact of those variances through the design. Yeah, I I agree. Mr. Fiki, you would have been better served taking a deferral and um talking with the town to see what you can do to mitigate the situation. Having said that, the motion before us is to deny this application. All those in support. Okay. And the application has been denied. Thank you. Have a good night. Yeah, you me too. Thank you. Application 048 of 2026 at 456 Chamberlain Chamberlane Lane. Again, application 048 of 2026 at 456 Chamberlain Lane. Uh I have Mr. Jason Heather as the agent. Good evening, Madame Chairman. Uh, committee members, thank you very much for your time. Uh, Jason Heater, uh, 20 Gilmore Road, um, from HDS Dwell on behalf of my clients at 456 Chamberlain Lane. Um, we're here, uh, for a new uh, twotory build seeking three minor variances. read through planning staff comments. They appeared to be uh supportive of the application. I'll just quickly run through them. Uh the first one is for building coverage. Um we're seeking to build a rear singlestory unenced covered porch center mass on the rear of the building. Um that is where the additional coverage uh comes from. The house garage and the front porches all comply. Uh the second item if you can sorry if you can go to uh skip a couple slides ahead for me please. Next one. Next one. So there's the lot coverage. That's that piece. So front yard setback. Um the current home on the property sits 14 and a half almost 15 meters back. So it's well back from the two adjacent dwellings. So, we're trying to bring this house uh in line with the neighboring uh properties. Um so, the little front projecting bay uh is 12.02 m away. The neighboring setback is 12.34 and the other neighbor is 13.03. So, we're sort of right in the middle of those two. Uh and it just sort of um um brings the streetscape in into an alignment. Final variance is for a small overage in building height 41 meters. There is a one meter if you can go to the next uh slide there is a 1 meter discrepancy in the uh as shown in the blue line there um for the average grade of the home. Um we've taken all efforts to actually make the house comply 9 meters visually from the grade across the front of the house porch and garage. So um I feel that the the variances meet the four tests and I would uh be happy to answer any questions whatsoever. Okay. Thank you Mr. Heer. Any questions or items of clarification? I see none. Has anyone called with interest for this application? Madam Secretary Treasur, Madam Chair, there have been no calls and no one has their hand up. Okay. Very well. Um, who'd like to move a motion? Mr. Towski, go ahead. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I'll move that this application be approved as applied for, finding that it meets support Tesla Planning Act. I do not believe there will be any negative impacts from these variances. Noting that the coverage is for the porch only, not the dwelling. the setback variance is actually a positive one as it lines up the houses on the street and that the design of the roof um will limit any impact of the additional height. I would make that approval subject to two conditions. That dwelling be constructed internal accordance with the submitted site plan and elevation drawing number one dated 212 2026 and that the approval expires been two years of the decision if the building permit hasn't been issued. And I would also note that there was no objection from the community. Very well. Thank you, Mr. Is there discussion on this recommendation? I see none. All those in support. Okay. The application has been approved. None opposed. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Committee members, have a good evening. You too. application uh 049 of 2026 at 3068 Max Con Boulevard. Again, that's application 49 of 2026 at 3068 MC Con Boulevard. I have Mr. There's Armina Ahmed as the homeowner. Ahmed. Yeah. Just give me a second. Can you hear me? Uh, yes, we can hear you. Sorry, Miss Darina. Zarina Ahmed. Yes. This is Zarina Ahmed from 3068 Max Bollywood. Uh, we have applied for a building permit uh for Can we go to page two, please? Thank you. Thank you so much. We have applied for a building permit for a basement unit. Um and uh the staircase ext the exterior staircase extends out 2.5 m while the bylaws only allow 1.5 m. Uh therefore we are uh we have no choice but to request for a minor variance of 1.02 m. That's all from my side. Okay. And this is for an extra dwelling unit in the basement. Basement. Yes. Okay. Any questions of Miss Ahmed? Miss Price? Um I guess when I went my site visit, I noticed that there's there was a car parked in front of the door up the front door and then there's a car in the driveway. How if you have another unit, where are you going to have all these people parking their cars? Because it's in this area. I'm sorry. Uh you did you finish? I'm sorry. Yes. Yes. Yeah. You okay? In this area there is a lot of basement units. And usually the people who uh get the basement