Transcript - Provincial Overrides Challenge Local Zoning - Committee of Adjustment meeting of March 4, 2026 at 7 p.m.

Provincial Overrides Challenge Local Zoning - Committee of Adjustment meeting of March 4, 2026 at 7 p.m.

Good evening. Tonight's of adjustment hearing is being held by video conference and live streaming on the town's live stream webpage at oakville.ca. This is a 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've adopted the following process. If you're watching the live stream of of this hearing on oakville.ca CA and you wish to speak to an item on the agenda, you can call 9058156095. Again, 9058156095. The phone number is also posted on your screen below the live stream at oakville.ca. Staff will be standing by to take your call. When you call in, staff will ask your name, item number 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, press star six to unmute yourself. The applicant or agent will be given the opportunity to briefly explain to the committee the basis of the application and answer any questions that may arise. Maximum of five minutes will be provided for a presentation. You'll have to state your full name and address for the record. Any submissions beyond 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 provided for your 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 the comments made by any interested parties and answer any questions from the committee members. The applicant or agent has any concerns found in the staff report, particularly with any proposed conditions, this is your opportunity to advise us. The matter will then be taken into committee for a decision. This will mark the end of all discussion. 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 not later than 10 days for minor variances and 15 days for consents. Be mailed to the applicant and or agent any other person who 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 committee's decision to Ontario Land Tribunal. In November 2022, Bill 23, 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. Secretary Treasurer will then notify the applicant and anyone who received a copy of the decision through written correspondence. People participating in this hearing are to be courteous to and respectful of the members of the committee, town staff, and other people participating in this electronic hearing. Tonight's electronic hearing is being video recorded and available for future viewing at oakville.ca. Thank you. We have regrets tonight from Miss McCale. Do we have any declarations of interest? I see none. Madam Secretary, Treasurer, do we have any requests for deferrals or withdrawals of applications tonight? Mr. Chair, there are no hands up at this time. Okay, we'll proceed to the agenda. First item will Sorry, Miss Price. I should have done that. Um I just wanted to say that on my um site visit site visit on Monday I went at 1:44 mea there was no sign posted. Okay. Um it's um 0282026. Okay. Um I can confirm I had the same experience. Madame Secretary Treasurer is the applicant for that file here. Yes, Mr. Chair, the applicant is in attendance. Would you like me to move him in? Yes, please. Okay. As you heard from Miss Price, you're required to have the notice sign up for the full 10 days prior to the hearing. And the sign on your property um was not posted for the required time frame. So the committee has no choice but we're going to have to defer your application and strongly recommend that you ensure when you come back that the notice sign is posted for the full requirement. Are you able to hear us? We cannot hear you. Not showing is muted but we cannot hear you sir. Madam Secretary, is there anything we can do from our end if if he could potentially call in if if uh his um audio is not working on his computer? Mr. Chair, do you want to give him the phone number and maybe he can call in? Yeah, I I closed my preamble just Sorry. It is 905 8156095. Well, sir, if you could um exit the computer and call the 9058156095, please. We cannot hear you. Can Can you hear Can you raise your hand if you can hear me? Can Can you please um call 9058156095? The audio is not working on your computer. It's 9058156095. Madam Secretary, is it getting through by phone? Yes, Mr. Chair. We're just getting him in now. Thank you. I see a phone number now, but it's muted. Madam Secretary, does he need to push star six to unmute himself? Yes, if he could try that, please. Star six. Can I just call? Okay, we can hear you now. Good evening, Chers. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Looks like you're on twice now. But, uh, but u, as I was explaining, the notice sign wasn't posted for the required amount of time. So, we're going to have to defer your application to an another meeting. Yes, sir. Actually, it was been posted on the bin. However, the bin was being taken away. I think uh that's the problem that it has. That that's unfortunate, but it is a requirement of the legislation. So, we have no choice in the matter. So, we're going to have to defer your application. If you can call the secretary treasurer tomorrow and she'll get you rescheduled and get you in new signed to post and to make sure it stays up for the full required time. Okay. Yes. Thank you, committee members. All those in favor of deferral. So, application is deferred. Mr. Chair, I do have another hand up as well. Okay. Good evening, Mr. Chair. Good evening, committee. Good evening. What happened? Yes. Jonathan coming here for item number 3394. Okay. Are you seeking a deferral? I am. Uh the reason for the deferral is um I believe there might be some conflict with the two driveway accesses that aren't connected through a circular driveway. Um so I'd like to request a deferral to revise the application um either to provide the other parking spot in front of the house or to to look at creating somewhat of a circular driveway. So that's the reason for the deferral. Okay. Um I note that staff were not in support. I strongly suggest you speak with staff before coming back to the committee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, all those in favor of deferral to Fer Road. Okay, that is unanimous that your application is also deferred. Thank you. Those in the audience, if anyone was here wishing to speak to these items, A028 at 144 MA Drive and A026 at 394 Trafalar Road. Both those applications have been deferred. They will be uh back at a later date and additional notice will be provided for that meeting when they come back. Madam Secretary Treasurer, any other requests for deferral? No, Mr. Chair, I don't see any more hands up. Miss Price, you're you're good this time. Okay. Thank you, everyone. We'll now hear application A1352025. That's a deferral from October 29th at 539 Stafford Drive. Good evening. Uh good evening. Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of committee of adjustment. Please proceed. Am I audible? Yes. Okay. So uh uh this is we already defer this application and I'm represent this application on uh uh I'm the owner of this property and uh uh we are going for the minor variance to permit the maximum residential floor area 43%. Only 41% is permitted. Uh I have gone through the staff report and um the recommendation from the staff is the application is minor in nature and they don't have any problem. Uh if you have any question please ask. I just ask staff to um scroll through the presentation if they can just in case someone is in the audience with an interest so they can see the plans. Okay. Thank you. Any members? You have any questions for the applicant? I see none. Madame Secretary, Treasurer, has anybody called in to speak to this matter? Mr. Chair, there have been no calls and no one in the audience has their hand up. Thank you. Then I will close discussion and look for a motion on this application. All right. Taking into consideration my site visit, the various reports from the agent and staff, and there be no letters of opposition, I believe the variances to be minor in nature and are in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the official plan and zoning bylaw and are desirable for the appropriate development of the land. The revised application helped to mitigate the massing and and thus remove two of the original variances. I therefore agree with the agent and staff that the application now meets the four tests of the planning act. In conclusion, I recommend the application be approved subject to the following conditions. That the dwelling be constructed in general accordance with the submitted site plan and elevation drawings dated January 8th, 2026. and that the approval expires two years from the date of the decision if the building permit has not been issued for the proposed construction. Thank you. Any discussion on that motion to approve? Seeing none, all those in favor? That is unanimous. Your application has been approved. Thank you. You have a good night. You too. Now move on to operation A025206 at 269 Westwood Drive. If anyone wants to speak to this matter, please call 9058156095. See Mr. Kosek in the audience? Yes, I am. Good evening. you can get your name and address for the record and you can proceed with your application. Yeah. Good evening, chairman and members of the committee. My name is Richard Kosak. I'm a agent for the owners at um 269 Westwood Drive in Oakville. Um we have a presentation slide if you if they wish to transfer to that. I guess I I see it online there. So um we have three variances today. It's a single family home infill project um in uh Westwood Drive. Um we have three variances. I can review each of them if you wish. Varian quickly go through the variances. So variance one is a um height variance of 10.36 m where where 9 meters is required or allowed the max. If you just went to slide two, the um illustration here is showing that the the orange and the green is the makeup of the entire home. The orange portion is the portion that has the exceeded roof height of 10.36 m. The green portion surrounding that are all well below the the requirement of 9 m actually more around eight and and lower. Uh the red is defining the property limits. That's the first variance. Our second variance is the number of garages. Um in the same slide or we can go to a floor plan if you wish. Um I believe slide uh six uh sorry seven would do it. So here's the first floor of the home. Um as you come off the street, it is a pylot. So, it's uh narrow in the front and large in the back. Um you're going to come in, we're going to have two different garage, two separate garages. We're going to have a garage on the right and a garage on the left. The one on the left, you can see a single car garage and the one on the right is a twocar garage. Um and the variance is because we have two separate garages. So, variance number two is um asking for an extra garage where one is only allowed. Variance number three, uh, same same slide, you can keep up. The variance number three is the area of garage number two, which is the twocar garage on the right. That garage floor area is 50.1 m squared, where 45 m is the max. That's all our variances and uh, I'm available if you need any questions. Thank you, committee members. Any questions for the applicant? Mr. Dicki. Um, this is more like a statement as opposed to a question. Just to point out, normally I'd be hard against uh such a increase in in height, but the design of the house is very good. It's a very wide house on a very wide lot. So your your sideyards are quite uh substantial or at least meet the the bylaw. So I um it's as I say normally I'd be against this but I in this case it's an exception for me to say I'm not opposed to the height aspect there. