Okay, good evening everybody and welcome to Committee of Adjustment for August 2026. So while you are all silencing your cell phones, I'll use the opportunity to read the following statutory notice. The notice of decisions for the applications we review this evening will only be forwarded to those who have presented a written request for the decision. And furthermore, former request is necessary to be advised of a possible Ontario Land Tribunal hearing on these matters. And in order to be allowed to make a presentation to the Ontario Land Tribunal, which is otherwise known as the OLT. Now, for those of you following along at home, welcome. If you would like to be notified of any of the decisions, then please send an email with your name. To our Secretary Treasurer Lindsayman. Her email address is up on the screen. And please be sure to include your full name. And more importantly, the file number of the application. Now, for those of you who are new to committee adjustment, either in Council Chambers or watching online, I'm going to share with you the five part format I use as we navigate through all of the applications this evening. And the first part I'm going to start by introducing the applications. So if you are the applicant and you are in - house, I'm going to invite you to come to a speaker's area over to my right to any of the microphones. Once I recognise you, turn your microphone on. I'll get you to state your name for the record. And then you'll have an opportunity to add anything further to the application. If you have nothing further to add, simply say I have nothing further to add. In the second step, I'll invite members of our committee to ask questions of you or the applicant, the agent, or staff. And then in the third step, I'll open the public portion of the meeting. Now, during this session, members of the public who are in - house can raise their hand. And when I recognise you, I'll direct you over to a speaker's area. You turn the mic on, you say your name, and then you'll have an opportunity to say your peace or ask your questions. Every speaker will have up to five minutes. And as the timekeeper, I will give a warning at four minute mark so you can know to wrap up. It would be helpful if speakers do not repeat the same points over and over again. That is really not very helpful. We only really need to hear each comment once. And during this portion of the meeting, please don't expect an immediate response to your comments or your questions. The process is not to encourage a two - way dialogue. It's a process for us to record your questions and comments. And then when we close the public portion of the meeting, uh, we turn the meeting back to the staff and to the committee members to have those questions and answers addressed to the best of their ability. And then the committee uses all of that information to make it deliberation. I'm going to call up to three times for public comments before I close the public portion of the meeting. Just to ensure everybody has fair chance and fair opportunities to say their peace. In the fourth step, I'm going to give the applicant their agent or staff an opportunity to address those public comments and then in the fifth and final step. I'll turn the meeting back over to our committee members. We will put emotion on the board. We will deliberate on that motion in a very public forum. So you will hear our thoughts because we will be speaking them. And then we have an ultimate vote and we make our ultimate decision. And that's it for application number one. And then I use the exact same format for the remaining four applications we have this evening. And that's pretty much about it. So at this point I'm going to pass the mic over to Allison to confirm quorum. Thank you. And through you, Mr. Chair, I can confirm that we do have Corum, absynthesia. Great. Thank you very much. And at that, I'll now call the meeting to order at 534 PM. And I'll refer committee members and anybody in the room to the agenda. Um, committee members, you've had an opportunity to review the agenda. There was an addendum that went out early this afternoon. So, um, I'm going to be calling for, uh, a motion to approve the agenda as amended. So moved by Ken and second invite Doug. And any discussion. I see none. So all in favor, raise your physical hands. And that is unanimously carry. Thank you. Are there any disclosures of pecuniary interests? Oh, I'm sorry. Um, uh, I have to back up here. Iem number four on the agenda is The Confirmation of the Minutes from the previous meeting that was held on July 20th. Um, so committee members, you've had an opportunity to review the agenda. Okay. Can I call for a motion to approve? Okay. So moved by Doug and seconded by Psalmnath. Any discussion. There is none. So all in favor, raise your physical hands. And that unanimously carried. Thank you very much. Are there any disclosures of pecuniary interests this evening. I'm not seeing shaking heads, so we must not have any. There are no requests for deferral. We have no returning deferred items. And now we are onto our first piece of new business, which is an application for minor variants at 184 ordinance street. Lindsay, can you read this into the record, please? Through you, Mr. Chair, this is an application for minor variants at 184 ordinance street. The file number is D13034 2026. And it is to construct and attach one story carport and to expand the existing front stairs. Very good. Thank you. And do we have the applicant to their agent? Yes. You can make your way to any microphone. And get yourself comfortable. And the little button at