units, they park on the main road. They take special permits and they park on the road uh just next to my lane. Yeah. Okay. So, when you this the people that are going to move into your unit, they have one car or will they have two cars or you don't? It's going to be a small unit. So, one car would be Okay. All right. Um I'm just wondering if since the bus uh the the public transport is very convenient in the lane next to us, we boom drive. It's a thoroughare now. So I believe that using a public transport would be very easier for a probable tenant. Okay. I was just wondering if the um planner has any comments with respect to is there are they required with to have dedicated parking in this house? Maybe the planner can just tell me more about the parking if that's available. Yeah. through you. U Madam Chair, in in this case a um a variance for parking has not been requested. Um but um and it seems like um that the variance has been requested are applicable to the proposal. Um but if the parking space and variance has been missed um it would be caught during building permit and they would have to come back for a variance. But in this case, a variance for parking has not been requested and it was assessed based on the um um the the projection of the staircase. Okay. Even though it's a single car garage, it doesn't matter. Okay. I guess zoning would have flagged it, right? Uh and if not, they would flag it at the building permit stage. Have you obtained your building permit or not yet? Um I do not have privy to that information. Okay. We are in the process still. Okay. Does that satisfy your question, Miss Spice? Yes. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Has anyone called with interest for this application? Madam Secretary, Treasurer, Madam Chair, there have been no calls and no one has their hand up. Very well. Um, in that case, we'll take the matter into committee. Who would like to move a motion? Mr. Towski. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I'm prepared to move that this application be approved as applied for finding that it meets the test of planning act. Do not believe there'll be an impact from this variance. I would note uh further to the discussion that there is no requested variance for parking. I believe the way the bylaw is written. While certain areas of the town require an additional space for accessory units, North Oakville bylaw does not. I would note that there was no objection from the community and uh I'd make the approval subject to the uncovered stairs being constructed general accordance with the plan stated uh 2811 2025 and that the approval expires if the building permit has not been issued within two years of the decision. Okay. Thank you Mr. Towski. Is there discussion on this recommendation? I see none. All those in support. Okay. Uh the application has been approved. None opposed. Application has been approved. Thank you. Have a good night. You too. Bye. Now application 50 of 2026 at 74 Kingswood Road. again. Um, this is application 50 at 74 Kingwood Road. I have Aden Price as our agent. Go ahead. Uh, good evening, Madam Chair, fellow committee members. Uh, my name is Addison Milton Price. I'm a registered professional uh, planner employed by Design Plan Services located at 87 Skyway A Toronto. here on behalf of the owner. Good evening, Mr. Price. Go ahead. Uh, absolutely. Certainly. So, I'm I'm before you today to request uh one minor variance uh to facilitate uh posted single detached dwelling. Right now, there's a one-story single on the property and this application would replace it with a two-story detached dwelling. Um, I'll just start by confirming I've reviewed the staff report paired and I'm in agreement with uh all of their their comments and the proposed conditions of approval. Um, like I mentioned, this application requires just one minor variance uh for uh floor space. Um, the variance is is driven by the the specific design and massing of the proposed dwelling. And I'll point out that this one variance we're requesting is numerically small, representing a difference of of just 2.4 42% or 18.6 square meters from what's permitted as of right. Um also you'll note um as demonstrated on the site plan the proposal complies with all other zoning provisions uh including front, rear and sideyard setbacks. Uh this ensures that although there is a small amount of additional floor space in this design uh there will be adequate spatial separation and soft landscaping opportunities uh will be maintained throughout the property. Uh in addition, the proposed building uh is compliant with the maximum height. Um furthermore, my research of uh sim similar committee of adjustment uh decisions in the neighborhood uh demonstrates that variances of a similar scale uh and larger have been consistently approved recently uh such as 103 North Forester Park Drive at 45% as well as 28 Crescent Road at 43.79%. Uh overall this single variance is is minor in nature, maintains the general intent and purpose