Transcript - Variances Approved and Denied - Committee of Adjustment, March 18, 2026

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 oakville.ca. This is a hearing to consider applications for minor varants and consents held under the authority of the planning act. Please keep in mind that the intent of this process is to review the application that is before us, 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 arise 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 have adopted the following process. If you are watching the live stream of this hearing on oakville.ca and you wish to speak to an item on the agenda, you can call 9058156095. Again, the number is 9058156095. The phone number will also be posted at the live page screen. Staff will be standing by to take your call. And 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 for you to call back to join the video conference. When the chair of the committee pulls for interested parties, you'll have to press star six to unmute yourself. The applicant or agent will be given the opportunity to briefly explain the committee to the committee the basis of the application. Answer any questions that may arise. A maximum of five minutes will be provided for presentation. You will be asked to state your full name and address for the record. Any submissions 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 for 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 a further five minutes to respond to any questions or um comments made by interested parties. Uh if the applicant or agent has any concerns found in staff report particularly any proposed condition 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 discussions. Any person desiring a notice of decision for an application must provide a written request preferably through email to the secretary treasurer. Written notice of the committee's decision will be mailed no later than 10 days for minor variance and 15 days for consent applications to the applicant and 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 and specified persons or public bodies may be able to appeal to the comm the committee's decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal. Please note that in November of 2022, Bill 23 legislation, the More Homes Build 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. The secretary treasurer will then be notified, the applicant, anyone who has received a copy of the decision through written correspondence. People participating in this hearing are to be courteous of and all members of the committee, town staff, and other people participating in this electronic hearing. Tonight's electronic hearing will be video recorded and available for future viewing at oakville.ca. Thank you. Uh any no regrets this evening? Any declarations of peer interest? Go ahead, Mr. Talowski. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, for A035 at 309 Balsson, I'm going to maintain the conflict that I declared when this property was previously before the committee. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Palowski. Any other declarations? I see none. Okay. Madam Secretary, Treasurer, um, all those who have asked for deferral withdrawals of applications. Anyone in the audience who seeks to withdraw or defer an application to further discuss this with town staff, please raise your hand and the secretary treasurer will invite you in to speak. Madame chair. Yes, I'm showing three hands. The first is Pamir Rafi. Okay, go ahead. Thank you. Hello. Yes, go ahead. Uh yeah, uh I'm just uh um here to request a deferral. Um I am the owner uh I'm the uh architectural designer and planner for my client who's the owner of 569 Le and uh we received as comments from planning staff in which there was no recommendation for approval. So, we'd like to take this opportunity and ask for a deferral to revise the drawings to come uh towards um the planning staff and see if you can come to an agreement with the revised drawing and resubmit. Very well. Thank you, Mr. Rafy. Uh, anyone interested in this application? Application 034 of 2026 569 Leane. This application is requesting a deferral. Um, members, all those who are in support of a deferral. The application has been deferred. You'll see the secretary treasur at your earliest convenience. And once again, anyone interested in this application will get a another notice when the application does come before the committee. Thank you. We have another hand up, Madam Chair. Mr. Curtis Vanculan. Committee members 83. I'm representing file number 40 A40-2026 at 1358 Cedric Crescent. I'd like to request a deferral to work with town staff, revise our proposal, and come back to you at a later date. Very well. Thank you. Thank you. All members, all those in support of a deferral. Okay. The application has been deferred. None opposed. Anyone interested in application 040 of 2026 at 1358 Pedwick Crescent will be notified when the application does come before the the committee. Thank you, Miss Price. Um I just wanted to note that there's um the sign hasn't been posted or it was posted but it's not there anymore. Okay. Well, Mr. Vancul, you'll let your client know so that they don't lose the opportunity to come before the committee the next time that this does appear before us. Yes, I suspect it was the wind the other day. Thank you. Okay, Madam Secretary, treasure. Anyone else? Yes, we have one more hand. Uh, Sabah al methno. One moment. Good afternoon madame chair and committee members. My name is SNO. I'm representing file A042-2026 193 Walder Drive and we are before you to ask for deferral to give us time to address comments that we received from planning. Very well. Thank you Mr. Mino. All those in support of a deferral. Okay, the application has been deferred. You'll see the secretary treasure at your earliest convenience. And anyone interested in application 042 of 2026 at at 193 Wilder Drive, you will be receiving further notice when the application does come before the committee. Thank you. Thank you. Have a good evening. Is that uh all madam secretary treasure? We have no one else waiting. That's right. No more hands showing. Thank you. Okay. All right. We will We have no concerns applications. The first item on our agenda this evening is application 002 of 2026 deferred from January the 21st at 246 Jones Street. I have Mr. Ted Lockton here as showing as the agent. Good evening. Good evening, Mr. Lockson. Go ahead. Thank you. Uh uh so my name is Harrison Ted Loxton with Bay View Design Group and I'm here on behalf of Mr. Anand regarding the property at 246 Jones in Oakville. Uh so I've reviewed staff report and uh just like to bring up a few uh or I guess highlight a few points here. Uh as noted, this application was deferred from the January 21st meeting to allow me to meet with uh planning staff and and submit a revised application that would be acceptable to staff, my client, myself. Uh so the slide on the screen currently uh is a rendering of the uh proposed dwelling to be built and if we can go to the next slide please. Okay so this is a a Google street view image of the property showing the proposed lot with you see the tree hoarding in place that's the subject property uh as well as the neighboring dwellings on each side. So, as illustrated here, the neighboring homes are relatively large in scale, and so the proposed dwelling would be more consistent with those homes instead of the the fairly small home that's uh currently on 246 Jones. Uh, however, the massing wasn't the basis for staff's previous recommendation for refusal. Uh, and if we can go to the next slide, please. Okay. Uh so here's uh uh we can see the original ask on the left and the revised on the right. And uh the notable changes uh uh the first one being the banding uh that that extends uh it extends across the uh the front face of the dwelling now to separate the large which I had as a basically a twostory window. uh and the the second was to separate the one large garage door into uh uh two smaller garage doors. So these changes were done at the request of town staff who are now in support of uh this proposal. Uh and if we can go to the next slide please. Uh okay. So the the variance ask didn't change uh as we'll see on the next slide with the exception of a typo that I had. And if we can go to the next uh the next slide. Uh so here are the site stats uh with the lot coverage being at 39.8% 8% where 35% maximum is permitted and the RF8 to lot ratio of 43.55 where 41% is permitted. And both of these we tried keeping it uh you know as close to allowable as possible. So we do have some minor increases. Uh and beyond that I'd like to thank you for your time and consideration of our application and I'm here to answer any questions. Any questions on Mr. Lockton? Okay. Has anyone called with interest for this application? Madam Secretary Treasure, we've had no calls and no hands. Very well. Then I'll take a motion. Go ahead, Mr. Hardcastle. Thank you, Madam Chair. Having undertaken my site visit, having reviewed the materials, including the written staff report, having heard Mr. Lockton's uh presentation, I'm prepared to put forward a motion uh to approve the requested variances uh finding that they conform to the port test of the act. Um, the motion would be subject to the two standard conditions that are noted within the staff report, namely being that the dwelling be constructed in general accordance with the submitted site plan dated February 4th, 2026 and elevation drawings dated February 5th, 2026. That the approval will expire within two years of the date of the decision if a building permit has not been issued for the proposed construction. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Hart Castle. Is there a discussion on this recommendation? I see none. All those in support. Very well. The application has been approved. None opposed. Thanks very much. Have a good evening. You too. Thanks. Application 032 of 20206 at 357 Satan Drive. Again, that's application 032 of 2026 at 357 Satan Drive. I have Mr. Richard Kak as the agent. Mr. Kak, are you with us? I see you. I just can't hear you or see you. Sorry. Good evening, Madam Chairman and members of the committee. Good evening. Sorry, got to put that on. I'm Richard Kosak, the agent of the owners for uh at 357 Satan Drive. Um today we have two variances. There is a slide presentation as well. It's on screen. So that's the u infill twostory single family home. The two variances we have are um the first variance is the garage floor area. Um if you went to slide four, you can see the garage from plan view. So the excess uh floor area for the garage it's 62.28 square meters where 45 square meters is the maximum. Uh you can see it's a tandem garage. So the street facing is still two garage doors and the excess garage space is in tandem with one of the bays. The second variance we have is for lot coverage uh of 27.96% where 25% is the is the max in our case that includes the covered rear veranda the covered front ver uh and the entire footprint of the home including the garage that concludes my presentation if you have any questions I'm be happy to answer them thank you Mr. Kak. Any questions of Mr. Kak from the committee members at this time? I see none. Uh, has anyone called with interest for this application? Madam Secretary Treasur, we've had no calls and no hands. Very well. And there's no interest from the public. Who would like to move a motion? Go ahead, Miss Price. Miss Price, you're uh muted. Taking into account my site visit, the reports from the agent and staff, and there being no letters of opposition, I believe the revised application to be minor in nature and is in keeping within general intent and purpose of the official plan and zoning bylaw and is desirable for the appropriate development of the land. The proposed development also maintains and protects the character of the existing neighborhood and does not present unacceptable adverse impacts. As mentioned by the staff, the lower roof lines and stepbacks help to break up mass and scale of the proposed dwelling. Having a tandem parking configuration allows for the additional indoor parking without having adversely affecting the character of the neighborhood. In conclusion, I believe the four tests have been met. I re and I recommen the application be approved subject to the following conditions. That the dwelling be constructed in general accordance with submitted site plan dated February 2nd, 2026 and elevation drawings be submitted with the application that the approved the approval expires two years from the date of the decision of a building permit has not been issued for the proposed construction. Thank you, Miss Bryce. Is there a discussion on this recommendation? I see none. All those in support. Okay. The application has been approved. None opposed. Thank you, Madam Chairman, members of the committee. Good evening. Good evening. Application uh 33 of 2026 at 14 Devon Road. Again, it's application 033 of 2026 at 1410 Devon Road. I have Mr. Vanculan as the agent. Again, Madam Chair, fellow committee members, my name is Curtis Vanculum, the agent for A33 2026. We're here tonight for three variances. The first is a RFA variance. If staff would go to page 10 of the submitted document Just referencing a diagram of the front elevation when staff is able to bring it up. Wonderful. Thank you so much. Our attempt on the design was to set back the second floor of the dwelling. Uh you'll see a large step back over top of the garage. um over top of the entry feature which has also been split up into two portions to accentuate more of a divide at the single story and break up the massing of the front entrance. Also an attempt to reduce the massing was also made for the living room off to the leftand side of the front entrance feature. Uh that living room ceiling has also been reduced and pushed down. uh and the roof massing on top of the second floor has been cut in above that. Uh we believe that these combined effects on the front facade really buffer the massing of the home to the neighboring properties. Um slightly down on the same page, you can see a side elevation which gives you a idea of the height of the roof over top of the family room. The family room at the back of the house has also been reduced to the same height. Uh there's a another illustration on the second page to that that also shows the setbacks to the front elevation. So overall, the setting back of the second floor and the lowering of the one and a half story ceilings really reduce the overall impact of the mass, thus allowing for the RFA increase. Our second variance is the lock coverage. Uh we're going for a minor lock coverage variance on this simply because of the singlestory rear yard covered porch. It is positioned in the middle of the proposed structure and it separates that extension off of the rear of the structure from the neighboring and it would not impact the neighboring properties whatsoever. Uh the third variance is a garage size variance. We're asking for a very minor amount 1.5 square meters over. Um, it's mainly just to allow for a bit of storage space around the vehicles on the sides and the rear of the garage. With that, we believe these three variances meet the four tests and I turn it back to you for any questions. Okay, thank you. Any questions from uh many members? Okay, I see none. Have anyone called with interest for this application? Madam Secretary, Treasurer, we've had no calls and showing no hands. Okay. Sorry. Would like to move a motion? We do have a hand up. I'm sorry. Oh, is that Mr. Dicki? No, we have uh there's a Rosemary uh Van Stralin. Okay. Uh oh. Madame Chair, my apologies. I can wait until the public uh has a chance to speak. Mr. Dicki, did you have your hand up? Well, just to make the motion. I thought you asked for the motion. Sorry. Yeah. I I wasn't aware that someone had their hand up. Okay. Madam Secretary, Treasure, if there's someone who's showed interest in this application, please invite them in to speak. We'll do. Thank you. Hi. Uh, I'm not a formal uh or madam chair, I'm not familiar with this whole process. Um, I was just a next door neighbor, so I'm at 1402 Devon. Uh, so questions that I had, um, is that the driveways moved to the opposite side of the existing structure. Um, and is that typical? Um, and I guess how many feet is that new garage uh in proximity to the 1402 property? Okay, we can certainly get you those answers. Um, the other Sorry, the last question I had too is trees. There's probably three or four very large trees. Um, what will be the impact of those in the backyard? Okay, Mr. Vancul, go ahead. Yes. So, staff wants to bring up the proposed site plan. I can certainly answer those questions. It would be page two of the submitted documents. So, if you'd be able to zoom in just slightly, we would be able to show the U garage. The proposed garage is uh slightly closer to 1402. However, it's within the setbacks of the zoning bylaw. So we are 1.2 meters on that side of the home from the property line. So four feet from the property line. Whereas currently we're just slightly over 2 meters right now. Uh so it's going from about two and a little bit uh I think it's 2.3. It's covering up uh to 1.2 meters on that side. Uh again within the legal uh zoning bylaw setback requirements. Uh there are three trees that look like will need to be removed. One of them will be one of the larger ones. It's within the buildable footprint of the both the zoning bylaw allowed buildable footprint as well as the buildable footprint that we're proposing. Uh you can see that roughly on the right hand side just behind where the garage would be or where the driveway would be. Uh the larger tree there. Uh we are um making we are making sure that the front tree in the front yard is to be remained or to be retained um and will remain. Uh there's a small very small tree in front of the existing home uh that will be removed. I think it's noted actually as a shrub when I look closer. So uh we are proposing a um sort of a circular driveway that will go around one of the large trees. So there will be a second entrance added to this this property. Uh so the tree is the setback. I believe that was the main question if I do recall. Yeah. And the that the driveway is typical. I think that's probably why you designed it this way so that you can save that tree. Correct. Yes. Making every attempt to save the large tree in the front. As many trees as we can save. We we always try. Yes. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Vanu. All right. Anyone else uh had their hand raised or was interested to ask questions? I'm not showing any more hands. Thank you. Okay. Um All right. We'll take a motion. Um Mr. Dicki, I'm going to let Mr. Towski take this one because um we're going to lose him on the next one because of his conflict. Go ahead, Mr. Towski. Thank you for that consideration, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I'm pleased to move uh this application be approved as applied for, finding that it meets the test of the planning act. I believe the design of this house will mitigate any potential impacts that may have occurred. I would note that there was a a neighbor with questions, which I believe the applicant has addressed. Madam Chair, I would make that approval subject to two conditions. That the dwelling be constructed in general accordance with the submitted site plan dated January 22nd, 2025 and the elevation drawings dated January 20, 2025 and that the approval expire within two years if the building permit has not been issued. Thank you, Mr. Towski. Is there a recommendation on the discussion on this recommendation? I see none. All those in support. Okay. The application has been approved. None opposed. Thank you everyone. Good evening. Have a good evening. Okay. So, we are uh taking application 035 of 2025 at 30 Bson Drive. Again, that's application 035 of 2025 at 309 Balsam Drive. I have Mr. Demcheck here as the agent. Madame Chair, there was a typo on our uh information for tonight that this is uh A035 of 2026. Oh, okay. Sorry. All right. This is again 035 of 2026. Nonetheless, it's 30309 Bam Drive. And um we have battery planning. I don't know is Mr. J check with us. Go ahead Mr. D. Sorry about that. I was just stuck in the uh the waiting room for a brief moment. Uh yes, thank you staff for pulling up the presentation. Um so we could jump into it. My name is Paul Deck with Ptori Planning and Management. I'm here on behalf of the um applicant and owner for 309 Balsson Drive. If I could take you to the next slide. Um this is just obviously a current aerial photo. I'll just briefly note uh for the benefit of the committee and the public properties on the east side of Balsam Drive as you can see just from the lot fabric are significantly larger obviously than the properties on the the west side of Balsam Drive. And there's a few nuances specific to this property um in formulating some of the decision- making we had um and the location of of the proposed Port Crocher which is uh which is being asked for this evening. Um if I could take you to the next slide please. Uh this is just um actually current aerial and drone photographs that were taken uh just about a week ago uh from the subject property and this is what it it looks like in its current state. I'll note you can see the property to the if you look at the image on the top left um on the left of that image um you can see the adjacent um house um it's a little unique in this instance and there's as there's a legal non-conforming condition uh in this case um and I'll bring it up briefly in another moment but there's actually a garage an existing detached garage that's in the front of that dwelling at 319 Balsam Drive and you can see the dwelling at the rear of the property. In that case, uh if I could take you to the next slide, please. And so what's being asked for um is no changes obviously in terms of what was previously approved to the existing dwelling. That's obviously currently under construction and the footprint of that existing dwelling is shown here uh for the benefit of the committee. Um that that application was approved in July of 2023 uh at the time by the Interland Tribunal. And there were at the time there was a number of variances and one of the variances I'll particularly call out is three garages that were approved as part of that OOLT decision. Um you can see I'll start maybe on the right hand side of the screen you can see the one singlecar garage that's located on the bottom right of the dwelling. Uh on the right hand side of this image um that uh garage door is the only one I would suggest uh that is visible from the streetscape perspective. Uh, garage two is located on the left hand side. Uh, I'll call it the left wing of the entrance of the dwelling. Um, and that's a side entrance garage. And then the third technical garage is actually the Port Crocher, which is right at the front of the property where the circular drive is shown. And so what's before the committee this evening is what's highlighted in yellow being um an additional portcher or carport um as it's noted in the staff report um which is proposed for two variances which is a reduced a reduction sorry to the sideyard setback um as well as um the number of garages in this instance. Um I'll note that this garage um if I could take you to the next slide uh these are just some uh front and rear elevations. In this case, um you can see um it's an open air port crocher or carport which is on the front elevation. You can see it on the left hand side. Um so there's obviously uh two main I'll call it posts. Again, it's an open air port koscher. Um it has 47 square meters in total area and a height of 5.21 m which is less than half of the height of the total main height or maximum height sorry of the dwelling. Uh so it's intended to be minor and obviously overall scale uh and not have any massive impacts by it obviously not being entirely enclosed. If I could take you to the next slide. Um just as it relates to that garage obviously as I mentioned where it's located on the dwelling is actually roughly 8 m behind the front facing wall of the dwelling. uh is obviously located in the sideyard condition where there's significant setbacks from the main dwelling to that side property line. Uh in this case of over seven meters and so obviously it's only uh the portion of the proposed um carport that obviously is seeking the reduction in the sideyard setback and where it's located obviously interfaces with that existing two-story garage to the north and not the existing dwelling to the north. If I could take you to the next slide please. Uh this is just a rendering that was prepared to help visualize this a little bit better. There's obviously significant intended uh planting um on both properties uh that are being shown. Uh and you can see just the scale of how it relates in comparison to that neighboring garage to the north. Uh next slide, please. Um that summarized my presentation. I I will also note there was a letter of support from that neighbor to the north at 319 Bolson Drive um in support of the application. That summarizes my presentation before the committee should there be any questions. Thank you very much. Any questions of Mr. Demchek at this time or items of clarification? Mr. Dicki, go ahead. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um I'm usually pretty fussy about setbacks. So that's my major concern. I wouldn't, you know, the fact that it's it's a fourth uh garage in in a sense isn't the question here. You've got a zoning bylaw setback of 4.2 meters and you want to only have a lousy 1.5 meter setback. You've got a property front edge is probably um oh the front edge is 47 meters. So it's it's way over 100 feet worth of of width, but you're still in infringing on the on the on the side yard setback. Like you you you designed your house, you built that house and and that was fine. I know you had to go to the OM to get that house built and now you've come back and that doesn't matter. That's that's whatever before that's approved. That's fine. But now you're coming back and you're taking your your setback on that north side and and and just taking it as if it was a 40 foot wide lot which has 1.2 meter setbacks, you know, for lots of that size, but you're on this huge huge lot with a substantial width of of facade facing the street. So I I I try to convince me, you know, from what I see the I'm not convinced. I'm giving you the opportunity to convince me. Tell me something that that's going to help me accept this. Thank Thank you, Member Dicki. Uh through you, Madam Chair, member Dicki. Um I hear you uh and your comments about concerns about reduction sideyard. I've obviously been on these uh committee agendas on a number of occasions and I've heard that that specific concern when I and when my myself and my client looked at this application for this uh potential minor addition there's a number of factors that obviously we did consider and so um number one is obviously the distance like this is I would suggest unique lot in a unique condition um if I could ask actually staff to pull out the site plan one more time please um just for my presentation Thank you. Um so uh a few different components. The first one is the distance uh from Balsam Drive to that proposed carport is approximately uh 41 mters from the front yard which is obviously a significant setback. Um number one. Number two, the distance from where that carport is proposed carport is located to that front um building uh wall is an additional 8 m uh of a setback. And then further and this is the main comment that I wanted to flag for the committee is that the unique condition of the neighboring property which has that existing twostory detached garage that's located in the front yard. That's obviously a legal non-conforming condition. It's I'd say quite unique um both within the town context but specifically along Balsam Drive. And so when we looked at um this application obviously the majority of the dwelling not only complies with the sideyard setback but in this instance on this side of the dwelling where you have that side I'll call it garage condition you have just over a 7 meter separation distance from the building to that uh north property line. And so this would from my perspective be an appropriate location to locate the potential carport and any sideyard reduction to allocate for that. The additional component I'll I'll note is in many cases where you're seeking a reduction in sideyard setbacks perhaps it is for actually a portion of the dwelling that might have like a massing or overlook impact. In this case in this case um it's an open air structure. There's no enclosed walls on that portion. Um and so I would suggest before the committee that um there would be no uh no massive impact and and I think the committee should consider obviously the uniqueness of that specific feature. I I hope that helps uh partially answer some of the questions and concerns uh to the member. Thank you Mr. Dick. Anything further Mr. Dicki? Just I'm not convinced. I'm not I'm not comfortable with this. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay, I see none. Um, okay. I do note there's one letter of support, but has anyone called with uh interest for this application? Madam Secretary Treasurer, we've had no calls and no hands showing. Okay, very well. So, if there are no further comments and questions, um, who would like to move a motion? Go ahead, Mr. Dicki. Thank you, Madam Chair. based upon my review of the owner's application of the site plans and the building individ together with my uh site visit I um I feel that this uh is not the um my opinion that the 1.5 meter sideyard setback does not maintain or protect the neighborhood character and I feel that uh the neighborhood as large lots with ample setback to allow separation between houses. And I do not figure in my opinion this is not minor. It's not uh uh appropriate or desirable for this neighborhood. So I put forth a motion to to deny the application. Okay. Is there a discussion on this recommendation? Go ahead, Mr. Hart Castle. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um um I share um Mr. Dicki's concerns with respect to this. This is a significant parcel along Balsam and it is a significantly large building that has significant variances that were approved previously. um this is contributing additionally to the size of the massing um and ultimately the over development of the site. I'll support the motions on the floor. Very well. Thank you, Mr. Hardcastle. Okay, so the motion is to deny. All those in support. I don't see your hand, Miss Price. Is it up or down? I just saw a shadow. That's all I saw. Can Can you unmute yourself, please? I think the prop it should go through. Oh, okay. So, you're you're Okay. So, you're not voting to deny. Um Okay. So, all those in support of the denial. Okay. Uh all those opposed, Miss Price. Thank you. Um, the application has been denied. Thank you and have a good night. Thank you. All right. We have uh application 038 of 2020. Hold on one second. Let me get those dates right. Madam chair, it's a 2026 file as well. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. 2024. Okay. application 03 um 8 of 20 yes 38 of 2026 at 52 52 Chartwell Road. Good evening Mr. Good evening Cronis. Good evening uh Madame Chair, members of the committee. It's a pleasure to be before you today. Uh for the record, my name is Paul Cronis. I'm here on behalf of the owner of 52 Chartwell. Uh, our mailing address is 1320 Cornwall Road, sweet 2011. That's in Oakwell L6J7W5. Um, I have a presentation. Um, I can go through it very quickly. I can give you the highlights. Uh, we've uh made a substantial uh planning justification that was filed in support of the four variances before you today. You also have, I'm I'm sure, read the staff report that is full support of the variances. So what uh what you have in front of you is just a street perspective of uh what's proposed. Uh there's a minor addition in the front and a minor addition in the back. This is uh what we call an uh additional residential units and I know the committee had exposure to the first such application at its last meeting uh for property at u oh I forget the address. Um but you had a at 2026 Breton close. I I I took the opportunity to listen to the tape a few times. Um I think you you have an understanding of the regulations and the changes that were made. I'd be happy to uh overview again for you. Uh but I'd like to just jump into the uh variances and give you the justification sort of the summary of what we've supplied so far. Uh if you can go to the second page. So uh the properties at the northwest corner of uh Carson Lane and uh Chartwell. You may recall this property in 2023. Uh the staff report summarizes that we had a a consent application that was approved with a concurrent minor variance to uh recognize Chartwell Road as a frontage for the purpose of the bylaw. That application was abandoned. Um uh we did not pursue to create two lots. client uh had a change in plans and pursuit the at that time the arus were were coming forward and rather than have six arus on two lots he decided to have uh two arus plus the principal dwelling on the single lot to provide for more uh contemporary build form and uh and and footage and um size of units. If you go to the next page, um what you see here in in faint green is the outline of the existing building substantially that's going to be uh maintained. There's an addition that you see in crosshatch in the front and one in the north side. Um and so the the setbacks, the gross floor area, the coverage and all those matters have uh comply fully with zoning. what we have uh if you go to the next page um here I just provided the summary but you've seen the plans already it shows uh it shows compliance uh with many all the aspect except four areas and it shows you the unit size composition uh unit one being roughly 3,000 square ft unit two being roughly 28 and unit three being roughly 2,000 square ft so they're uh there's they're they're substantial size uh units uh uh contemporary in and provide the most all the amenities that are required for AR use. And by the way, they are separately serviced. Uh as you heard at the last meeting, that's a requirement. Uh next uh next slide. So these are the variances. The first one that I marked with the green arrow is for the private garages. Right now there's one garage. Uh but because we need to provide separate uh uh u allocated spaces for the units, we are dividing partitioning the internal of the garage. So there'll be no changes on the outside other than they'll have continue to have two garage doors. So uh someone from the street won't be able to see it's a twocar garage, but it's required. And it's required because electric vehicles as well, they're they're going to be uh they're going to be charging stations and sometimes they do tend to cause some um uh risks. So you want to fully enclose these uh because a lot of people nowadays have uh electric vehicles and they're going to be provided with the tier tier 2 charging system. The second variance uh is a driver with the second uh and the third variants are in fact that I marked in red. They're existing situations. the uh there's a driveway off Chartwell that's existing. There's a driveway off Carson Lake that that's existing. And the way that the BA is measured is a combination of both. And uh the combination of both drives the uh variance up to 21 28.1 meters versus the 9 m. These are existing situations that have existed prior to the new bylaw coming into effect. Uh same thing with variance number three, which is a setback from the intersection of Carson Lane and Chartwell. Again, that's an existing condition has been there for years and there's been no issue um with uh these are very minor streets where speed limits are are are uh are quite uh in the 40 km range. So there's been no conflicts uh uh for years. I don't know of any incidences. Uh the last variance is a height. Um and this is to uh uh provide for a height that's compatible with the properties to the north. Um, and I think uh if you if you uh if you've reviewed the staff report, there's a perspective, but there is one that I can take you to. If you jump forward to uh page uh page 16, 17, and 18. So, I've taken one at an oblique angle, one facing the there's a the one that's sort of an oblique, and you can see the roof line and the uh and the the the treatment of the facade matches the property to the north. So, as one progresses down Chartwell, there is no visual intrusion of the building. There is no visual impact on the height. It matches the exact same height as a property to the north which was approved by a minor variance by the committee of adjustment uh some years ago. And then the other one is slightly looking from the north uh in a different angle. Um so um if you back up to uh slide 15 uh what I've included there is so we've had multiple pre-conultation meetings with staff uh Mr. for Brandon Hassan and uh Kay Corron, three or four of them I believe and u we've collectively I believe come to a proposal that uh obviously meets uh the housing u u intensification purpose of the province and provides for a bill form that's compatible, contemporary and complimentary to the street. Um one improvement that we've recommended is the area that you see in uh purple which are the parking pads. We're proposing that they be treated with uh um u a certain primal pavement like uh what's expressed on the right of that chart and there's a condition to that effect uh that and we fully accept uh that treaty. There is landscaping uh shrubs in front so these parking pads are not visually intrusive and there's other uh driveways along char of treatment. Um I have um in the slides uh pro provided u the zoning and the official plan uh which is low density residential and it's the R RL3 tax thorough zoning. Um I've also if need to I can get into the uh teroial regulation 29919 which you heard of extensively on the air I used and also the uh uh the other regulation which was um um uh enacted almost a year later that provides for a 10% reduction in the setbacks which uh again staff have reported in their in their memorandum. I just want to make one correction on um on 29919 which is the ARU. Um I I believe and I've read it again. U there's a suggestion that it's a minimum of 45% lock coverage. In fact, it's up to 45% coverage. It's not a minimum. It's I it's a maximum of up to. So I just wanted to note that clarification. Uh otherwise um th this uh proposal I believe uh meets all the forecasts of the planning act. It conforms to all the policies uh in the official plan and meets the uh provincial intent and interest and and moving forward with housing opportunities. The uh increase in height is minor in nature with streetscape and from the perspective that I show you it's compatible um and it does not uh in any way distract away from the otherwise stable residential character of the area. Um there's no issue with uh privacy or shadow impacts. Uh the uh addition are very minor in nature and um and represent an appropriate uh form of development for the property and the community. I'd be pleased to answer any questions. I just uh rambled through so I don't burn up uh more than five minutes of your time. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cronis. Any questions or items of clarification of Mr. Cronis at this time? I can't see anything. Just give me a second. I have to go back into grid view. Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Hart Castle. Um, thank you, Madam Chair. Um, good evening, Mr. Cronis. Um, Mr. and, uh, thank you for your presentation. I I was looking for a little bit more detail around the building height piece. Uh, I'll be frank right up front. I have some significant reservations about the building height piece and I'm trying to understand um in a little bit more detail um about the why. I mean I basically have a canal from staff that says because the guys next door have it and I'm kind of looking for a little bit more to understand. It's a pretty significant increase in it and we're talking about a fairly substantial building with additional um with additional GFA on it. Tacking on another, you know, 1.4 meters onto that. It it's pretty significant and it's going to you know going to change things a fair bit. So I'm looking for a little bit of understanding there, sir. Yes. Okay. So, so, um, it's to, uh, actually, uh, provide for, uh, a roof height to accommodate construction and and a little bit more usable interior space. Um, it it's also, uh, uh, we looked at it from the perspective of as you're coming down Chartwell, does the height have a visual intrusion on the existing streetscape? Um, and and, uh, from the perspectives that we showed, um, we didn't feel that it does. the articulation in the facade as well in the front contributes to a uniform uh landscape. So if you're as you're approaching the going southward to have a a height deviation kind of at the at at a corner lot which you know obviously has more prominence than an interior lot um looked a little bit awkward. So not is not that because the neighbor to the north has it, not that because we wanted to match it, but because of functionality and construction of putting together the new roof structure, that extra height accommodates that. Now we feel that it's compatible design um with the neighbor as perspective shows um and if you look again at the at the rationale that we provided um in the cover letter as well as planning staff we feel that we've obtained that level of confidence and hopefully you agree that the uh height increase does not in any way um uh is not detrimental to the neighborhood and it doesn't otherwise compromise um shadow impacts or visual intrusion or privacy. It's um we feel that it accommodates all the interest in the uh design guidelines of the town and is consistent and uniform in nature and uh as the member said earlier uh it's desirable uh I believe to have a deviation in the height of about 1.39 meters 1.29 meters will probably show and it will it look it will dwarf the building. So this is a uniform uh way of addressing the streetscape. That's so that's um where we were coming from. It wasn't driven by the fact the neighbor to the north had it. I mean it obviously is one contributing factor but uh not the sole purpose. Thank you. Anyone else? Go ahead, Mr. Dick. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Hard Castle almost took some words right out of my mouth. I'm concerned about the height. So my uh question is what is happening on the second floor that you need to increase? Oh no I'm sorry. My first question is what is the existing height? Uh it would be 9 meters sir. Okay. So what is happening on the second floor that requires you to have one that that you need to have another 1.39 m of height to satisfy your desire needs needs. Well, there the the u the floor to ceilant heights are higher because that's the more contemporary way of of presenting um uh units. Uh that's driving it. Plus, it's a new it's a new roof structure that requires a little bit of on-site construction and flexibility. Uh, as well as um provides for, like I said, provides for a higher floor to ceiling height. Not substantial more, but we're now talking 10 to 11 ft. I don't trying to see if I can find a plan while we're having this discussion. Sorry, I didn't um Right. It's a 9 foot. It's a almost an 11 foot uh height with uh with the second the new finished second floor is approximately 23 feet in height and the roof structure above that is about 8 ft. So it provides for um slightly higher roof. It's the normal 9 ft. So we're approaching 11. On the second floor, you currently have a 9 foot ceiling height, correct? And you're you want to have an 11 foot ceiling height on the second floor. Well, it's actually 9 ft 10 inches. I misspoke. It's it's approaching 10 feet on the sec on the second floor and it's 12 feet on the main floor. And that's existing. You're not changing the main floor. No, no, the existing is roughly about nine. This house was built uh about 20 22 years ago. Um and it probably I don't have the stats for the existing. I am guessing it's between 9 and 10 feet. So, I apologize. I don't have those stats. I'm a little bit confused. You're not tearing the house down, right? You're you're taking the existing house and say renovating. Correct. Correct. But we do have to modify the roof structure. Oh, no, no, no. I just was a little bit surprised that you're your your ground floor height. Tell that again. Your ground floor height is existing ground floor height that you're not changing as what height. Uh I believe sir it's in the neighborhood of nine to 10 feet. I don't have that stat but the second floor your existing height is 10 is more than nine feet right nine well so I cannot I I cannot tell you what the existing heights are but you're right we're not changing the uh the building itself or keeping the shell but there are interior renovations. What we're proposing is a 12T uh floor to ceiling height on the main floor and then uh 9 ft 10 1/2 in roughly uh 10 ft on the second floor with a uh roof of about 8 ft. So that's what's driving it in the manner that that we're proposing. So, you're ripping out the floor between the the ceiling of the ground the ground floor and the floor of the second floor to lift it higher and then you're going to put a new roof on to make up for that. Again, sir, I I'm I'm not 100% sure on the existing. I'm assuming they're as represented, but we are putting on a new roof. I'm assuming the floors um are as as we show them on the plans. You're right. We're not ripping out the floor between the uh the first and second. So, we have an 11 foot. Let me just go back to my plans. We have a 12T first floor and a 9 foot 10. And um and I think you're correct. We're keeping those, but we're uh building a new roof structure that drives it to the uh 10.39 meter height. Okay. Okay. Now, you the existing house you're thinking, and I'm not holding you to the numbers, don't get me wrong here. The existing house you're thinking is 12 feet floor to ceiling height on the ground floor, 9 foot 10 in floor to ceiling height on the second floor. You're going to keep the 12 feet on the first floor and then bump up the second floor to what height? Floor to ceiling height? 