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Dicki. probably why our decisions don't set precedents because context is uh significant when looking at these variances. Any other comments from committee? Madam Secretary, treasurer, has anyone called in to speak to this item? Mr. Chair, there have been no calls and no one has their hand up. Okay, thank you. I will close discussion and look for a motion. Mr. Dicki, I guess I could have said what I said with my motion. I wanted to make sure I got it. Um, uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh based on my review of the owner's applica application, the site plans, building elevations, my site visit, the planning staff's report and having regard to the absence of any submitted uh objections from the neighbors, I am satisfied that the variances are minor in nature and conform to the four tests under the planning act. And I put forth a motion that the application as applied for be approved subject to the conditions that sorry um that the building be constructed in general accordance with the submitted site plan and elevation drawings. Uh revision number two dated January 8th, 2026 and that approval expires two years from the date of the decision if a building per permit has not been issued for the proposed construction. Thank you, Mr. Vicki. Any discussion on that motion? I see none. All those in favor of motion to approve. All those opposed. Mr. Hardcastle is opposed. The application is approved. Thank you, sir. Thank you, committee. Again, application A026 at 394 Tripolar Road has been deferred this evening. That'll be heard at a later date. We will now hear application A027 at 2402 Breton Close. Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of my name is Immochan and I am the applicant representing the owner of 2402 Breton Close for today's hearing. And um as advised by the planning department uh variance number one and number two can be waved due to Ontario regulation 299/19 which requires municipalities to permit a minimum lot coverage of 45% for properties containing an additional residential unit and also removes the floor space index. So um we are proposing an additional residential unit in the basement. So for variance number one and two we are not going to seek approval for those ones. Therefore for today's hearing we are only seeking approval for variance number three which is to permit a maximum building height of 9.18 m whereas 9 mters is permitted under the zoning bylaw. So the small increase in height results from the roof assembly and construction requirements while maintaining the intended residential design and we believe this variance satisfies the four tests under the planning act. So first of all as you can see the variance is minor in nature. The request increase is only 0.18 meters or approximately just 7 in which represents a very small deviation from the permanent height. And secondly, the variance is desirable for appropriate development and use of the land as the slight increase in height allows for proper construction assembly and a function a functional interior layout while maintaining the overall design of dwelling. And third, which is the most concerning part from the neighbors and um the vious actually maintains the general intent and purpose of the zoning bylaw. We understand that the neighbors has concern with the raised regarding the potential impacts on sunlight and privacy. However, it is important to know that even without this variance, a house up to 9 m in height could be constructed on this property. The additional 0.18 m would not result in any meaningful additional shadow or privacy impact beyond what is already permitted. So the overall footprint and massing of the building remain unchanged. And finally um we think the variance maintain the general intent and purpose of the official plan as the proposal represents compatible residential development within established neighborhood and supports the city's objective of accommodating additional residential unit. And we also note that the planning staff have reviewed our proposal and have no objection. For these reasons, we respectfully request the committee's approval of the fears. Thank you. And I'm here for any questions you can you you have. Thank you. In your presentation, do you have elevations that you could uh point staff to to show on the screen? Um just one second. Um I think we'll go to front elevation would be age uh let me count this. Sorry. Yeah. One, three, four, five. So page eight should be the front elevation. Yes. And the portion that exceeds the 9 meters is just the ridge part. And it's due to the slope of the roof and also the um the roof truss size. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. kind of go a little out of order here. I' like to turn to staff at this point, but I think this is the first time we've had an application of this nature. There's um I'm going to say significant opposition to this application from the community and uh arguing that this application as it was originally applied for before the applicant amended their application to remove variances one and two and it could be argued that this application doesn't fit the character of the neighborhood but I'd just like to hear from staff and so that the community can understand as best as possible. But as we heard from the applicant and as I understand it, the provincial regulation 29919 which implements the permissions for accessory dwelling units. It has effectively said if there's an accessory dwelling unit, it overrides the local municipal bylaw with respect to floor space index and lot coverage. And as a result of that, the variances that I I think are causing the greatest concern with the community are no longer variances that are required because the provincial regulation overrides the zoning bylaw standards. But I'm sure staff can explain it better than I can or at least confirm whether um as explained by the applicant and as my understanding if that is correct. Uh, perfect. Thank you, Mr. May. Uh, Mr. Chair, I can um help a little with that. So you are correct to say the new uh regulation 29 did um promote new regulation that does state um that municipalities will have to permit block coverage of up to 45% and eliminate the RFA requirement when an application for an ARU an additional residential unit is being uh proposed. Um, now every municipality does have its own zoning bylaw regulations. However, the Ontario regulation does override those zoning bylaws and it's across it's the same across Ontario. It's not just special to Oakville. So, the ORG regulations will be um um assessed the same across Ontario. Now, in terms of the use, it is a permitted use. It's a residential use. It's a per permitted use within uh the zone. Um and it does also uh help the objectives of promoting housing diversity um for the provincial policy statements and um the lo the local official plan. So it is within the intent the use is permitted. Um but yes, in terms of the lot coverage and RFA requirements, we can't um we can't um um seek any um the there's no variance to be sought for those two requirements as they are u been amended in the regulations and are not no longer required and we uh we do have to permit them as as they are in accordance to the regulations. Thank you for that. That's helpful. And just for greater clarity, if the applicant took seven in off that small portion of the roof, they would not even have to be in front of the committee. Is that correct? That is correct. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Committee members, any questions for the applicant or staff? Mr. Dicki. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um maybe this is for staff or anybody else who can answer. Um first, this is the first time we've seen this situation where the u the provincial regulations come into play. Does that just um come into effect like just recently? I know the the act was written a year ago or so, but not did it not kick in until recently or we've just been lucky until now, so to speak. Uh through you, Mr. Chair. my understanding that it's been into effect November 24th November 24th, 2004, I believe. Um, I could look into that further and get back to you on that. Uh, but it as of now it is into effect, but the exact date I'm not it was under the impression the act was passed in November 24. I just didn't know if they they they they delayed the enactment or something. Okay. Second question if I may again to you to the town planner. Um, in one of the comments by the neighbor, they use the they they say they emphasize, but did illustrate in the drawings it says proposed u basement suite and I just wondered and just bouncing this off maybe for any of the members to comment upon or any a person could now now come in and say he's proposing to build to have or build a basement apartment and therefore he gets to increase his residential flur in his bought coverage. What stops him from turning around and not doing that? Any comments by anybody? Yeah. Uh through you, Mr. Chair. Uh that is a good point. So there are specific requirements to be permitted as an additional residential unit. Um and one of them is that additional residential unit should have its own mechanical room which is um what being proposed in this case. So if so if mechanical room mechanical area room they have a separate furnace or something for the basement for for the for the uh for the use for the aru that would be separate from the existing dwelling. Oh I see. Okay. Um maybe this I have another question following on the sl same line more so did the other committee members. Do you think we could impose a condition uh if we if we were to approve this property? Do you think we can we could propose a condition that this basement apartment must be built? Anyone your thoughts? Yeah, Mr. Nikki, I had the exact same thoughts when looking at this and understanding the uh the implementation and as we all know there's great ideas. This all comes down to implementation. U answer to your question, you may want to consider, you know, strengthening the conditions to to only be constructed in general accordance with the submitted site plan and elevations including the accessory residential unit. Mhm. It uh I I guess at that point it would be a u you know building department compliance issue and getting their building permits and getting their final clearance. But it uh you raised a good question. I thought the exact same thing. Thank you. Hard castle nodding. So I think Thank you very much. If the committee is inclined to approve the variance, um it it is on the drawings that are in front of us. General accordance is always a subjective thing. So if you wanted to uh look at strengthening that, but I see Miss Coburn has her hand up. Might want to add some clarity to this discussion. Hello. Good evening, committee members. Good to see you. Um just to provide some additional clarity around the issue. Um the strengthening of the condition uh really has no impact if I can and provide that and the reason being is that because the requirement to provide for the accessory dwelling unit is actually going to be managed and regulated through the Ontario building code. Um, as my colleague mentioned, um, the building code will require there to be two separate mechanical rooms, one to service the additional residential unit and the other to service the primary unit. If there had been two basement suites, there would be three mechanical rooms if if you can follow. So, as the applicant has demonstrated, they're wishing to seek the construction of this mechanical room um to provide for the basement suite at the time of the building permit application. If the plans are modified to not construct the mechanical suite, they will not comply with the bylaw because then their floor area ratio would be beyond the threshold of what the bylaw would require. Similar to the lot coverage. Um, further to that, through inspection, if the plans are not if the the development does not proceed in accordance with the plans approved by the permit, they will be in violation of the bylaw. So, it will really rely on um adherence to the building code requirements and the and the zoning being under applicable law. we cannot through the regulation um that permitted the ARUS uh as of right you know the two additional ones uh and in addition to getting additional relief under 29919 we cannot require these units be occupied we can only require compliance with the bylaw where they are to intended to be constructed so yes to your point is it not the intent of the province to ensure we have diversity and housing absolely Absolutely. But can homeowners and developers proceed to identify the construction of these units and make them available? Yes. Will they be available for rent? I don't know. Will they be available for multigenerational families? Perhaps. All we can do is encourage that they be available um and be provided as opportunities within the housing um market and within the community. So I I I would suggest that changing the conditions at this point might not be uh effective and we would rely on what the regulation provides and let the building code uh and the inspections process do what it needs to do because if it if it they don't demonstrate as I mentioned they will fail and they will inevitably have to come back in front of you to try and seek permission for an increase. Maybe the strengthening and conditioned is more of a comfort level belts and suspenders as opposed to a specific requirement. But if I understood you correctly, so in order to get their building permit, they're going to have to show the accessory unit with all the requirements of that. in order to get their clearance for occupancy will they will have to have built what's in the building permit drawings. Correct. But but once they've done that, if they use it for storage, there's it's out of the municipality's hands to do anything about that. You got it. And we would we would hope um that if it's not the intent of this uh owner developer to utilize that space again that the dwelling is equipped as a whole and any future owner would have that opportunity to purchase the the building with this additional dwelling unit available to to use as they see fit by providing the opportunity for additional diversity. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Dicki. Any follow-up questions? just just to understand not understand but just check um what we used to call a granny suite or a nanny suite that's still considered a what do you call it an accessory residential unit it doesn't really matter uh to fall in that definition that the province would allow any any type of shall so we say in this case basement apartment fully functional would qualify under that uh definition or for that relaxation of Oakland zoning by their regulation through through you Mr. Chair to the to the committee member not exactly. So uh you rais a good point if it is something of a of a granny suite where the internal structure is intended to function as a single family unit. For example, they they um they may have shared access internally. They may have um shared laundry facilities. they operate with one mechanical built like one mechanical room. Um maybe it's only a smaller kitchen instead of a full kitchen. You know, maybe they don't have a independent stair or or access. Those exist. We we still see those designs and usually they're a nanny suite or caregiver suite that exists within the def definition of the the single family unit. It's where it's qualified as an additional residential unit. And there are there is a specific definition of what that is to be and we have it within our bylaw and the the previous regulations that instituted the additional residential units. Previously we called them secondary units but we because the province changed to allow for two additional we we adopted the language of additional residential. Um those are the ones that would have independent accesses. They are completely independent of the primary dwelling. um they granny suites or nanny suites were typically considered subordinate, so smaller in size to the primary where we don't have that same language to look at for additional residential units. They could be of equal size um in in terms of how they're going to um want to add for that housing diversity within within the neighborhood. So what you would want to consider is where they are suggesting that they are in fact this additional residential unit this ARU with an independent access independent facilities independent mechanical room completely operable independent of the primary dwelling. That's when the bylaw um sorry that's when the regulation 29919 would be engaged to relieve them of the requirements of the residential floor area. um restriction and then the the the adjustment to the lot coverage um to make that higher. If it were a nanny suite or granny suite, it's all one house. So, that'd all be subject to the normal requirements of the town's bylaw that you would typically see today. Just just to follow up on that just a bit. Sure. In theory, is the definition if is Oakville's definition of an accessory residential unit the same as the province's definition or criteria? Yes. Through through you, Mr. Chair, it is exactly the same. Oh, okay. Yeah. Okay. Thanks very much. You're welcome. Thank you. Any further questions of staff or the applicant? Okay, I see none. Madam Secretary Treasurer, I know we've had uh letters of opposition on this file from Patricia and Reginald Burns, Jillian Burman and Kimfell, Matt and Sarah London, Rona and John Peebles, Jay and Anne Dory with a request to speak Um, one of the burns. Um, if I can we'll we'll open up the line now for anyone that wishes to speak. I just to try to summarize the discussion. Uh, the two variances which I think had concerns of the residents and perhaps some of the committee members are no longer required as a result of provincial regulation. So that it's the uh provincial regulations have overridden the zoning bylaw. So the first two variances for the size of the building and the lot coverage have been uh withdrawn by the applicant and uh they're no because they are no longer required. So the applicant can build um as a result of provincial regulation exactly what they've shown in their proposal with the only exception being the 18 meter height variance. So the only thing that the committee can consider itself with with this application is the height variance. You know, hopefully this discussion has helped uh probably not what uh people want to hear, but hopefully it's helped to explain what has happened in this situation. Madame Secretary Treasurer, do we have anyone wishing to speak to this matter? We do. Mr. Chair, Patricia Burns has her hand up. I can move her in now. Good evening, Miss Burns. Looks like you're still muted. Yes. All right. Good evening, Mr. Chair, and good evening to the members of the Committee of Adjustment. Uh, I'm Pat Burns and I'm in the immediate neighbor uh to the house being discussed currently. I do appreciate your clarification of the information and I did uh understand all of that. Um, and in general, I support homeowners in improving uh their properties. Our concern in this case is both the architectural design and the scale of this proposal. In terms of the architectural design, the current plans seem very basic and it's very block-like look and form with limited articulation or visual character. Um, this obviously affects the overall aesthetic appeal of the area which we all know plays a role in maintaining the strong property values and community pride. Um, in terms of the scale, as you discussed, um, because of the additional residential unit, they can bypass the Oakville's established maximum floor area ratio. I understand that uh but they're moving to a 58.72% floor area ratio which is quite a substantial expansion in the mass of the building. As the houses on this street and the neighboring area are modest in style, single family dwellings and a number of bungalows, this does not fit fit well with the overall neighborhood. Um I do understand that the Ontario regulation supersedes the Oakville's uh regulation in terms of the ratio of the floor area. Um one of the things to consider is that the Oak Ontario regulation generally um permits only a 4 meter separation between buildings that have an additional uh residential unit. But because Oakville's older bylaw of allowing to the houses to be 2.4 meters apart uh therefore enables a building with an additional residential unit to be closer than the 4 m uh specified by the Ontario regulation. Um so this again is uh sub substantially different than what uh Ontario regulated in more recently. So, I would request that the committee um consider this um and determine if this was the intent of the new provincial framework to allow these larger buildings in residential neighborhoods originally designed for uh small houses and bungalows. Uh if that's what uh the intent is in terms of addressing the two concerns of the bylaws of the separation of houses being 2.4 4 meters versus the provincial regulation of 4 meter separation between such buildings. Um, also to note that uh these neighborhoods were designed in the 1970s with generally one-story uh bungalows grouped together in groups of two to four houses such that they have sideyards so that uh there is no larger house with a second story looking over into the sideyard. So it does impact the privacy and shade etc as discussed in our notes uh because of the design change in the general neighborhood. So this is something to consider when you have many many bungalows um together in a grouping. Um so I do appreciate the committee has taken the amount of time they had to look into this proposal um and I thank you for your consideration in this matter. Okay. Thank you. Um I will ask um the applicant to respond to your comments with respect to the uh design of the building and uh but first I'll ask staff if you're able to speak to the matter of what the neighbor is raising where Oakville allows 2.4 meter separation and the provincial suggesting four. It sounds like in this situation the provincial does not override the town standard. Is that correct? Uh to you. Sorry. Were you asking me? Yes. Yeah. Sorry. Um to you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Um I believe the 4 meter uh regulation is a different regulation that came into effect. Um and it's required for um it's a min minimum separation distance that is required between detached um ARU and a primary dwelling. Um so I believe it's regarding the guarding suite. Um I can maybe defer it to Kate to talk more about this regulation. to be honest, I'm not very um familiar with it uh that regulation. You Mr. Chair, I can I can jump in as well. Um again, as the town is still trying to navigate uh the changes that the province has has has bestowed upon us, uh we we are also navigating how we interpret these changes. Um so the resident was correct in terms of the regulation. um 29919. There are two provisions within that regulation. Um specifically with respect to section 4 sub 2 and this is what speaks to kind of the requirements or the standards uh around when those structures can be provided. There is a requirement of less than 4 meters. However, um under 4 sub2 uh sorry that was 412. So under four sub 2 where there there is a provision with a bylaw prevailing um where the bylaw does provide for less than four meters then the bylaw is they are allowed to um provide for that separation um in terms of whatever the normal setback would be. This is consistent with the rules that the town would have had with respect to secondary suites. So when we had a secondary suite in a basement apartment configuration, you would have required to provide the normal setback that would be provided between dwellings. So if it was 1.2 m um to the property line and another 1.2 to the other, then that's where the 2.4 meter separation is coming from. Additionally though, there are separate requirements when it comes to the detached uh structure. So any accessory dwelling unit that would be within a detached structure, there are some separate requirements there where it speaks to the separation distance between um a detached ARU relative to the primary dwelling so that there's adequate spatial separation that you don't have the two buildings too close together. So the the regulation did did acknowledge again the opportunity for housing diversity within the residential neighborhoods across the province while also recognizing the limitations of the bylaws that were