of the official plan and zoning bylaw uh and is desirable for the appropriate development of the land. Um therefore I uh respectfully complete my presentation although I'm happy to answer any questions about this variance. Okay. Are there any questions or items of clarification? I see none. Has anyone called with interest for this occasion? M Secretary Treasurer. Madam Chair, there have been no calls and no one has their hand up. Okay, very well. We'll take the matter into committee. Who would like to move a motion? Go ahead, Miss Price. Taking into consideration my site visit, the reports provided by the agent and staff, and there being no letters of opposition, I find the variances to be find the variance to be minor in nature and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the official plan and zoning bylaw. The stepbacks and mixture materials and roof line articulation are in keeping with the scale, size, and character of the neighborhood. In conclusion, I believe the forecasts of the planning act have been met and the application be subject to the following conditions. That the drawing be constructed in general accordance with the submitted site plan dated an elevation drawings dated February 13, 2026 and that the approval expires two years from the date of the decision if a building permit has not been issued has not been issued for the proposed construction. Okay. Thank you for that. Is there discussion on this recommendation? I see none. All those in support. Okay. The application has been approved. None opposed. Good evening. Your application has been approved. Have a nice evening. Uh application 53 of 2026 at 3060 Senica Drive. Again, that's 053 of 2026 at 3060 Senica Drive. I have Miss Lindseay Bruce as our agent. Good evening, Madam Chair, members of committee. It is actually Joel Taylor on this evening. Good evening, Mr. Tenner. Go ahead. Hi there, committee. Thank you so much uh for listening in on the proposal this evening. I just want to start out by saying that we do have uh letters of support which we did provide on today's presentation. Uh in addition to that, our clients did manage to connect with the neighbor on the eastand side uh who was very much not in support of the proposal. Um had some very positive discussions with uh the uh the neighbors today and have resolved uh the concerns. The main issue is that the documentation that landed in the neighbor's inbox um confused the neighbor in terms of the sideyard setback variance and our proximity and just not understanding that was an architectural feature. Uh we also had discussions with the neighbors a year ago regarding the tree removals and kind of reinstated those discussions this evening. So we made some really positive progress with the neighbors today um to try to resolve and and move forward on that side of things. Um so start off after that preamble with today's presentation of 3060 Senica. Next slide please. Uh so it's currently a two-story dwelling. Uh we are looking to remove the existing dwelling and replace it with a new contemporary design which is very much uh you know the happening approach to a lot of the dwellings that are uh being erected over the last 48 months in the uh in the direct vicinity. Next slide please. uh requested variance number one is permit a minimum Nordly interior sideyard of 67 versus the 1.2 required. Now I just want to reiterate so on this bottom right hand photo uh the slide this is an architectural projection towards that neighbor uh that I was just speaking about. Um so again it's just an architectural projection. Um I want to also reiterate that the entirety of the proposed dwelling um with the exception of that architectural projection fully uh encompasses outside of that 1.2 m required sideyard setback. Uh next slide please. Um so requested variance number two is related to the overall RFA. Uh allowable is sitting at 29%. We are at 29.81. Um we have a quick little highlight schematic here just showing you where that growth uh projection is happening. Um so one of the owners of the property uh they do work from home full-time and so the idea is what we want to do is we wanted to take the office kind of outside the primary dwelling envelope. Um so that additional square footage of 165.09 ft or 15.34 square meters it's is what's within that rear den or office. uh highlighted in blue in the floor plan as well as in that 3D diagram schematic. Um so that's really what's kind of pushed us over the edge on the on the overall GFA massing. This is also a good point to pause just to note how on the the second floor overall floorprint which you're seeing on the bottom of your screen right now. Um we're very much trying to keep the twostory massing aligned with the neighbors. um the singlestory massing as much as it does project further into our yard versus the neighboring yards. Again, we're really trying to kind of constrain um our massing so that we're not towering over the the the neighboring properties to the left or to