9 ft 10 and a half inches. Roughly 11 ft. That's what it is. What are you going to move? What What's it going to No, that's what it is. That's what it's going to stay there. And then plus on your roof. Okay. Well, now you got me really confused. So, if you're not changing the 9 foot 10 in height ceiling height on the second floor, what are you doing up above that you need another 1.39 meters? I'm building an attic. You're having people live up there. What's going on there? Yeah. So, so, uh, according to the plans, um, and and this is, uh, I I'm not sure did the committee send you the plans because I didn't include them in my presentation, but you look at the front elevation. Yes, it shows in front of me. Okay. The front elevation shows um, and I'm going by by the uh, plans. It says an existing finished main floor on on the left side and it says new finished main floor ceiling. And then it says new finished second floor and new finished second floor ceiling. So those are new. So that's where we're approaching. Now I I believe the existing and I don't have the numbers are slightly less than that. So uh I can only go by these plans. Existing finished main floor, new finished main floor. Then there's uh the floor in between uh and then there's the new finished second floor which uh takes it up to um the numbers that you see there on the plants. So is it safe to assume where it says new finished second floor ceiling and all the news that that's the same elevation of the existing it's just the roof itself that's higher? I'm not getting a good idea as to what's going on here. Well and it's obvious I'm not getting a good idea. Yes. Yes. Obviously. I apologize for confusing me, sir, but it says new finished second floor. And to me, that means it's a new finished second floor. So, they're new elevation. New elevation, right? The second floor. You're lifting up the ex the existing ceiling on the second floor. You're lifting it up. That's exactly right, sir. But it only says 910 9 foot 10 in. I thought you were talking 11T ceiling height on the second floor. There there is a gap of about 1 foot2 in in between the main floor ceiling and the second floor uh second floor. If you see that there's a one Yeah, I didn't I wasn't counting that. I was talking floor to ceiling. Sorry, you were talking structural sh ceiling to ceiling. I guess you Yes. Okay, let's go way. So the where it says new, is that the same elevation of the existing? Are you going to tear out the floors and and lift them up because how are the windows? How are the windows going to line up? Well, that's Well, they will be making those changes. But I I I apologize again. I if if you like, we can defer this uh and I'd be happy to do so so I can get answers for you. We don't mind deferring it. um uh because I wasn't expecting to compare the old with the new. I was looking from it uh from the perspective of the planning implications in the forecast. Uh but I'm happy if we if you'd like to defer it, I will get you more conclusive numbers so you can do a more accurate comparison rather than me uh trying to um provide you information that might not be accurate. Okay. It's obvious I don't like the height, the the resulting hype. But I'm I my whole purpose of my question is why are you doing this? And that's where I'm puzzled to see what what does the house have now and why why you need that and why are you raising that roof. I don't like I don't care for the idea of your justification just because the house next door has has a roof that high. Let's look to the house to the south on the other side of Carson Carlson. I think that's a one-story little cottage, right? from that point I don't mean to cut you off Mr. I apologize but I was trying to communicate that among all the considerations that was one of them not the main driving force behind it. Uh we looked at it from the perspective of the visual streetscape was appearance the uh the the setbacks that are maintained and it's not overcrowding the street or anyone in the neighborhood. It's compatible with the character and I think the planning staff found the same thing. Uh they would have raised uh the issue of the height. We've had three pre-conultation meetings and um that wasn't a prevailing issue. Um you know, I didn't do the number comparisons. You're absolutely correct. I if you like, I'd be more than acceptable to have it deferred and I can get you those comparisons if it's uh if it's the numbers that you want. But uh from an overall planning perspective and under the the test of the planning act, uh we looked at it comprehensively, not uh just on the mathematical scale. Okay. Before we go any further, because you mentioned this twice, Mr. Cronis, is it your intention to defer this application? Then I'd be prepared to defer so I can get more answers. Uh, which the committee obviously Mr. Hartcastle, Mr. Dicki Desire, and maybe Mr. Towski has a similar request, Mr. Towski, I saw your hand go up. Do you care to comment? Thank you, Madam Chair. Before we go go to a deferral, if that's where it's heading, um, a couple I'll make a comment on this issue and then I want to ask a question a totally different direction that if this is going to get deferred um that they can look at this as well. Um it seems like Mr. Cromise to answer Mr. Hardcastle's question succinctly as to why is it appears that instead of a typical 9 or 10 foot first floor, you want a 12 foot first floor. Instead of a typical 9 foot second floor, you want a 10-ft second floor which is driving everything up. Um I doesn't seem like from the drawings I think you kind of addressed it. It says existing floor and everything else is proposed. So I think all the heights are being raised but in a different direction. Um Mr. Cronis um you mentioned changes to the planning act uh 29919 while they've both been with us for a while their implementation that's in their infancy and uh I know you always have a very good grasp of legislation when I look at your plan and I look at the zoning bylaw in my mind what you're proposing meets the definition of apartment dwellings, three or more units connected by a common corridor, and the apartment units aren't permitted in the RL3 zone. So, is there a provision in the regulation or special provisions under additional units in the zoning bylaw that exempts additional units from the actual definition of the use? because I'm not convinced if there isn't that this complies with the zoning bylaw. Why are these not considered apartment dwellings? Um I I had that discussion with the staff before the arus were even out. Uh and there is no definition for an apartment building dwelling. I believe they took it out. It appears in one section of the of the bylaw, but it's not used anywhere else. But if you go to the definition on page 12 of my presentation of what an additional residential unit is attached uh it meets the definition and this is how uh planning staff and the building department. We've had uh we've had two zoning reviews on this. Um and um you know I don't know if anyone's here from from staff they can answer that as well but uh on page 12 of my PowerPoint presentation you'll see what the definition is and I can read it out. It means one or more habitable rooms containing separate kitchen and bathroom facilities for private use as a single housekeeping unit which is contained within a detached dwelling, semi- detached dwelling, link dwelling or townhouse dwelling already containing a dwelling unit. So um that's what the definition is and these qualify for the ARUS. Uh they qualify under the legislation, they qualify under the under the act. uh they qualify under the uh town of Oakville zoning bylaw. It is not an apartment um three apartment units. These are additional you got a principal dwelling plus two additional residential units. But is that the only test you have to meet? Because there is a definition in the zoning bylaw of a dwelling apartment and it's Yes. Yes, there is. But it's this is not a dwelling apartment. uh dwelling apartment is um I don't have the def definition with me but this definition as you heard in your last uh go around with the 29919 comes right from it mimics the uh the definition contained in uh the regulation and in the um and in legislation. So the whole intent was to have you also have granny suites as well, right? Which are different. Uh but the intent was to provide for additional housing opportunities through residential units that are separately serviced. You heard that too the last time. These have to have separately serviced uh capabilities, right? And and I understand that. But I guess what I'm trying to understand and I'll ask Miss Coburn as well. It's very clear that the zoning provisions governing coverage and flurry ratio are overridden by the provincial regulation, but I don't see where specifically it overrides the definition. And I just want to make sure that we're not being asked to approve something that's going to come back again because the actual a permit is deemed that this is an apartment which isn't permitted in this zone. There is a definition and it included by a common corridor which when I look at your site plan I believe that's what you have and dwelling apartments not listed in the RL zone as a permitted use. It is listed in the RM zones. So I I understand there's a definition of additional units. I just I need to be be satisfied that that definition overrides the zoning bylaw definition of an apartment unit. Um maybe I can ask Miss Coburn the same question. Madame Chair uh through to the committee member. So what the committee needs to consider is that the governing tool for the purposes of establishing additional residential units is O regulation J regulation 29919. That does not specify as far as the town is concerned. Um, and my understanding from our zoning examiners and and their review of the bylaw and implementing the ARU requirements, the 29919 does not specify a specific condition to which the additional residential units are to be subordinate or accessory to a principal dwelling. It does not specify whether or not those additional residential units shall be located below grade or in a certain arrangement. So the effect of that is the zoning bylaw has the definition for additional residential unit which then is governed by 29919 in the idea that these units can be accommodated within a detached dwelling, a semi- detached dwelling or a townhouse dwelling unit in any arrangement and in any size with a door located in any facade. and it speaks to specific parking requirements for those additional units. It is because of that that the units themselves could be considered a triplex or a multiplex or