prescribed within each individual municipality. Um in an urban area the majority of our setbacks are one 1.2 m to the lot line. So a 2.4 4 separation versus if we were in our RL1- O zone which are our largest lots um you have 4.2 m to the sideyard. So you're talking 8.4 m building separation in a lot of cases. Um so it's all relative in terms of where we prescribe those separation distances in and accommodating the uh the intensity that's being included into new lots or into um existing lots rather. Okay. But if you have an existing sideyard setback that's less than four meters, the existing sideyard setback is still enforced. Uh that is my that is my read of of section 4 sub 2. Um yeah, Mr. decade of um just I I mean I realize that this is in this case they're building a second story on an existing house that obviously doesn't have the four meter but what if somebody was coming this is to the town planner there what if somebody is coming forward and building a new house can you then impose the 4 meter and and they want to exercise this higher residential floor area or lot coverage can you then exercise the four meter set back as set by the province or Yeah. So, um, through you, Mr. Chair, to the to the committee member. Again, an excellent question on on trying to provide some clarity. Um, I'll I'll I'll I'll read out verbatim what it says. I'm on the Ontario um Ontario.ca laws. I'm reading from 29919 uh section 4 subsection 2. We're under the heading of bylaw prevails. the bylaw passed under section 34 of the act that permits buildings or structures to be less than 4 meters from another prevails over the requirement that is set out in in paragraph 2 one of this section. So it the bylaw will always prevail. The pounds bylaw will always prevail. So if the bylaw allows for 1.2 m of a setback to the sideyard so presumably 2.4 4 meter separation between the dwellings. That is what they're allowed to provide as of right. And the and the regulation gives that authority to allow for the bylaw to prevail in that instance. So if they built a new house, they still just need to comply with the bylaw. that the province was not intending to make this overly difficult uh for people to be able to provide these uses yet making it challenging to interpret for us to understand how that's to be implemented. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Coburn. You're very welcome. I'll just um ask the applicant if um she'd like to respond to any of the comments made by the neighbor to you Mr. Chair. Uh so regarding the comments from the neighbor regarding our architect architectural plans it's just like conceptual architectural plans for now and we are definitely will adding more details to our architectural features including how the elevations will look like. So now it's just preliminary drawings for requesting the uh sizing the height of the uh building. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Uh thank you, Miss Burns, for your comments, Madam Secretary. Is anyone else called in to speak to this item? Mr. Chair, there have been no calls and I don't see anyone else with their hand up. Okay. Thank you. Uh I will close the discussion. Um I do feel for staff by the time you figure out the latest change in the province has made they've changed it again. But um this is the uh regime that we are working within. So uh what we're dealing with here is a revised application with the removal of the variances for coverage and floor area ratio. We're only addressing the matter of the height variance. You've heard Mr. Dicki's comments on uh strengthening the conditions. You've heard Miss Coburn's comments. It may or may not be necessary, but uh leave it to the committee and I'll look for a motion on this matter. Mr. Hardcastle. Thank you. Uh Mr. chairman. Um this is this is obviously an interesting situation where um um the you know where the bylaw is superseded by a higher level provincial authority that we're just unfamiliar with in the past. Um, I'm I'm going to step into this conversation uh with with uh with a commentary and and a and a resolution that's based upon a simplistic view of this in terms of dealing with the singular variance that we have at hand. Uh, and I'm I'm open to um um to finding our way through this in the best possible way in light of the committee's considerations and and advice of staff here. But um having reviewed the materials, having engaged in this conversation and having um uh some familiarity and increased familiarity now, thank you to staff of the new regulatory environment. Um I am satisfied that the requested variance for an increase in building height uh conforms to the four tests of the act. Um uh and accordingly I will put forward a motion of approval and that motion of approval would be subject to the conditions as proposed by staff. Um those being that the addition be constructed in general accordance with the submitted site plan and elevation drawings dated uh 2026112 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. Thank you, Mr. Hardcastle. Any discussion on that motion? Mr. Dicki, looks like you want to say something. I um Yeah. Um we had thought about putting another condition in or adding to the condition. I don't know. my my my this is all new to us and I'm I'm I'm sure that we're this is going to continue to come up although I wish it didn't. I just I as long as if everybody's convinced that we don't need to put that uh added condition which would be uh including the construction of an accessory residential unit is what I was thinking of adding to the first part of our normal conditions. Um um let me say that I would like to add that to that and we can discuss that and you can talk me out of it. That's fine. But uh I would like to go that route uh just to set a precedent for us. We may change our mind as these things come up in the future. But anyhow, there's my comment. Um any comments from the rest of you? I guess first of all I'll ask Mr. Hart Castle whether he's willing to accept that as a friendly amendment or not. Mr. Chairman, could I could I um um trouble yourself or Mr. Dicki to repeat the condition? Um I had some audio breakup there while while he was speaking. I'll do that. Um so the first the the condition would be that the addition be constructed in general accordance with the submitted site plan and elevation drawings dated uh 2026112 including the construction of a residential including the construction of an accessory residential unit and that the approval require expires two years from the date of Um although the regular to entertain discussion with staff in the middle of a motion, this is not a regular application. So thank you Mr. Chair for your indulgence. If I may add some additional um support for the members motion. Um, I would encourage the use of the language as provided within the rag or the bylaw, which would be to identify it as an additional residential unit, not a secondary unit to provide for clarity when um the building department is ensuring compliance with the condition. Thank you for your indulgence. How would that say I I I agree with that. I thought they were called uh accessory residential units, but if the terminology is additional residential unit, that's that's that's the correct way to go. Yes. Okay. Thank you for that, Miss Coburn. Um for my my two cents, I'm I'm really a mixed mind on this. Um Mr. uh Hard Castle's taken the pragmatic approach. Um, if I've heard Miss Coburn um advice properly, it I like the idea. It gives me comfort. I But I don't know that it really adds specifically because if I heard her correctly, they've applied with it. They're going to need to show it to get a building permit. they're going to need to constru need to construct it to get cleared for occupancy. Um so it may not add to it but um interpretation is often in the eyes of who's um looking at an application. So adding those words um while may not be necessary from my perspective um I would support either way but it does give me comfort to add the words that Mr. Dicki is suggesting Mr. Hardcastle. Yeah. Uh thank you Mr. Chairman. um you know in in in thinking about this in the context in which it's been brought forward um the conditions as we normally uh utilize them um uh including that first condition we often describe the proposal um that we are uh the built form construction element of the proposal um in in the first part of the sentence uh under condition one in this scenario what you know what what our normal wording is that the addition be constructed in general accordance you know uh putting on additional proviso language I feel is generally consistent with the approach and methodology we've taken in the past I think it's a matter of getting to language that is consistent um and acceptable to the committee and perhaps you know staff and consistent with you know provides a consistent approach to this and perhaps the description whereas u um uh Mr. Dicki has suggested placing the reference to the additional um additional residential unit. Making sure I get my terminology correct there. Um I is is at the back end of of the um um first condition perhaps the language could would more appropriately be that the that the addition and additional residential dwelling unit be constructed in general accordance etc. Um, would does that get to the same point or am I oversimplifying here? No, I I think you're actually making an excellent point, Mr. Hard Castle, in that we describe the proposal in the conditions. And what's different about this one is that the additional residential or the accessory I'm messing up the terminology but the additional residential unit is the operative thing here which is driving which aspects of the bylaw apply or not. So I I think that's the key. I think with that I think we do need to add as you've suggested and I think you you not to put words in your mouth but you're suggesting amending your motion that the first condition say that the addition and additional residential unit that's the correct terminology be constructed in general accordance that is exactly what I'm suggesting and I thank you for putting that towards Mr. uh Mr. chairman. Okay. Um so I'm crystal clear. Is it additional residential unit or additional residential dwelling unit? Uh through you Mr. Chair. Additional residential unit. A RU is the acronym. So to recap once again, motion on is to approve the amended application subject to two conditions that the addition and additional residential unit be constructed in general accordance with the submitted site plan and elevation drawing stated 260112 and that the approval expires within two years of the date of the decision if a building permit has not been issued. for the proposed construction. Is any other comments on that before I call for a vote? Miss Price, you're most moving. Go for it. I would say what you've said is fine. Okay. So, based on the motion, Mr. Hard castle was amended which I just read out. All those in favor. Okay. So that is unanimous. The application has been approved. Thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you committee members. Thank you and thank you everyone for your indulgence. But uh that was a unique one and not easy. We will move to application A02A 2026 at 144 May drive Mr. Chair that one was deferred earlier. I'm sorry. Well, that was easy. Application A 0292026 1086 Mont Rose Aby Drive. If anyone wishes to speak to this application, the number to call is 9058156095. Mr. Varos in attendance. Good evening. Yes, I'm I'm here, Mr. Chair. Thank very much. Go ahead, please, sir. Okay. Thank you very much, uh, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Um, I my name is Alex uh, Walter Alex Bergos um, from Abacus and Plinth Design Group and I'm the agent for the homeowner, Mr. Adam Capello. And what we're doing is we're hoping to get approval for an existing uh it's sort of like a gazebo/outdoor living space that was um that was constructed to the side of the house. Um we we do realize that um we are applying for two uh of minor variances which which is uh to permit a minimum flankage of 0.3 m whereas a minimum flankage of 3.5 m is required and to permit a maximum height of 3.048 048 m whereas 2.5 m is the um is the maximum height. That's the end of your presentation. Yes, sir. Thank you. Committee members, any questions for the applicant? Mr. Hardcastle. Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I have a I have a couple of questions I'll I'll I'll uh I'll ask of you. I noticed in my site visits that there is a second um shed in the backyard. I was not able to enter into the backyard, but I could see it from the exterior sideyard. I don't see it on the drawings. I don't um can you confirm what the intentions are with respect to that second structure? Yeah, that shed was actually I I I believe it was there be prior to the the current homeowner buying the home and it's it's pretty small. We um I believe it's under it's under 50 or 60 square ft. It's it's it's it's it like it doesn't um it doesn't impact or or or impede this this uh um this application. Um so the it is the homeowner's intention of retaining that structure I believe sir. Yes. Okay. Um I I note that it's not on the on the drawings. Um um I I I Okay, I I'm This is going to refer me a couple questions to staff, but I'm going to carry on with a couple questions with you if you don't mind. Um has there been a building permit applied for for the uh outdoor shed? This outdoor shed. Which one? The the new one. Uh, so we we tried to apply for the building permit and they informed us that we need to get the minor variance first. So that's what we're doing. So and this building is was constructed sometime last summer. Um, I believe was constructed in 20 Yes. Yeah. 2025. Yeah. Right. Um, okay. Um, thank you. I think that's my questions of you. Um uh m Mr. Chairman, do you mind if I uh direct some questions towards staff this point? Okay. um uh staff. Um I I'm not seeing any details on this drawing with respect to um uh lot area and percentage conformity with um if I if I read the the zoning bylaw correctly, there's a a maximum 5% lot area uh permission for sheds. Um but I I'm I'm not seeing any um characterist sorry any uh lot area uh or or cumulative uh numbers here. Um can you advise whether this was whether this percentage is applicable in this situation? I've read the bylaw correctly. Yeah, through Mr. Chair. Um great question. I actually looked through the application form as well and I don't see that question on the form itself. So, we would need to rely on the information provided. And since there's a lack of information provided, we would need to rely on section 652E of the zoning bylaw, which states the maximum lot coverage shall be the greater of 5% of the lot area or 42 square meters of building area except as specified otherwise by this bylaw. This lot coverage shall be additional to the maximum lot coverage for dwellings. So, if I go to the public notice for this application, this property is zone RL5. So, that provision would apply. Whereas, if you're familiar with the suffix zone, there's additional regulations for accessory dwelling. Uh, sorry, we just talked about that accessory um buildings um that are combined with the dwelling for lot coverage on the on the lot. So, in this case, the 5% is in addition to the lot coverage requirement. and and we're in add it lacks the adequate information to be able to do that assessment at this point in time. Yes. So, if I go to the RL5 zone and check what the lot coverage requirement is, just give me one sec. So, the maximum lot coverage uh for a dwelling is 35%. So the accessory um buildings would be an additional 5% above that. So you'd be looking at a total lot coverage of 40% um permitted. But again, yeah, there's no information that I can see that indicates what the combined lot coverage would be. um like there's a GFA on the site plan for the existing outdoor shed that we're we're looking at right now, but um valid point that the other existing shed isn't depicted or square footage provided on the site plan. Um the survey doesn't have anything. Scrolling through the other plans. I'm not seeing any other site stats even in the building details. Unless I zoom in a bit. These seem to be more building related details, not site stats. We can provide those to everybody. That's not a problem. Okay. Um I I'm certainly I'm I'm going to just lay lay out um um a thought at least at this point in time. I do have this this built this accessory structure is is fairly large and quite close to the exterior sideyard. And I' I'd really like to understand this situation in its totality and deal with um with uh with it with all of the information available. And um I I I'm I'm not sure what the preference of the committee is here tonight in terms of um accommodating a deferral, but I am I am not prepared to deal with it myself this evening um with the absence of information around the additional access accessory structure and and and um um the need to really understand this a little bit better. I see that uh we have our planner with putting his hand up in in the middle of my commentary here. So maybe I've I've triggered something with him. Um, uh, I I certainly am I I'll I'll I'll step back off of my point here, but I am open to the idea of of of putting forward a deferral in light of the absence of information that is necessary to deal with this and the need to update the drawings to reflect the the proposed situation at hand. But, um, you know, I I'll step back there and and see if staff, uh, wanted to speak to this. Thank you. Yeah, through you, Mr. chair and a valid point about accurate information being provided. Um I pulled up the application form again and there is question 7B that's uh there's there's fields related to existing buildings or structures and that's blank but if you go to question 8a that's proposed buildings and structures and that's where the information on the application form has been provided for the um the newer structure let's call it. So there's a lack of information unfortunately in the um the application form related to that uh other existing let's call it the older um accessory building. Um if uh if it were to be removed I don't think there would be a concern but I can definitely see where the committee's um hesitation is about um the lot coverage conformance. So Mr. Curtis, you've heard um from Mr. Hard Castle that he does not have sufficient information in order to bind favorably with your application tonight. Um there's being a second structure on the property. You've heard from Mr. has sand that there was a space to provide the information for the existing additional accessory building and the information was not provided with the application it is up to you to decide at this point whether you'd like to request a deferral while we usually don't do this um mid application but with you know information coming to light um I you know I don't I think it's a case of you know the application without the correct information can't move forward to a positive conclusion but just on the basis of missing information you know is it appropriate to deny the application the uh seems to me the best course of action would be for you to seek a deferral provide the information to staff have staff verify that with the um accessory structures you comply the bylaw and don't need an additional variance. Mr. Chair, yes, I um I agree with you. I I would seek a uh deferral if that's okay and we can we can certainly uh provide you with that with that missing information. My apologies. I thought that the main part of the of the of the variance was was was strictly to speak about the uh the new outdoor gazebo for lack of a better word, not the not the shed. Um but it's not shown. But yes, I can I can certainly provide that and um and I would seek a referral. Okay. Yeah, it's um the bylaw has my rate of different issues that I'll have to be complied with and so let's um let's make sure it's it gets done right and u with a deferral at this point. So committee members the applica applicant is seeking to defer this application at this point. All those in favor? Okay. So deferred your application if you can provide the missing information to staff and talk to secretary treasurer about getting yourself rescheduled. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. And if there was anyone in the audience wishing to speak to this item, it will come back at a later date and you will receive a new notice. Now moving on to A030 2026 at 2450 Old Bronty Road. Chair Patino. Good evening. Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Wayne Coutino. I am an applicant uh I'm the agent of the applicant from Cozy Carbon Planning. Um Kosi office is located at 277 Lakeshore Road East in Oakville. The property is 2450 Old Bronte Road. There's two buildings there. This variance is for the mixeduse building. I have read through the staff report and agree with the recommendations. Uh so go to the next slide, please. So the property is located uh south of Dund Street uh east of Bronty. It's about 0.7 hectares with frontage and old Bronty Road. The surrounding uses include mixeduse buildings, commercial buildings to the north, east and south. Uh church to the east and a fire station and paramedic station to the west. Uh the official plan designation is Palmer village primary regional node and polymer village is a primary growth area. The zoning is mixeduse urban center MU3. Go to the next slide please. This is a sketch of the front of the building showing the two buildings of the property two buildings. Um the orange hatch is the heritage building that's been converted for commercial uses. Uh noting that this minor variance has no impact to the heritage building. The mixeduse building is shown in the red hatch and the yellow hatch. The red represents the commercial non-residential area on the ground floor and the yellow hatch represents the residential and solar residential uses. Uh the minor variance is for footnote 6 to table 8.2 that's the pitted uses in a mixed use zone and in particular footnote 6 applies to business office and medical office uses. It essentially limits their use to a cumulative maximum width of 50% of the building in this case the mixeduse building within the first 9 mters on the ground floor of the first story. Uh currently we have three units commercial units B, C and E that are occupied with medical office unit uses and that represents just about 35% of the building width. uh unit F has just been occupied with a school use and there are two remaining vacant units, units A and D which represent about 24% of the building width. Uh the variance is minority. It's a request to increase that maximum limit by 10%. From 50% to 60% of the building width so that we can use those two vacant uses as business office or medical office uses. Can I have the next slide please? This slide is just show showing the surrounding context of commercial uses. Uh there the surrounding lands are also zoned MU3 with uh several medical and business office uses that help contribute to the active pedestrian oriented street. Uh the subject property as I mentioned is the mixeduse building and heritage house provides for 1548 square meters of non-residential floor area. And uh this is important. The the various skills of medical unit use use includes some things like a medical clinic, a physiootherapy or pharmacy which are essential community services for the community and business office uses will provide for small flexible spaces to serve the local market needs. And the next slide please. The building has been reviewed through the site plan approval process and draft plan of condo. It's been designed to meet the urban design objectives of the Palmra Village urban growth area allowing for the increased width uh to accommodate these office space users and the two vacant units will help attract commercial tenants and from an urban design and community building perspective having the ground floor occupied will enhance the building cont the building's contribution to an active pedestrian oriented streetscape. And last slide please. Uh so uh as for the staff report uh the general intent and purpose