the base. You press it, the microphone will go red. All right. Now I'll get you to state your name for the record, please. My name is Ali Jacob. Good. And you can pull the mic right down to your mouth. Okay. Great, great. And welcome. Is there anything further you want to add to the application. Not maybe one small thing. Um, I am constructing a porch on the side of my, uh, home, uh, replace an existing porch that was there. In the original structure. Um, we're asking to add, um, an area to pull a vehicle in to, in particular, to be able to plug in, because we would like an electric vehicle to occupy this space. So that's the only thing that's not in the, we're normally in the paper, but otherwise that's that. And the second thing would be, um, just the second part is for, uh, an adjustment to bring my stairs at my front of my house to my front door out a little bit in order to just make some adjustments to that. But I must rebuild them. They're falling apart. Okay. Very good. All right. All right. Thanks for that committee members. Do you have any questions for the applicant or staff. I am seeing none. So what that will open the public portion of the meeting. Do we have any members of the public with us this evening online or in - house who wish to speak to the application for 184 ordinance street? Please raise your physical hands if you're in - house or your virtual hand, if you are on Zoom. Okay. So we have nobody in the public gallery interested in this. And then house wishing to speak to this application. So I'll close a public portion of the meeting. And I'll turn it back to the committee for a motion. So moved by Ken and seconded by SOMNA. And any discussion. Okay. So all in favor raise your physical hands. And that is unanimously carry. That's that. All right. Thank you. All right. Our next application is number two on the agenda. Um, application reminder variants 436 Bath Road. Lindsay, can you read this into the record please? Through you, Mr. Chair. This is an application for minor variants at 4336 bath Road. The file number is D13 040 2026. It is to permit exterior stairs with reduced interior setback and reduced water body separation distance. I'll also note that the addendum contains a letter of concern for this application. Very good. Thank you. And do we have the applicant with us in house or online. Okay. Get yourself comfortable and then you can tap the mic. And I'll get you to state your name for the record, please. Good evening. My name is Amon Flynn along with my spouse. We're on a Goodwin Flynn. We are the owners of the property and house at 4336 bathroad. Very good. Thanks and welcome. And is there anything further you wish to add to the application? Uh, no, I just got a copy of the addendum, then the last hour. I've gone through most of it. Okay. Okay. And we'll come back to that. All right. Thank you. Committee members. Do you have any questions for the applicant or staff. Ken. Yes. Thank you Mr. Chairman. My first question is to Malcolm. And I think Maeve. Whoever wrote the staff report. I'm not sure. And it has to do, uh, with an item that I discussed with Malcolm previously, um, and I think I might help the committee to be clear on the same point. Uh, The Clause 4. 19. 3 and the zoning by La refers to exterior stairs, including their guards and landings that are not required by the building code act. When I read that, my first question was, well, is the applicant seeking seeking the correct variance if these stairs are not required by the building code act. And I wish Malcolm, if you could elaborate for the benefit of the committee as you did for me on that particular point. Yeah, that's a very good Malcolm. Great. Thank you for the question and through you, Mr. Chair. Staff did discuss this during the submission of the application and we made the interpretation that ultimately it is only the landing areas that are to be required by the building CONACT that our subject to this provision. And that's for the purpose of ensuring that landing areas aren't expanded to represent a DAC bypassing section 4. 20 of the zoning bylaws. So what this regulates ultimately is exterior stairs and they're associated guards and then landings that are required by the building code Act. Um, and it is understood that this stairs were not required for the construction of the dwelling, but the stairs will be required to get a building permit and a design that the landing would be associated with, uh, its compliance with the building code. And so that would also then apply to this, uh, permitted encroachment. For provision under the zoning bylaw. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I have a second question. Mr. Flynn, if I may ask. Given that the finished condition of the stairs can be as close as 10 centimeters from the lot line, I'd be curious to understand how the stairs will be built without interfering with a lot line or the mutual fence or the neighbor's property. Could you expand on how you intend to build these stairs. Please. We actually propose that we would be eight inches from the line. So, um, what's that? 20 centimeters. My age is showing, I'm sorry. I still do things in inches. Um, the reason for that is to allow a minimum of 30 inches of clearance past the electric metre, which is on the side of the house in case such as things as an emergency structures or something that have to go up and down. Uh, that is as small as we're able to make the stairs and still make them functional. So that's where it came from. It was a 30 inch width. Beside the electric metre, which came to, uh, eight inches from the lot line. We'll be eight inches away. And you're satisfied. You can erect the staters having regards for that eight inches. I understand. Is that correct? Oh yeah. They're going to be, they're going to have to be engineered. They will be metal. It's, uh, it's a full metal staircase fully engineered, which will have to be submitted with the, uh, building permit. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Great. Thank you. Committee members, does anybody else have a question for the applicant or for staff. I'm seeing none. So at this point, I'll open the public portion of the meeting. Do we have any members of the public with us in house or online who wish to speak to the application for, uh, four, three, three, six bathroad. Please raise your virtual hand and zoom or physical hand in the house. Okay. So we recognise somebody online, a Sabina. If you could unmute your mic and we can bring you into the meeting. Hi, can you hear me? Yes. Thank you. We get you to state your name for the record. And yes. Sure. My name's Sabina Islam. I'm sorry. I'm in my car. So hopefully you can hear this. Um, I'm the owner at 4332 Bath Road. Um, my home is Jason to the Upkins property. They're proposed staircase with adjacent to my property line and fence. Is it okay if I continue? Yes, please do. Yep. We've got the clock started as well. Okay. I submitted detailed comments, including pictures to the committee clerk clerk. And I understand they've been attached to the addendum. I hope for everyone's had a chance to read them. Yes. I would also like to add that the public notice and the dash system do not have the same request for variance for variance number one. And I had also, um, pointed that out to the clerk and requested deferral until that was sorted out. But I did not receive any further information about that. So I will continue. Um, this is the third time the applicants have come before the committee of adjustment. Again, uh, all of this is detailed in the submission. A few things I'd like to bring to your attention. Um, the fact that there's been success of applications on this lot, um, rather than one, uh, larger one. And this could allow for the committee to be more amenimal to approvals. Um, number two, this is an extremely undersized lot for any who have had an opportunity to visit it. It is just over half the allowable size, um, in this area. And the applicants were aware of this fast and made the conscious decision to design and build on it. Um, nonetheless, the last appearance before the committee, um, and the OLT access to the rare yard was specifically mentioned by our lawyers and planner when the, um, application to build their home was put forth references were made by the applicants at that time that access could be obtained by the lake. So this was not a concern at the time of building their home. Our planner and lawyer also mentioned how other homes in the neighbourhood have extensive side yards that allow access to the rear of the properties my home, for instance, actually has a driveway to access the rare yard. Number three, if the exterior staircase were really a requirement or an issue for safety, it would have been included in the African's plan or the building inspector would have cited it as a requirement or a need or it would have been part of the building code. But it was not the applicant's plan. They built their home on an extremely undersized lot with the tightest of setbacks and the city did not have any issues with issuing a building permit or occupancy permit. Number four, the current interior side yard setback is 1. 2 metres from the applicant's house to my property line. This is the minimal allowable in the bylaw. The bylaw, however, already allows for an exception that was discussed earlier. For an exterior staircase in 4. 19. 3. It can be built within that 1. 2 metre setback as long as it maintains 0. 5 metres of a setback. So let me irritate the bylaw already makes an exception for an exterior staircase. But the applicants who knowingly bought an extremely undersized lot and knowingly built their home with minimal available setbacks are now asking the committee to disregard that this knowledge and this foresight and grant an exception to the exception already made in the bylaw. If there was no purpose for ensuring, there was a 0. 5 metre setback for an exterior case. Why did the bylaw specifically require this when making the exception for the exterior staircase? Five, Want vs. Need. Their staircase is not a necessity. If it was, they would have designed their house with a staircase of mind from the beginning, but they didn't. If this was truly a necessity, it would be a building code requirement or the building Inspector would have said they needed it or the applicants would have included it in their design from the beginning. Just because it is something that they may find convenient to them now rather than going through their house or using the lake as they referenced in the OLT herring. It doesn't mean that they're want to negate the bylaw that has already made an exception for exterior staircases. I ask you to review my written submission detail. Visit the site and consider the intent of the bylaw before making your decision. This is where at least one of the four tests of the minor bearings is Will fail. Excuse me, excuse me, excuse me, excuse me, you're at the four minute mark. You have one minute left. Okay. There was an exception when the 0. 5 metre setback was maintained. If not, when the bylaw allowing exterior staircase, and the 1. 2 metre side yard setbacks was created, there would not have been a setback maintained. For this reason, I believe the request for the minor variants must be denied. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. All right. Do we have any other members in the public who wish to speak to the application for 4336 Bath Road? Please let yourself be known by raising your physical hand in house or your virtual hand on Zoom. And there is nobody else online and nobody in house. Okay. So I'll close the public portion of the meeting and come back to, uh, staff to address some of these and the applicant to address some of the issues we've just heard. Malcolm, do you want to start. Sure. Thank you. And through you, Mr. Chair. Um, just would start with just the issue regard that was raised by the notice. Um, so yes, as the applicant flag during their comments and in the submission that they did, uh, request eight inches, which I think equates to 0. 3 metres. Um, or sorry, 0. 2 metre setback, which would result in a relief of 0. 3 metres. Staff, uh, it was common practice for us to build in a little bit of flexibility just in case that there's some imperfections in the install or that there is maybe perhaps a slight deviation that would create a technical variation. So, uh, the notice is still acceptable under the planning act in our opinion because it over notices the request. And the resulting stairs would still be in compliance. Should they be built at the proposed 0. 3 metres, or sorry, 0. 2 metre setback. Uh, so there's no kind of negative prejudice to the notice and that, um, that there's a misrepresentation or whatnot in terms of what the extent of the variance is being requested. Um, some of the discussions, uh, around the past applications, there is an extensive history and that has been reviewed by staff and they are detailed in the staff report. However, our job is to apply the four tests of the minor variances to this specific application. Um, which kind of brings me to the next point about the intent of the zoning bylaw. So there is a school of thought in planning or not school like it is understood that them when they're a prohibitions in a zoning bylaw. Like you cannot have certain thing within a setback or something like that that those can be varied. But the way that the zoning bylaw is worded is that it treats this just like a setback, just like a building in which setbacks are routinely varied through the minor variants process, again, provided that they do meet the intent or the fore tests of the zone in Bylau, which the intent is, uh, one of those tests. And in our assessment, the intent of the zone and by law here is to ensure that stairways and, uh, landings that are required by the building code are functional and have the appropriate space from proper lives to ensure proper drainage and access for maintenance. Uh, as opposed to having an absolute prohibition of half a metre, um, and if it did have that, it would have different wordings. This stating that effect, such as no stairs shall be permitted within half a metre of a law line or something to that effect because that is routinely in the zone and by a lot. So in our assessment, it does meet the intent of the zone in bylaw because of the way that the, for the exterior stair setback, um, because those setbacks are there to allow for flexibility for building components that do routinely encroach into that. And when there are site specific conditions like appropriate buffering or the ability to maintain those stairs and achieve proper grading and drainage that we're supportive of those on those site specific bases, which is the nature of the variance that we're talking about today. All right. Um. There was one comment about the exterior staircase should have been included in the original plan. Through you, Mr. Chair. It again, it is my understanding that the exterior staircase is not required by the Ontario Building Code for the development of the dwelling. And so that's why it wasn't required ultimately at the time of the building permit. And so, you know, as building staff, my understanding is they can ultimately can't require things to go above and beyond with the building code requires. And so it wasn't implemented at that time. Um, perhaps the applicant can speak more about the evolution of their use of their property to why it was, uh, the side of the now it is needed. But ultimately again, planning stop job is to apply the four tests to that specific application. And I would maybe ask Mr. Flynn if you wanted to comment perhaps on, on how the functionality of the property has evolved since that time to prompt the request for stairs on that side. If you think it would be worthwhile. Sure. I mean, I just can't speak to like what the necessary, what has prompted the need now versus when it was applied for sure. Mr. Flynn. Sure. More than happy to. My wife and I bought that lot 14, almost 15 years ago now. Um, it is a, I really hate that my neighbour keeps on calling it a severely undersized lot. It's 55 foot wide. Now there are places where there'll be three houses on that, but that's beside the point. When we tried to build the house, uh, and started the process. Our neighbour was severely obstructionistic to the previous owners. She had stopped them. They got what it was, I believe five minor variances to build a house on the lot. Um, she had that squashed at the OMB, even though this city had put it forward. We bought the lot knowing quite honestly, it was going to be a bit of trouble, but we've gone along with all our neighbours. We're fairly nice people. We thought it wouldn't be a problem. It hasn't turned out that way either. The first, she mentioned the three times we've applied. The