an apartment exactly as you've described it. But the expectation is in this instance they are additional dwelling units under 29919. So I will comment that currently If we recognize that this is a a detached dwelling and there are two ARUs within this dwelling that satisfies the requirements of 29919. I may suggest to you that under the current definitions on our bylaw, this might be different in other jurisdictions, but under the zoning bylaw, as we have confirmed with town zoning staff, if Mr. Cronis's client chose to submit an application for a condominium to change the tenure of the units. They no longer become additional dwelling units to that detached dwelling. They would become independent units thereby then not qualifying under 29919 and then would qualify as you've indicated as an apartment unit. And it would be through that tenure application that the bylaws, different definitions for units would then be activated for us to evaluate the building type. as it remains right now. This is a detached dwelling with two additional ARUS conforms to Orag 29919 and the applicant is requesting relief from the aspects of the bylaw that do not get regulated under 29919 being the height being the driveway widths and and the other matters that have been requested. I hope that that provides some level of clarity in a very confusing policy regime. Um, well, thank you. It's helpful. And I I have no um issue with understanding that this complies with 29919. What I don't think I have a clear answer on is does it comply with the town of Oakville zoning bylaw as it's currently written with respect to these units would be deemed apartment units apartment dwellings under the zoning bylaw and therefore not permitted use in this zone. Does 299 override that definition? Uh through you madam chair. Yes it does override that definition. These are two additional dwelling units connected to a single detached dwelling structure. They're all within one structure. That is how they are permitted in 219 and that is how it is being defined. Then why doesn't um 19 exempt the permitted uses the way it exempts the uh coverage and claria ratio? Is that like is this a in the provincial requirements? Is this an interpretation that of the town? It doesn't make sense to me that we're being asked to permit variances which will allow units which appear to not meet the town of Oakville's own zoning bylaw through through you madam chair to the committee member if if the committee may recall prior to the legislative changes that occurred the town of Oakville zoning bylaw had uh uses called secondary ary dwelling units or secondary suites and we had criteria and policies. Those had been restricted to a certain amount of floor area. It was indicated they were to be subordinate to the principal use of the dwelling. Um there were regulations in the bylaw that spoke to maintaining an access only on the sideyard rather or in the rear rather than in the front yard because they were intended to be subordinate. when the policy regime changed there and it's undergone a couple of changes. The first iteration was we are going to provide three units as of right per urban parcel of land within specific dwelling types. These can be purposebuilt which in this case Mr. Cronis' client is looking to do just that. renovate the existing dwelling for purposely built um units, twostory units and and basement. These can be modifying an existing basement to accommodate one or two units or again modifying an existing detach structure or purpose building a detach structure to have one of these units. There was a later ch and and again removed all of these criteria that the town had implemented on size and the disc and and language around being subordinate or accessory to removed any language that limited its presence on the street. Right? So you can have the door, you can have a common vestibule. It did not change the the the definition of the building type to an apartment or to a multiplex. It said that you have this building and you can have these two uses. It is the subsequent change um and and further amendment to 29919 that introduced the the lot coverage and the residential floor area matters that came separately and if I recall correctly about a year later. So we we've have the working policies of ARUS for quite some for a couple years and then more recently the province made the change again to better promote the opportunity to construct these ARUS as of right giving flexibility beyond municipal bylaws with respect to coverage or floor area where those regulations would have existed in those municipal bylaws. So everything that we're seeing today in this proposal is compliant with the town of Oakville zoning bylaw. Save and accept the matters being presented for your decision. That's that is that is the situation we are left with today and that's the best clarity I can give you. Should this matter be deferred, we can definitely follow up with additional comments um and and get you some additional clarity if needed. Okay. This is there's not much more I can add. Mr. Towski, uh if if I may, I apologize if I interrupted you, but this has gone through uh two zoning reviews uh through uh the building department, which is a little bit unusual, but we did have pre-conultation meetings, and if that use issue was a matter of concern, it would have been raised. But um I I echo what uh Miss Cover said that the the province has made these changes to promote these ARUS much like the one that you had uh at the last meeting. You know, I I I suppose the same questions would arise in that one as well, but it's not a zoning issue uh uh because of the the way the province has structured the legislation and the regulation. Yeah, I appreciate that. I guess I'll I'm just struggling with determining that this meets the zoning bylaw without something in writing that says the additional dwelling unit regulations requirements override an existing definition and permitted use in the town of local zoning bylaw. So, if this does get deferred, I would appreciate seeing some more work done on this issue to help convince me. Maybe it's just me, but uh this is what I'm struggling with. When I read the definition, I don't think it complies, and I don't see anything that says it's exempt from the definition. So, that's where I need some help. Thank you. I I had made the same um observation early on in the application process, but Mr. Tilowski, I think you're going to be getting more of these and um if we can help both yourself and the entire committee understand the intricacies of how these things are related, you know, I don't mind the deferral because it is quite new. Um and you will be receiving more and if we can help you and the committee, uh by all means, that's a that's a benefit to everyone. Okay. So given everyone's given everyone's comments, um I think that we should move a deferral rather than take more time um circling around if that's what you choose, Mr. Com, because ultimately it is your call. Well, I I believe uh I'd like to provide Mr. Dicki and Mr. Hardcast on the balance of the committee the why extra height. I think that's important to address with more uh details and also to get Mr. Tilleski and the balance of the committee an answer on this relationship between the apartment unit definition and the ARUS. I think you're going to be struggling with that. So, we might as well just um get an answer right now. So, I I I will request a deferral if uh if the committee is acceptable to that. Okay. Um committee members, all those in support of a deferral. Yeah. Okay. So, the application has been deferred and we'll see you at your earliest convenience. Thank you. Thank you and to town staff for those appreciation. And I will I will just u mention that since the discussion did not go any further and we've chosen to defer the application um any letters of opposition from the neighbors uh on file that we have right now. Um the neighbors will get a chance to be heard when the file does come back before the committee. Mr. Cronis, you are aware of those letters of opposition. So you can reach out to the neighbors and Yes. provided. I've been provided with one, but if there's others, I will get them to the secretary treasurer. Thank you. I believe it is one. They just requested to attend as well tonight. So, I'm just letting them know on live uh that they will be heard that at the time that the application does come before the committee again and is heard at that time. Thank you very much. Thank you. Have a good night. Have a good night. Okay. Uh, application 039 of 2026 at uh, 1275 North Service Road West. Again, that's application 039 of 2026 at 1275 North Service Road West. I have Mr. Oz Kamal as the agent. Good evening. Go ahead, Mr. Kamal. Thank you. Uh, can you hear me? Okay. Yes. Go ahead. Great. Thank you. Uh, good evening members of committee. My name is Oz Kamal. I'm a partner at MHBC planning here on today on behalf of our client and Clear Corporation Center, Inc. uh for their property at 1275 North Service Road. Uh this minor variance is associated with an application for site plan approval uh that was originally submitted uh to the town uh back on dece in December of 2024 with subsequent submissions made in August of 25 and most recently January 26. Uh comments from the town zoning department confirmed the required variance uh to the maximum u maximum setback from the front yard and confirmed that we comply with all other provisions of the bylaw. Uh as such we've submitted the application requesting to vary