of official plan the zoning by parl achieved the variance is minor and it's desirable for the development in the community. Um we'll be here for any questions that you may have. Okay. Thank you members. Any questions for the applicant? Mr. Dicki. Thank you Mr. Chair. Um if we could go back to that uh sketch that shows the pink and the yellow um as a site plan. Just have a few questions on that to the uh consultant. That's the one I like. Uh first question is is the heritage building part of the subject property or is it a separate property? It's designed and integrated with the building uh underground is integrated with the with the property but they are two separate addresses. um it's considered a separate lot uh in terms of a building the building code. So when we're talking and I if I understand the zoning but um you're asking that we allow 60% of the frontage to be you used for uh medical and business offices. So that frontage that we're talking about is not including the frontage of the heritage building. That is correct. Correct. Correct. Correct. Okay. Okay. Now, we're going back. I The pink represents the non-residential area on the ground floor. No, the yellow represents the non Oh, I'm sorry. Non-residents. Okay. The yellow represents the residential. So, where on of the pink? No. Where's the You're going for 60%. Where's the other 40%. In in theory, where is it? So, where it would be the yellow and it would be unit F as well as the non-residential vestibule. So excepting for the residential which is a lobby and a little bit more there that's going to be the only shall we say retail type uh storefronts available. Correct. Also included okay just I'm I'm looking at the 40% that that will be other than mechanical and business. Let me just clarify that. So, and 40% of the fronts. So, the uh the driveway as the north side that's part of the 40% that is not three, Mr. Three, Mr. Chair, we only looking at the building width, uh not the property width. So, we're talking about the building width. Okay. Building width. Building width. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much for clarifying that. I didn't realize that. Um, so otherwise we've got like one or two storefronts and the lobby the width of the residential lobby area that make up the 40% of the building width that's not going to be office. You said you said the unit F. I can't see that. Will take the unit is a southern the southern Oh, there. Thank you. The southern um storefront. Correct. We approve this. That means this unit F has to be nonoffices. Does the pharmacy count as medical or is that a nonoff does that fall in the retail category of the Mr. Chair? The pharmacy counts towards a medical office use. It counts towards so it's in the 60%. Correct. Three, Mr. Chair. the the three uses that are currently there which is the pharmacy with a walk the medical clinic with the walk-in pharmacy the physiootherapy rehab center um and the dental office are considered medical office built medical office uses okay so the pharmacy is a is is a medical office not a retail store okay thank you I just want to straighten that out it's a little bit confusing for me thank Any other questions for the applicant? I see none. Madam Secretary, Treasurer, we did have a request to attend from Miam Edi. She present tonight. Mr. Chair, I believe she is present, but I don't see a hand up at this time. Just in case you're having trouble getting in and want to talk, um, please call 90581526095. Mr. Chair, she does have a hand up right now. Okay, I can move her in. One moment. Good evening. We can get your name and address and then please I just was any comments you have. No. Hi. Good evening. I just wanted to join and listening to be honest. Maybe it was misunderstanding. Sorry for that. Just wanted to join as I'm the unit owner for the physio. Just wanted to make sure how is that going to work for us regarding everything. But otherwise I don't have any comments. Sorry for the confusion. Okay. Thank you, Madam Secretary Treasur. Anyone else calling in for this matter? No, Mr. Chair. There have been no calls and no one else has their hand up. Okay. Thank you. Then I will close the discussion and look for a motion. M Price, you're muted, Miss Price. Taking into consideration my site visit, the various reports from the agent and staff, and there being no letters of opposition, I believe the variances to be minor in nature and are in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the official plan and zoning bylaw, and this is desirable for the appropriate development of the land. I also believe the four tests have been met and the application be approved subject to the following conditions. that the additional office uses be permitted in general accordance with the submitted minor variance application figure dated January 13, 2026 and that the approval expires 2 years from the date of the of the decision if a building permit has not been issued for the proposed construction. Thank you. Any discussion on that motion? All those in favor of the motion to approve. That is unanimous. Your application has been approved. Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. Good night. Good night. Now here A031 2026 at 263 Chartwell Road. Good evening, Mr. Duck. Uh good evening Mr. Chair, members of the committee. I have prepared a brief presentation. Oh, I see staff sharing now. Thank you so much. Um I'll try to be fairly quick about this. So this is for a proposed um addition to the existing cabana um with two variances required. If I could take uh you to the next slide. So this is just the subject property. Um this is obviously an existing dwelling. And as I mentioned, there's an existing programmed rear yard with a pool and existing cabana just behind uh the pool uh shown in the uh just the aerial here. Um obviously there's this this area in general as the committee is well aware is subject to an area that's undergone a fairly significant change in a number of properties uh which includes a number of variances to the bylaw. I'll just note very briefly for the committee um that variances to accessory structures uh are obviously not um exceptionally common but they do exist especially for for coverage and height. Uh I will note that there are other variances across the street specifically at 294 Char Road um which I was the applicant on that file as well a number of years ago for variances to the accessory structure in the rear yard which went in that case to 4.75 m. Um so the these variances do occur. Um if I could take you to the next slide please. Um this is the a few images of the existing condition of the property. You can see on some of the images on the far right hand side that is the existing um cabana uh and pool uh shed that exists on the property. Just behind the property to the east, there's a dwelling that's currently under construction and it has also undergone um construction of a a new cabana um and also shed associated with their property. Um you can see some of the overhang of the roof line related to uh that structure in image number two uh from the left. Um and obviously my client as part of that is seeking to um do a couple of things. is obviously they want to expand um their existing cabana for an open air outdoor area which I'll show in a moment but also it's intended to screen um the the new cabana that's been built on the neighbors property as well to the east. If I could take you to the next slide. Uh so this is just a site plan of the proposed cabana and there's two variances before the committee this evening. One for increase in lot coverage and obviously the second for increase in height. Um so obviously both um provisions in the bylaw especially as it relates to accessory structures is intended to mitigate massing impacts um as well as overlook and privacy impacts uh for accessory structures. I'll note that obviously on the left hand side of the image you can see that the northern setback uh is 10.1 m uh from the property to the north and then 5 m uh to the property to the south which is well in excess of obviously the bylaw requirements. Um so obviously the caban is designed to function as part of the um adjacent to the ingground swimming pool and it's intended to mitigate any potential massing impacts uh on obviously the neighbors to the north and south. Um and then obviously from the properties to the rear of the site which is to the east if I could take you to the next slide. Uh these are um the east and west elevations where the massing and majority of the height is obviously located. you can see on the image on the left is located adjacent to the pool. So that sloped to roof line um where it's shown on that image to the left um is proposed adjacent to that property to the east um which is an effort to mitigate obviously massing impacts as well as just from a design perspective um to obviously slope the roof away uh from the uh easterly lot line. If I could take you to the next image. Uh these are just the north and south elevations. I'll just in particular note that on the north elevation um just to focus on that there's obviously no windows proposed or or o any overlook proposed um as part of that uh as part of that elevation. Next slide please. Um and just lastly and most importantly in those first images that I showed in the the slides uh there's two um fairly mature trees located here. Um, so this is obviously an open air cabana that's being proposed. Um, the structure and as I just showed you some of the architecture, it's intended obviously to blend in with the architecture of the main dwelling on the property. Uh, first and foremost from a design perspective, but there's a few just design features that I want to also highlight. So there's no foundation walls being proposed. these uh the entire addition will be proposed with helico piles um to uh to protect and mitigate um these trees that are existing on the property. Um and then again I'll just note that um again the design of the the caban is intended obviously to protect for trees which obviously assists in functioning uh and providing sorry a function of uh mitigating any overlook um and any privacy impacts associated with the new cabana. Uh, next slide, please. Uh, so that concludes my presentation. I'd be happy to assist in answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you. Any members? Any questions for Mr. Decha? I see none. Madam Secretary, Treasure, has anyone called in to speak to this matter? Mr. Chair, there have been no calls and no one has their hand up. Thank you. and I will close discussion and look for a motion. Mr. Dicki, thank you, Mr. Mr. Chairman. Um, I just um want to make a few comments here. Oh, I'll I'll do my motion first and explain. uh based upon my review of the owner's application, the site plans, building elevations, my site visit, the uh consultants uh comments and the planning staff's report. I am satisfied that the variances are minor in nature and conforms to the four tests under the planning act. Um, I would normally uh have concerns about this height situation, but I note that um the peak in the gable runs parallel to the rear lot line, so the height is not uh from the rear is not as as as drastic as it could be. There's large sideyard setbacks, so that certainly is a is a a benefit or or a mitigation factor. And the lot itself is quite large and quite wide. and uh where my concern might be to the rear neighbor that rear neighbor has an existing caravan cabana on uh immediately to the rear of the subject property. So based upon that, I put forth the motion that the application is applied for be approved subject to the conditions that very um the conditions that the addition to the accessory building be constructed in general general accordance with the submitted site plan and elevations dated January 8, 2026. and that the approval expires two years from the date of the decision if a building permit has not been issued for the proposed construction. Thank you, Mr. Dicky. Any discussion on that motion to approve? All those in favor? That is unanimous. Your application has been