the right. Um so that's a good depiction there on the bottom right of that second floor floor plate. Next slide, please. Um so staff comments um are are very much not in support of the application. Um they have concerns regarding massing and scale. Um now where we stand on this is I mean we don't quite agree with staff comments. Um there's six images or sorry five images of houses in the neighborhood. These are all recent builds in the last kind of four, five, seven years. All of which have quite substantial uh two-story massing. So whether it's a contemporary dwelling like you see in four of the images or the white image which is the fifth one in the center there uh that's a more traditional form but again really really heavy two-story massing. Um so again I I do understand that we do have a a a fairly visual very strong two-story massing on the front elevation but I do feel that it's in keeping with the neighborhood and what's already been built in the neighborhood. I also want to reiterate a few points. Proposed height of our dwelling is 7.79. Allowable is 9. So we are significantly less than than the overall allowable building height. Uh proposed lot coverage is 28.3 again much less than the allowable 35%. Uh the overall dwelling width including that second floor projection which we're requesting. We're sitting at 21.3 which is less than the 21.66 allowable. Um and again just reiterating that the additional GFA is coming from a main floor element only which is disconnected from that main uh GFA volume of the uh the SFD. Um so I I think that the the proposal put forth in front of the committee and in front of the town this evening um is very much in keeping with what's happened in in the neighborhood. Uh is going to be structurally sound, an absolutely stunning piece of architecture that is going to improve the street value um and the overall streetscape of of the envelope. Um, town forestry. Um, so, uh, town staff don't have any concerns with the proposed tree removals. Again, had those discussions with the neighbors. They no longer have those concerns. Uh, Halton Conservation has no concerns. They would release the permit, uh, once we have, uh, building permit approvals in place. Um, next slide, please. Uh, so again, community engagements. We do have three neighbors in support. 3061 Senica, 17 Missaga, 19 Missaga. Um, I'm not sure if you guys want me to touch on our uh opposition commentary here from 3052. I did touch on uh some of those items at the very very start of the um of the presentation. Again, we seem to be on the on the same page with the neighbor at this time. So, we can circle back to this if you guys do have any questions related to that. Uh, next slide, please. Um and again this is the you know final kind of overall vision of the front elevation as well as that rear elevation where you can see that more dominant singlestory massing on the rear elevation and obviously the more dominant two-story elevation on the front streetscape very much in keeping with the rest of the houses on the street. Um looking to create a you know stunning piece of architecture, very unique materials. Um clients have lived in the neighborhood for years are looking to build this as their long-term family home. This is not a flip project. It's going to be a heavily invested project. uh more than happy to answer any questions that the committee members or town staff have. Thank you so much, committee. Very well. Any questions of the uh agent at this time? Go ahead, Mr. Towski. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Bruce, I I can't help but think you've got this house backwards. You've got the uh softer elevations in the back and the dominant one in the front. um you've chosen to do a very dominant two-story house with um virtually no articulation, which um in my opinion does not make the ones that you showed on the screen comparable because they have significant articulation or slope proof components. I I guess my question is you you chose to do essentially twostory full walls and then why did you choose to accentuate that even more by putting a feature on it that makes it look even larger than the actual house is. So through you, Madam Chair, um if we were to theoretically flip the overall massing, uh what would happen is you might have a more approachable facade for town staff um from the streetscape. The negative impact would be that a very heavy two-story dominant facade gets pushed to the rear of the home and all of a sudden becomes a substantial shading concern for both neighbors on the east and west side of our property. And so by forcing that dominant twotory structure to the front and very much aligning with the existing homes that that are there today, uh there aren't any negative shading impacts on the neighboring dwellings. Um, furthermore, um, when I look at the two variances that we're requesting, we're we're looking at two items that are in our opinion quite small from a technical perspective. So, if I were to remove that