the maximum front yard setback regulation for the office employment zone. Next slide please. So the subject lands are located on the north side of North Service Road and Highway 403 east of Third Line. Um you can see this is part of a comprehensive employment area that consists of existing motor vehicle uses along North Service Road. You can see there's an Acura, Mazda, Lexus, Audi, Volkswagen, um as well as the newly constructed Grand Touring Automobiles um Oakville site which is in uh that aqua blue color. Uh we're located directly beside it. The overall lands are shown in the red um border and the area of development is in the dashed red border. So um we're proposing a twostory motor vehicle dealership. It will be a new Genesis dealership. You've probably seen it. Um, uh, Genesis by Superfan. Um, this will be a, uh, a new two-story Genesis dealership. And through that application process, this variance, um, was raised. Next slide, please. This is a zoomin of that previous slide to give you a better uh, understanding of why we're asking for this variance. So um the subject lands as well as the adjacent dealership are within an E1 zone which requires a minimum front yard of 3 m and a maximum front yard of 17.5 m and that 3 m and 17.5 meter setback line is shown in yellow across the red uh property. Uh due to the subject land's proximity to highway 403 though the uh Ministry of Transportation adds an additional minimum 14 meter setback from the property line and that's shown in the black dashed line the thick black dashed line. So what what happens now is instead of having the buffer of 3 m to 17.5 m, you now have um the buffer of 17 1.5 m to 14 m and it creates a very narrow pinch point by which you can um uh locate your building. So what's what's happened now is um uh we've we're requesting this variance because when you factor in um that everything has to be outside of the 14 m setback that's required. We wanted to make sure that we were able to maintain a 6 meter fire route. Um and then we wanted to make sure that we were able to maintain accessible parking spaces along the front door which is facing North Service Road. and and so that those items requiring um us to have the drive aisle plus the accessible parking plus the enhanced walkway in the front of the building necessitated the variance to go from 17 1.5 m to 32 m. Um again this is similar to a minor variance application that the Grand Touring automobile dealership again shown in blue there uh that they had also needed as well because of that pinch point created by the MTO setback. Next slide please. So, this is just a um a site plan showing the existing and this is again if you're driving along the 403 heading um east uh towards Oakville from Burlington, you'll notice that there used to be I think it used to say travelers across the top. It was a eight-story office building that's shown on the north of the page and then we would be at the south of the page there with the new dealership. Um all other provisions of the bylaw are being met and we're at the tail end of the site plan approval. Um we've um got our clearance from the conservation authority. Uh MTO's given us our clearance as well because they like that we've moved all of the requirements outside of their 14 meter setback and this variance is just a necessity to close out the site plan approval. Uh staff are supportive of the application subject to the conditions which we're agreeing to. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Mr. Kamal. Any questions or items of clarification? I see none. Has anyone called with any um interest in this application? Madam Secretary Treasurer, we've had no calls and no hands showing. Very well. Then I'll take a motion. Go ahead, Miss Price. Again, taking into account my site visit, the reports provided by the agent, staff, and conservation Halton, and there be no letters of opposition, I believe the application to be minor in nature and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the official plan and zoning bylaw. and is desire is desirable for the appropriate development of the land. In conclusion, I recommend the application be approved subject to the following conditions. that the motor vehicle the dealership be constructed in accordance with the final approved site plan SP523006/01 to the satisfaction of the director of planning and devel development that the approval expires 2 years from the date of the decision if a building permit has not been issued for the proposed construction. Thank you, Miss Bryce. Is there a discussion on this recommendation? I see none. All those in support. Okay. The application has been approved. None opposed. Thank you. Have a good night. Okay. The last item on our agenda is application 041 of 2026 at 599 Charwell Road. Again, that's application 41 of 2026 at 599 Chartwell Road. This is a an application under section 452 of the planning act. I just uh would like to um point your attention to that. And we have Mr. Rick Matalgen and Nancy Fredai as the agents. who will be speaking to this application, Mr. Mataljian on this Friday. Well, it was going to be the architect. Um, I don't see him in on in the hearing right now. Um, is he avail? No, I don't believe he is. Yes, he is. He's present. Oh. Oh, okay. Maybe he can hear us. Mr. Matalgen, are you with us? Yes, I can. Okay, go ahead. I'm here now. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. So, um, yes. Yeah. So, I'm I'm I'm I'm Rick Mel from SNBA architects. We are uh the architects for support house at 599 Chartwell Road. Um we've been working on on this project for for quite some time at 54 before the committee just under two years ago. Um when we came to this to this project, our our our scope was that we were going to take this existing building which functions as a transitional housing um um building and and has for for some time for for generation really uh at this site. Um giving support to people who are um experiencing u either mental health crisis, homelessness, um addiction issues, that that sort of thing. and they they support uh their their clients and and and offer them transitional housing while they while they they they they move on and and and and graduate to to more long long-term housing. So, they they provide a very very necessary uh benefit to the to the community. So our our our scope in the first place when we were before the committee a couple years ago was that we were taking this existing building which is it's an it's an existing uh uh vintage uh single family home that's added to and changed over over several several several iterations. And our scope at that point was to um look at the uh fire safety issues uh create some barrier free opportunities and create some additional interior space and a couple of a couple of extra bedrooms. Um we were before the committee the the the committee granted us approval for for those changes. As time has gone on and as additional funding has become available through through the region the the scope has increased somewhat. We are now increasing the number of of bedrooms. We're adding we're proposing to add nine bedrooms. uh to the uh to the to the building. And we're we're proposing um more um more uh more more community space uh for the for the residents and also um even better opportunities for uh elevator and for barrier free access and for fire safety. We're we're creating a a whole new fire stair on the on the south side. That's the kind of black square that you see on the on the right hand side of the drawing there. And we're also adding additional additional space to the uh to the to the third story. So we're before you you today to ask for permission to uh to to extend the existing non-conforming use. Um we've uh had significant discussions with staff. Staff are are supportive of this. Uh there's there's no question that this is something that's that's uh that's urgently needed in the in the community and um the um to to our our knowledge there's there's U there's no no concerns from the community from the standpoint of the expansion of this. So I'd be happy to answer any further questions about this and as I mentioned as mentioned before and she was on screen for a second. Uh our planner Miss Friday is here and she can answer any planning related questions. So I'd be happy to um turn it over now to her or to the um to uh further questions. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Any questions of the architect or the planner at this point? Okay, I see none. Has anyone called with interest for this application? Madam Secretary, treasurer, we've had no calls and no hands. Okay, very well. Uh, who would like to move a motion? Go ahead, Mr. Towski. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I move that this application be approved as apply for um while larger I find it to be similar in nature to the existing use. I would make that approval subject to two conditions that the addition be constructed in general accordance with the submitted site plan and elevation drawings dated November 5th, 2025 and that the approval expires within two years of decision if a building permit has not been issued. And I would also note that there was no opposition from the community in this matter. Okay, 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. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Confirmation of the minutes for March 4th. Who would like to move those? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Castle. And motion to adjourn, Miss Price. Thank you.

Full Transcript