approved. Thank you, members. Have a great night. Thank you. Have a good evening. We're going to hear the last two applications tonight together, but they'll require separate motions. It is A036 and A037 2026 at 86 Burnham Road East, block 9 and block 10 of plan 20M302. Good evening, Miss Mchuan. Good evening. Uh, my name is Katherine Mu from Corsiac Urban Planning here on behalf of Prostral Estates and TWWKD, Inc. Next slide, please. The subject lands are located on the south side of Burnham Road east east of six line and are known as block 9 20M 131302. Next slide. And next slide. Uh the original draft plan application was submitted in 2020 which was draft approved in June of 2022 and site plan application was submitted in February of 2024 and conditionally approved in 2024. The draft plan was registered in July of 2025. When the bylaw was crafted, it was based on the blocks being standard condominium blocks, which the as it stands, they would conform to the zoning bylaw. Um through the site plan process and review of the condominium tenure ship, it changed to common element condominium, which requires that each unit or parcel of tide land um be evaluated versus the entire block. As a result, we're requesting a number of technical variances to permit this condominium. Next slide, please. We're requesting to permit a minimum frame or setback for 1.93 m for block six. uh due to this block being located on a private street uh towner satisfied that it is satisfactory. The next one to permit a min rear yard setback of 4.08 m um for blocks 1 to 5 and 8 to 10 where rear yard setback 6 m required. Typically a lanebased town only requires a 0.7 meter 0.75 meter setback. Uh the next one is to permit a porch setback of 0.875 m from the front lot line whereas 1 meters is required. get a small encroachment for a small number of units and then as well of a flankage setback for block six uh porch setback of 0.875 m whereas one meter is required. Um we're requesting to permit a little minimum lot depth of 21.46 46 m uh whereas 23 m is required. Excuse me. Um if this was considered a lane base townhouse dwelling, the minimum lot depth of 17 m would be required. And then also to permit a minimum landscape area percentage to not apply to townhouse blocks 3 4 6 9 whereas a minimum landscape area percentage of 10% is required. We've worked with town staff landscape architect and have met um landscape requirements for the subdivision and site plan for these blocks. These blocks are dumb GU which has this requirement whereas the neighborhood center would um zoning designated nation does not. Um that concludes my presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Um, thank you, M. Mun. Mr. Hart has his hand up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I recognize a number of these variances as um as technical in nature based upon the the the zoning interpretation of of them. And I and I appreciate your comments with respect to the same. Um, I just know in my own um, personal life, personal professional life, I've run into situations with respect to one of the variances and it's piqued my interest here. And I I'd be looking for a little bit more information in light of my inability to really see it clearly on the drawings that I have. And maybe this makes me the the old guy when I look at a digital drawing sometimes and I can't see the detail on it that I'm looking for. My specific question is with respect to on a036 of 2026 the um the porch setback of 0.87 uh from the front yard and from the flankage yard. Uh I I I'm I'm curious in terms of the interpretation whether that's the porch itself or would that be inclusive of the stairs and would the stairs extend beyond um the uh setback requirement? Um that does include the stairs. Yes, it does include the stairs. Okay. And yeah, it's that backto back like which I should have prefaced that if like if we were a standard condo, we wouldn't be here today. But because we're now uh common element, now we're here. So yeah. Yeah. No, I I I I I I I recognize that piece. It's it's um I guess uh having a comfort level that um it that any uh changes to grade or alterations or details that that may not we've been working with town staff like town staff, building staff like to make sure that everything is functional. um to make sure things are according. Yeah. So, so you can confirm that there are would be no encroachments into into the rights the the public right of way as a result? Yeah. There has been no town staff has no concerns with what we're proposing. like we have detailed building permits in with the town and they're not concerned at this point. Thank you, Miss McHugh. And I I see that that uh that our uh planning staff have got their hand up. Um may maybe we can ask Kate if she can uh jump in as well. Yeah. Thank you. Um through you, Mr. to the members. Um as Mr. Muan has indicated this has been a very long um process for this particular development. Um at the time of the site plan application um and post draft plan approval we were bestowed upon us a bill 23 uh no bill 109 uh that instituted the requirement for fees to be paid if certain decisions were not made in a specific amount of time. So the site plan of itself was actually conditionally approved uh alongside the timing of the draft approval of the subdivision. And what we did was to facilitate um a process that is not particularly um common for the town. But in the instance of this subdivision and its size is we were trying to facilitate um the applicant's desire for improved mobilization of construction works. and we had granted the opportunity to pre-ervice this block um with the servicing of the subdivision. So the roads, the curbs um within the internal network of these two condo blocks has already been constructed. Um so we're working through the site plan now for these kind of refined details. But in order for us to support that network and servicing to be identified, we had already pre um evaluated let's say the location and and the the encroachments of all of the various structures um that were shown on the site plan. Uh so I can assure the committee this site plan has not changed in four years that we've been evaluating it and that as things have moved on. And as it's been mentioned, it's it really comes down to how the bylaw imp is implemented based on tenure. And because we now have pothles um that are, you know, rear lot pothles, backtoback pothles, they they now have to be assessed on their their own kind of dimensions rather than the exterior dimensions. So if that were to provide you with some additional level of comfort to ensure that the town the town staff are satisfied that we have crossed all of the eyes and dotted all of the tees with respect to this proposal. Um I I can offer that additional information on top of the comments that have already been uh provided in the report for you. Thank you. Yes through you chair. I would just like to thank Kate for that because we have definitely been working on this for a long time. So that's great. And we're just trying to complete the development and kind of complete the community. Any other questions for the applicant? Mr. Dicki. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a a whole bunch of questions here unfortunately. First question is um in in the subject subject instance what is the difference between the common element items and the condo items. The road me to me the road's going to be a public road I assume. But maybe you're going to tell me wrong. Normally in a condominium the uh the the the the walls are part of the condominium. Uh but in a common element it's usually just the road and and that's about it. So if you could just explain to me just the items, not the legal aspect. I understand all that. Just the items that are different between what would have been the condo and what would have been a common issu um Mr. Dicki. So if it was a standard condominium, it they would have been just one block. So block block nine and we would have had a front yard, a sideyard, a rear yard, and that was it. Sorry, I don't No, I'm not asking about the zoning the zoning um aspects of it. I'm asking about from the point of view of the condominium. the condominium would have been paying condominium fees. Those condominium fees would have taken care of certain certain items. How's how's the common element um situation different? The owners have to take care of the exterior of the house. I don't actually have that answer for you. I'd have to get that back to you if uh it pleases the committee. Mr. chair, I can interject. Okay. Okay. Excellent. And and perhaps can help Katherine as well, but I'm sure you'll do a better job than me. Um, sure. Uh, so through you, uh, Mr. Chair, to the to the committee member, um, while I appreciate to not get too much into the legal definitions, there are there are a variety of condo types under the condominium act. And common element condo um is a specific condominium application that can be provided which you rightly said delineates the the road itself as a common element um and it provides an opportunity for the lands to that are holding a unit to be considered a freehold tenure. And so what that means is they're bound to that road and the type of fees as you indicated that would be paid are strictly related to the maintenance and operation of the road and the services within that road. So if there is a storm sewer um the private services of a sanitary or water mane are all included within that road and the the condominium corporation that gets established by each of these podle owners. um it is still provides for governance over how that road is going to be maintained and and the associated infrastructure. Um so to answer your question, is the um the person who owns the unit responsible for maintaining the exterior of their house and mowing their lawn and doing all of those things? Yes. In a standard condominium there are even within a standard condominium it depends on how the surveyor wants to define the unit. So we've moved away from the idea of a podle which is a a meets and bounds defined parcel of land that is tied to a road to a standard condominium which looks up the whole of the property and as Katherine indicated let's call block nine and the unit can be defined as simply the interior space of a dwelling it can extend to the exterior walls of the dwelling it can extend beyond that and have defined areas that are referred to as being exclusive use um areas. So, a backyard or a front yard where the the owner of that unit maintains their lawn. So, it there's a spectrum within the standard condominium format. It's a little bit more um permissive in a common element format. So, it's it's more traditional. The road itself is not a public road. So I want to clarify that in any instance of condominium that condominium road is not assumed by the municipality. It is strictly managed and governed by the condominium corporation who has interest in that road. So there is no um the the difference here that's being reflected in this application is strictly how the bylaw is interpreting the the limits and boundaries of a lot versus what is a unit within a lot. Sure, Mr. Chair. That's what I thought a common element was just the road. So we I I I mean I I would and I'm surprised it works here. Um does the road otherwise so it's not going to be a public road. Does it have enough width and everything else that it could become a just say um is is wide enough to be accepted as a public road? Maybe it's 18 meters or whatever a normal public road is. So through you Mr. chair to the committee member, the answer is no. Um the the intent of these private roads is to maximize the efficiency of land often in times and so a public road would need to be North Oakville. Mr. Towski, correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Mr. Chair, but I believe it's uh I think we have a standard of about 17 or 19 meters as a kind of a local road standard and that includes certain uh facilities uh might include on street parking and and sidewalks and certain boulevard sizes within a condominium um