architectural projection, um, which, you know, in theory, uh, Mr. Towelski is feasible, right? I I could pull that detail in and remove variance number one. I could also in theory remove that detached office um can you know and still keep that roof line intact um as drawn today and I'm meeting all of the conformities of the variance and so I think the reality of of our approach today and the proposal in front of you today is that um I could build this house without any variances uh and there wouldn't be uh any conditions in which town staff would have any commentary um and I and I really haven't necessarily change anything drastic other than removing the office living space from the very rear of the massing, but I could very much for the most part keep the massing intact and undisturbed. So I that's why I think we landed where we did where again we're trying to create a unique piece of architecture. There are twotory facads on the streetscape. So we didn't feel that there was a negative impact because we created an envelope that wasn't shading the neighbors properties. But you're not complying with the bylaw. You wouldn't be here if you were complying with the bylaw. So I don't see how that argument holds any weight. You're asking for variances to the bylaw. In my view, the onus is on you to mitigate the impact. It's very similar to one we had earlier tonight. You can build a house based on the existing bylaw that in in my opinion would be out of character with the adjacent neighborhood, but that's the right you have. But you're not choosing to do that. You're choosing to try to make it bigger. And but I I think you've gone the opposite way and trying instead of trying to mitigate the impact, you've chosen to exasperate it through your design. Through you, Madam Chair. um we might have to you know I want to reiterate that we are close to five or 6 feet shorter than the max allowable building height and so I think as much as we do have a dominant twotory facade I'm not trying to max out the building height to 9 mters which is that other five or six feet which again would would create a pretty substantial stature so if committee would tie an approval tonight to that 7.79 meter building height um then it restricts us from a development perspective uh to to meet the architectural intent that we've created today to not then all of a sudden stretch that volume and really dominate the streetscape. Again, we're we're under on lock coverage. We're under on overall dwelling width. We're uh you know, we're and we're really just looking at a minor GFA tolerance detail and an architectural projection on a sideyard. Um, food for thought. Thank you. I just have some questions, too. Sorry. No, no, go ahead. The window does to me the front looks like there's the windows are not very big. So, is it dark inside the house? because it looks like it would be cuz you don't have big windows or anything. You've got like windows that just are straight and it to me it just looks like a a massive wall. Like when the I think the planner said it looks just like a massive wall. There's no articulation at all. And I'm just wondering how does it affect the inside of the house? Yeah. So the entirety of the rear facade is glass. Uh the entirety of the rear facade is facing south. And so there is a massive amount of natural light coming into all primary living spaces of the home. Uh from the south side we have a two-story volume inside the home on the rear facade which is going to be spreading that light deep into the volume. the depth of the volume on the main on the second floor isn't isn't very substantial. Uh there is intent behind the size of those windows because there uh are three kids bedrooms. We're seeking privacy from those bedroom spaces. So we do want a small amount of natural light coming into those spaces. What we did do it to enhance the facade. We're not looking to build a twotory pink stuccoed box. We're looking to create something that has a beautiful curve, an ornate stone detail. There's taper introduced on the bottom of each window and the top of each window to create these small recesses and these accentuations. There's a really substantial cantal lever of the second floor hanging over the main floor at the right hand side which is the garage of the home. And so I think what we're trying to do is apply more of a brutalist contemporary uh facade with really really highlevel elegance to what is a simple facade. So, um, so again, not trying to create a really boring stuckco cube. We're trying to really elevate our materiality and allow the materiality to better express what is this very simple and ornate uh, structure that you have in front of you today. Okay. I noticed two two letters of support were from people that live on a different street. They live on Missaga. There was only one. The person who objected actually lives on the street on lives on Sica. Yes. So we have we have um uh where is yes we have 3061 Senica um which is right across the street which