first one was the neighbours on the other side offered to sell us five feet. Our lot was originally 50 foot. She offered to sell us five feet because she wasn't using the space very neighborly thing to do. Uh, the idea was as well it would allow them to amalgamate. They had two lots in their house and they could amalgamate it for tax purposes and things like that. We went through the purchase, the city approved it. Um, Ms. Islam objected bought it and took us to the OMB for five feet on the other side, not her side. When we decided we were going to build, she had made it known that she would never allow us to build she would do everything she could to stop us from building. And she did. She designed the house specific to setbacks. We only required one minor setback. And that was actually from the floodplain. On the back of the house. So the second, uh, minor variance request was to go from, I believe, 7. 62 metres to five metres. Okay. Um, we figured the best way to build a house was to design within the constraints as best we could. We had to go to the five metres in order to meet the 93 metre squared floor plate. So that's what we did. Uh, my wife and I actually designed the house. And I don't know if you guys know it. You've probably seen it. Well, you know it because it's on your papers a lot, but if you drive down Bath Road just before St. Peter's, uh, church on the right - hand side. It's the brown and black one on the left - hand side. Fairly modern looking. We're very proud of the house. Um, we built it. And this ties into why we need the stairs now. We actually, as we were going through the design process, decided we were going to bill it to passive house net zero standards to be as absolute. An energy efficient as possible. Part of that is doors and windows that are actually insanely airtight and secure. And what we realised was as we get older and we're down on them in the backyard. Nobody can get through our house. If emergency services have to come in, you can't get through that front door. Now fire department might be able to with Jaws and life, but that entails time and time and more time. So we looked at and said we really should have a set of stairs. Now everything we do to take down to the backyard, we take in through the house, down through the stairs, out to the backyard, which is fine. But as we get older and it's our intent to age in place in that house. And we designed it for that. Uh, we figured we should take this into consideration. Most of our, and it'll also make Ari's considerably better as well. You know, you take some things down to the backyard or into the basement happening to go through the stairs all the way through the house can be a little bit onerous. Um, so the idea being that we can even lawnmowers, I have to have two lawnmowers. I've got one of the front yard and one in the backyard. It would be nice just to be able to carry one up the stairs back and forth. I'm not going to do that through the house. So when we looked at this and this is not a cheap process. You guys know this. Like for a set of stairs, the city has been and the plane department has been very good with us. We approached them. They looked at it because they knew the history of the property and the issues we have with the one neighbour there. Um, there was possibly going to be a fight and a problem. Um, so they, they, they really made sure that and they were fantastic. They talked to me. I explain what we wanted. We don't do anything fly by night at that house. So I guess at the stairs are going to be engineered steel installed in place and put down. We are so aware of our boundaries there. When I was building the house, cause I actually did build it myself, uh, when I built it, I had to have the surveyors back five times. Just to make sure that we were not going to be a half an inch past where we could be. So we build everything right to the law. We abide by the laws. And when we need minor variants, we talk to the city and come up with a plan, which is what we have done now in order to make that a more accessible and efficient house. Okay. Good. Thanks for that. And I feel your pain. I apologise for what you're going through. Okay. So, um, any other questions of the applicant or staff. Okay. So on that, uh, I'm going to put it back to the committee for a motion. And to vote. So moved by Jordan and seconded by Psomnath. Any discussion. At all. None. It's all in favor. Raise your physical hands. And then that is unanimously carried. Thank you. Thank you for your time. All right. The next application is for Minor variants, 32 SIM code street. Lindsay, can you read this into the record, please? Through you, Mr. Chair. This is an application for Minor variants at 32 SIMCO Street. The file number is D13014 2026. And it is to construct a detached garage at the rear of the property. Tonight's addendum contains two pieces of correspondence for this application, including one letter of support. Very, very good. Thank you. And do we have the applicant with us? Yes. If you could grab a mic. And I'll get you to state your name for the record. I'm going up Chinikov. I'm the owner of 35. Okay. Welcome. And is there anything further you wish to add to the application. I'm not sure if it's really to add, but it's maybe to reiterate something that is already like. Yeah. So basically 32 SIM co - 36 and 40 is the three unit Rowhouse. Right here by the lake Inheritage District. And about 10 years ago, we started all three of us, all three corners started the process of constructing rare garages at the back. And so at the time back in 2015, we actually already had