format whether it would be standard or common element. If we know that the development is intended to include these private roads, um what's what we try to accomplish is similar facilities within a smaller space. So in this case and and um Katherine and maybe staff can pull up the site plan again and we can look at it. But if I recall correctly because I'm so intimately involved with this plan, I believe we have 7 and 1/2 mters of pavement width uh to accommodate the required fire route. There is also a 1.5 meter sidewalk that was also incorporated um as as well as some tree planting that was designated kind of throughout. So, it's going to give the look and feel um that it's been integrated into the community and have the feel of a public road, but it most certainly is not. It is a private road. It will never be taken over by the municipality um because it would not meet the the dimensions and the width requirements that we would have under the town standards. That's through you chair. Uh that's correct. And just to highlight that we've like also included a number of like a an extra accessibility corridor through the site which um was required by town staff. So, I think that we should highlight that. Anything else, Mr. Dicki? Um, yeah, unfortunately. Yes. I'm um of all these variances, my biggest concern is the rear yard setback on the lots that back on six line and burner. You've got uh 4.08 meter uh rear setback versus a 6 meter normal. And I thought is, you know, it really huge chair the interior lots that don't back on. It's just the noise factor and everything else of being on six line and on being on uh Burnham Thorp. I'm assuming we're not going to have noise walls or anything like that because the city wants or the town wants them to be have a good streetscape. Um so that's the one question and I just before I forget I'll ask a second question up front. Is there other instances where this type of thing has happened where where this type of a backto-back town houses have been built in a common element uh tenure? But first of all maybe comment on the rear yard setback which is my concern please. So for view here, uh the backyard setback typically for this um type of development, the rear yard setback would be 0.75 m. But because we're interp because the zoning um because we got we're now interpreting the zoning for pothles were subject to a bigger rear yard setback. So, um, when we originally did the development, we were fine with the 0.75 setback. And that's typical for what a like these are typically kind of lanebased units. Are you saying just a minute? You're saying if these were this Oh, this whole thing would have been a condominium corporation, not the individual block. So, you're saying uh the zoning bylaw only requires a 0.75 meter rear yard setback backing on a major arterial streets like that. I mean, I'm seriously planned really. Yeah. The other way to the private street through you, Mr. chair, if if I can provide some clarity. So to the to the committee member um in in this instance in the design of this particular proposal and as you mentioned the town's desire and objectives to have um very strong and and articulated streetscapes um six line and Bernham Thorp and I believe the the road there's Eclipse and the the road that divides the two blocks. Um these are all actually front yard conditions. So this is the front yard setback that you're seeing to the road, but because of the change in the definition of a lot because now we're dealing with these individual parcels, it's being reflected as being this rear yard condition because the driveway is oriented to the internal private road and that's how the lot is being measured. in the original design and the original contemplation of how the bylaw was structured and the and again nothing has changed. This is what council saw. This is what they approved. Um everything complied. We have we have the street wall. We expect these are considered like they could be considered lane-based townhouse units which yes we do condominiumize. We also condominiumized um through common element um uh these backto-back products as well. Uh it's this is the the technical aspect of this application is that because of the change in the tenure form it changes the configuration of the lot but the building the structures its orientation nothing has changed. Maybe I can try to add some clarity Mr. Dicki. Uh, none of these units are what I would refer to as double fronted units. None of these units actually have a backyard. It's they've got doors on both sides. Um, they've got, you know, front elevations on both sides. And it's just because when it's gone from the full block to a common element condo, the zoning bylaw, details kick in and something has to be called the rear yard. And when you're questioning why there's a rear yard of less than a meter or a couple of meters, it functions as a front yard. It's okay. Now, now I I realize what Okay. Um, yeah, because you see those existing along six line area. So, that you look at the h the town houses there, the existing ones in other parts of the and it looks like that's the front of the house. We go around to the back. It's like a rear yard laneway in some cases, but in this case, it happens to be what looks more like a public road back there. Okay. Okay. I think Okay. Yeah. Okay. Okay, that that clears up everything for me. Thank you. Miss Price, you were going to ask a question. Yes, I still would like to. Um, are these town houses pre-sold like before and then it go? So, if this changes, will they the owners then be notified or is this not even as people? There's no So, the units haven't been sold yet. Oh, through you, chair. From what I understand, 60% are sold. And if the committee wants us to notify homeowners, we're happy to do so. I would think it would be a good idea cuz all of a sudden, you've got a a road that you're now responsible for in terms of maintenance and stuff like that. I think it's something that need these owners need to be told. That is something we could definitely include. Okay. Through you, Mr. Chair, I would add uh to the benefit of the the committee member, um these units were always intended to be within a condominium tenure. They always knew they would be responsible for paying fees for the maintenance of the road um as as part of the condominium. So when someone decides to choose to live in a condominium tenure, they know that they're responsible for their own self-governance in that way. My understanding as well in addition to to Katherine and her client and having had conversations with the client directly is they have been marketing it as common element. So they do know that this is the path forward that they're looking for. Um, so all that actually does, if I may, in my experience working with condominiums is it's a benefit to the um, future purchaser because typically common element condominiums carry a lower fee than a standard condominium. There is less maintenance. So I I am happy to to support the the desire to ensure that people are informed of of the tenure approach, but a tenure application has not yet been made. Let me make that also clear. We do not have a condo application submitted yet to the town to establish the tenure. We are still working towards executing the site plan um agreement and getting final approval on the site plan which in the materials indicated will expire uh within the next month. Um so this is one of these steps we're looking to to clear off so that we can move forward with that tenure application. Thank you. You're very welcome. Mr. Dicki, I just want to make a comment to the consultants. You've heard the type of questions were were asking you, and my thought is in your letter, you had like a 28page letter, but it had a lot of diagrams, but you had a letter that you submitted two weeks ago or so. I uh am disappointed that you didn't address some of these things. You didn't I don't think you told us that the common element is the road. You you know we we had to realize that or question that to you. Um I I apologize that I had it backwards as to what the rear yard or what the appearance of the rear yard is, but that would have been a good thing to explain to us. And don't forget you're in theory you're you're you talking to people us that should know a lot about real estate. You didn't have to tell me what the the two two the true idea of a condominium versus a a common ill. But in theory, you could be talking and addressing things to the neighbors. And the neighbor did make a complaint. And uh and I think in the future when you write a letter like that be more give more detail. And I know you were you were emphasizing the fact that this has been approved and all that other stuff which is fine but you still didn't address the fact the the situation as for us to understand what has actually happened forgetting about the fact that I mean not forgetting but but also emphasize what is actually happening there and the conditions about this rather than just emphasizing the fact it's been approved and and all that other stuff. I that certainly needed to be done. Don't get me wrong. I'm just saying other things needed to be done and and this this discussion would have been much much shorter if you had done it in your letter two weeks ago. Thank you. I thank you for your comments, Mr. Q. And since Mr. Dicki brought up Mr. Lmer's letter, did you have anything additional to add with respect to that above and beyond what you've already explained to the committee? uh through you chair to the neighbors comments. I just wanted to note that I I don't they didn't provide I don't believe a distinct address but I think they're just like directly on the other side which has the NC zoning which does not have the 10% landscape requirement um and doesn't have as many of the zoning regulations as the GU that we're dealing with. So, I just wanted to note that. Okay. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Treasure, is anyone called in to speak to this matter? Mr. Chair, there have been no calls and no one has their hand up. Okay, I'm going to close discussion and look for two individual motions. first for application A036 for block nine predicting. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Um so oh I whatever is the first oh sorry I got it here. So the first application uh AO36 uh 2026 for block 9 uh based on my review of the owner's application the site plans building elevations my site visit together with the presentation by the owner's consultant and the planning staff's report but also having regard to the objections put forth by one of the neighbors but still I'm satisfied that the varian are minor in nature and conform to the four tests under the planning act. And I put forth a motion that the application is applied for be applied subject to the conditions for number block nine is that the development proceed in accordance with the final approved site plan SP 1315 uh.00401 00041 to the satisfaction of the director of planning and development and that the approval expires two years from the date of the decision if a building permit has not been issued for the proposed construction. Any discussion on that motion? All those in favor of the motion to approve. Okay, that is unanimous. The application is approved. Okay. For um oh sorry for application A 037 2026 which deals with block 10 at the Burnham Thort Road address. Um I put forth a motion that the application as applied for be approved subject to the conditions that the development proceed in accordance with the final approved site plan SP. uh 1315.00004-01 to the satisfaction of the director of planning and development and that the approval expires two years from the date of the decision if a building permit has not been issued for the proposed construction. Thank you. Any discussion on that motion to approve? All those in favor that is unanimous. Your application has been approved. Thank you. Have a good night. Okay, we have minutes to confirm from February 18th. Mr. Hardcastle and motion to adjourn at 9:20 p.m. Mr. Hardcastle. Thank you.

Full Transcript