is uh which is in support of the of the application. Um so they'll be the ones staring at the building um day in and day out. So they do have we do have support from neighbor right across the street. I mean, I get that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I just don't understand why you couldn't set back the the top portion, the second story portion so that it's not almost like a wall standing on a pedestal because that's what it looks like in the pictures and maybe I'm looking at the picture wrong. Yeah. No, I mean very much that was the intent you know is that we are looking to create a can lever projection and uh and for that second story to be a very strong horizontal linear form. Um again that linear form is sitting 5 ft less than max building height projection. Um, and yeah, there was, you know, eyes in the beholder. It's not everybody's cup of tea, but from an architectural perspective, we did have some intent of that overall horizontal pro profile being a dominant detail for the for the massing in the home specifically. Okay. And you could you could build as is without any variances, but the moment you ask for variances, the town has a say in what is being built and how it's being built. And that's the caveat for you. You know what I mean? No one can say anything to anyone who wants to build a design that they've aspired for or dreamt of so long as they built within those parameters. Yep. Yep. No, and that's why I was trying to just reinforce is that, you know, I do realize that we're asking for variances. Um, and we push very hard with our clients to try to minimize or remove any variances as much as possible on any of our projects in the last 15 years working in the town of Oakville. Um, and I think the reality is if you know committee is not in support of the application today, tomorrow we modify the plans and and so we we submit as is with the two modifications. And so I think the intent of the project will remain intact whether town staff and committee support it tonight or not. Um, obviously we're going through our due diligence process that, you know, we're coming forth with these small minor requests. If they're not in support, we will make a ve, you know, tomorrow and and move forward accordingly on the project. Um, and fully realize that we're at the, you know, the committee's helm here. And, and the reason we didn't defer is we feel like it's kind of an all or nothing approach. There is really isn't a minimization approach that we want to take. um because we do feel that the two the two items are fairly minor in nature for the overall visual of the project. So we figured let's see if the committee can get on board and uh and put forth presentation this evening. Fair enough. That's that's the client's prerogative of course. Okay. Has uh anyone called with interest for this application? Madam Secretary Treasur? Madam Chair, there have been no calls and no one has their hand up. Very well. and we'll take the matter into committee and we'll uh have a motion. Who would like to start the ball rolling? Go ahead, Mr. Tal. Thanks, Madam Chair. Um, I guess it's fair to say I'm disappointed in the applicant's position that we can build almost all of this. So, we're not going to try to work with uh staff to come up with a less uh impactful design. Uh you know, I I as I said earlier, I'm I'm not swayed by the argument because they're trying to build beyond the bylaw. There is an onus to try to mitigate the impact. The applicants chosen not to. I'm also not swayed by the argument that we could have more coverage and we could have more height because I think a more appropriate solution with the right amount of articulation would probably work if he did have some areas with more height and even greater coverage. But they've chosen not to do that with what's in front of us today. And I appreciate that we will probably see 90% of it built um based on the comments from the applicant, but um what's before us today, Madame Chair, I do not believe it meets the intent of the official plan design guidelines. I do not believe it meets the intent of the bylaw with cutting the second floor in half or second story setback in half even though it is just a design feature, but that's what you will see from the street. uh I do not believe in any way that what's in front of us is desirable and the impact of these variances is not minor. So Madame Chair, I'm going to move the application be denied. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Towski. Is there discussion on this recommendation? I see none. All those in support. Denied. Denied. Right. Well, support of the denial. Yes, I support the denial. Yes. Okay. So, the application has been uh denied. None opposed. Okay. Thanks so much, committee. Have a good evening. You, too. Okay. Um, we have minutes to confirm from March 18. Thanks, Miss Price. Minutes are confirmed and a motion to adjourn. Thank you, Miss Price. Motion adjourned. We are adjourned at 8:15 p.m.

Full Transcript