a minor variance for all three of us together. Um, and I believe in 2015, the 40 SIM covers did it in 2017 or 1836 MCOP evolved. But we never got to it then. And so now we, when we kind of started the process, we worked with the planning department and they informed us that we need to reapply for the minor variants. But essentially a variance had already been granted for the same. For this type of structure before, um, from my understanding by working with the, with the city planning team is that there's a slight change, um, in a way we want it to build exactly how our neighbours built. But there is some water drainage requirement, which makes us to build a little bit different. We have a slight offsets on the south and west side to allow for the water to come out back to our lot. As opposed to run onto the yacht clubs parking lot, which is what our neighbours roofs do. But anyway, that's the only difference from what has been approved before in 2015, from my understanding. Okay. Thanks very much. Okay. Committee members, do you have any questions for the applicant or for staff. I'm seeing none. So I'll open up the public portion of the meeting. Do we have any members of the public with us in - house or online wishing to speak to the application for 32 SIMCO Street? The East Razor Physical Hand in - house or virtual hand - on Zoom. There's nobody online or in - house interested in this application. So I'll close the public portion of the meeting and we'll come back to the committee for a motion. So moved by Ken and seconded by Doug. Any discussion. INSO all in favor, raise your physical hands. And that's unanimously carried. Thank you. Number four on the agenda is an application for Minor variants at 322 Queen Street. Lindsay, can you read this into the record, please? Through you, Mr. Chair, this is an application for Minor variance at 322 Queen Street. File number is D13043 2026. And it is to permit the conversion of the commercial unit and the existing building to a two bedroom apartment for a total of eight dwelling units. Thank you very much. And, uh, you're the applicant. Get you a state your name, please. Good evening. My name is Miles Weeks. I'm a planner with Foten Planning and Design. And I'm here speaking on behalf of the applicant. Okay. Welcome. And is there anything further you want to add to the application? Nope. I reviewed the staff report, the recommended conditions. And we have, uh, nothing further to add at this time, but happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Committee members. Do you have any questions for the applicant or for staff. And I'm seeing none. So we will open the public portion of the meeting. Do we have members of the public with us this evening wishing to speak to the application for three two queen street? Please raise your physical hand in the house or virtual hand on Zoom. And there's nobody in the galley on Zoom and nobody in - house willing to speak to this. So. I'll close the public portion of the meeting and come back to the committee for a motion. So to be moved by Lisa and seconded by Smnath. Any discussion. No discussion. So all in favor, raise your physical hand. And that is unanimously carried. Thank you. And our fifth and final application this evening is an application of a minor variance and consent for 820 to 830 gardeners Road Lindsay. Can you read this into it? Record, please. Through you, Mr. Chair. This is an application for minor variants and consent at 820, 830 Gardeners Road. The file numbers are D10009 2026 and D13019 2026. The consent application is to sever an approximately 0. 49 hectare lot with 51 metres of frontage on Gardener's Road from a 2. 4 hectare parcel and to establish nine easements for access servicing and drainage. A minor variance application is to permit reduced amenity area. Reduced parking space width. Higher proportion of the facade to be comprised of balconies allowance for front yard parking increased amount of small car parking and parking spaces with an obstruction on one side. I'll also note that tonight's addendum contains one piece of correspondence regarding this application. Very good. Thank you. And do we have the applicant or their agent with this this evening. With the Boulevard Group representing the owner and also the applicant on this file. Great welcome. Is there anything further you want to add to the application. I just, uh, say that we've reviewed and support the staff recommendation and conditions. I know the correspondence received this afternoon of reviewed that as well. I think a lot of just questions about what may happen on the routine lands and how the current proposal accommodates and plans for what may happen on the routine. So I can just confirm that, um, the reports planned, et cetera, have been, uh, prepared with that future development in mind. So for example, in terms of servicing capacity, uh, the work has been done to ensure that, uh, the services are proposed to be installed for this development. We'll also accommodate future development on the remainder of the lands. There was in 2023 is owning by La Amendment that frees on the entirety of the lands and, uh, proposal included larger apartment building and then a number of, uh, stacked townhouse, uh, forms. And so what these applications are is to actually modify that previous approval, propose a smaller apartment building for kind of an initial phase. And then what happens in phase two is likely going to be a modification of, um, another smaller apartment building and then stack townhouses. Um, and they will go through their own, uh, approval process as well. That time likely another zoning by the amendment. And then its own site plan approval process just to add that to it as well. Okay. Very good. Thanks for that. And, uh, all right. Committee members. Do you have any questions for, uh, Mark or staff. Uh, Ken. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I read the 10 questions posed by the letter author, which were actually very well written. I thought, but Mr. Toes answered, I'll be eight or nine of them in his brief summary. But the one that really caught my attention. Oh, I'll read it. Whether there are any conditions of approval proposed by planning or engineering, that's today that specifically preserves the city's ability to reconsider these matters when future development applications are submitted. I think I know the answer to that, but I would ask Malcolm if he could just respond to that. Through you, Mr. Chair. The city will have the ability to regulate the future development of the lot through the existing legacy zoning. That's been in place since 2023 as well through the site plan control application process. So we're certainly not relinquishing any ability to ensure matters in the public interest or compromise through those applications. The lot creation does have the effect of creating a new lot that would then not be subject to those applications. Um, as well as the easements located on the lot would not be reversible without either other legal instruments through either another planning application or quick claim. But as the applicant noted all of these decisions made at these applications stages now are to support the already approved development concept for the lot, whether it's through different ownership structure like they're proposing now or through a one consolidated lot development. If the proposal is still implementing that vision, which has already been approved through the previous zoning by law amendment. So, uh, while like a lot creation isn't necessarily an enasement isn't necessarily reversible. It's still implementing the vision that was previously approved and supported by, uh, the city in terms of the past application. So roundabout way, reversible things, but again, it's still all supporting to the end goal of the comprehensive redevelopment of the lot, which is, uh, in place at this time through its own amendment. Okay. Thank you for that. Any other questions from committee members. Lisa. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, one more question from that. So when future, when the future phase comes back, is that going to be committee of adjustment or would that go back to planning committee? What confused me when I started to read this on the weekend was that where is this? Like, is this the district? And it is because all of that went to planning committee, um, originally. So this is committee of adjustment. And then we just heard there'll be, um, other things in the future, uh, or the other lot. And then is that, would that be also committee of adjustment or back to planning committee. Thank you for the question and through you, Mr. Chair. Uh, it would ultimately depend on the, on the nature of the proposal that comes forward. There is already zoning in place for the comprehensive of the retain lands. But should those plans need reconfiguration through redesign based on, um, the applicants vision for the site. Then there would be the potential for another application to the committee of adjustment or to planning committee depending on the nature of those changes. And I'm not sure if the applicant wants to speak to those, um, at this point if the anticipation for a future application for planning committee or committee of adjustment, uh, to contemplate for the for the phase two. Mr. Chair. Uh, I mean, good question. The only thing I'll add to, um, Malcolm's reply is that in all likelihood, it probably will require zoning by the amendment because the site specific zone that was put in place in 2023 was fairly specific to an apartment building and stacked townhouses. And so I think it would be most likely that a future application is going to be zoning by the amendment that goes back to committee adjustment. Um, there may be, I won't say there couldn't be another, uh, lot division out of this. But and then that would come back to committee. I think it would be cleaner and make the new zoning more comprehensive if it was, uh, updated in the future. So. Okay. Thank you for that. Is that okay? Okay. Any other questions by committee members. I see none. So at this point, I'll open the public portion of the meeting. Do we have any members of the public with us wishing to speak to the application for 820 to 830 gardeners Road? Raise your virtual hand in zoom or your physical hand if you are in - house. And there is nobody on Zoom and looks like nobody in - house wants to speak to this. So I'll close the public portion of the meeting and come back to the committee for a motion. Somebody want to put on the force and move by Ken and seconded by Psalmnath. And any discussion. So all in favor, raise your physical hand. And that is unanimously carried. Thank you. That was our last application. So our next item on the agenda was other business. There's no other business. There was correspondence that we, um, brought into the agenda when we approved it. And it's listed on the revised agenda. The date of our next meeting is Monday, September 14th. At 5 30. And at this point, we just need a motion to adjourn. So it's moved by Doug and seconded by Garov. And all in favor, raise the physical hands. And that's unanimously carried. Meeting is adjourned at 6. 13 p. m. Thanks everybody.