Good evening. Tonight's committee of adjustment hearing is being held by video conference and live streaming video on the town's Oakville uh.ca. This hearing is to consider applications or minor varants and consents held under the authority of the planning act. Please keep in mind the intent of the 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 deferral is made and the committee grants such a request, the applicant authorized agent must contact the secretary treasurer to schedule a new hearing date. In order to conduct an effective and and efficient electronic hearing, we have adopted the following process. If you are watching the live stream of this hearing on oakville.ca CA. And if you wish to speak to an item on the agenda, please call 8156095. That that number again is 9058156095. The phone number is also posted on your screen below the live stream page at Oakville. Staff will be standing by to take your call. When you call in, staff will ask for your name, item number that you wish to address, and your telephone number. Further instructions to be will be provided when you do call to join the video conference. When the chair of the committee polls for interested parties, please press star six to unmute yourself. The applicant agent will be given opportunity to briefly explain to the committee the basis of their application and answer any questions that may arise. A maximum of 5 minutes will be provided for that presentation. You will need to state your name, full name and address for the record and any submissions beyond the five minutes will be at the discretion of the committee. All delegations must also state their full name and address for the record and a maximum of 5 minutes will be provided for each presentation. All remarks and questions are to be directed to the chair and any submissions beyond the five minutes will be at the discretion of the committee. any applicant or agent who will then be provided further five minutes to respond to their comments made by interested parties, answer any questions from the committee members. If the applicant or agent has any concerns found in staff report, particularly with any proposed conditions, this will be the opportunity to advise us. This matter will then be taken into committee for a decision and will mark the end of all discussion. Any person desiring a notice of decision for the application must provide a written request preferably through email to the secretary treasurer. Written notice of the committee's decision will be mailed no later than 10 days for minor variance and 15 days for consent to the applicant agent or any other person who has filed a written request for such notice. The last day to appeal the decision to the land tribunal will be noted on the decision. Only the applicant, specified persons or public bodies may appeal to the committee's decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal. Please note that in November of 2022, Bill 23 legislation, the More Homes Build Faster Act, amended the Planning Act to remove appeal rights from members of the public. If no appeal is received within the prescribed time frame, the decision of the committee becomes final and binding and the secretary treasurer will then notify the applicant and anyone who has received a copy of the decision through written correspondence. People participating in the hearing are to be courteous to and respectful to members of the committee, town staff, and any other person participating in the electronic hearing. Tonight's electronic hearing is being video recorded and available for future viewing at Oakville. Thank you. I have no regrets this evening. I have one uh any declarations of future interests. Mr. Towski, go ahead. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I'm going to declare a conflict on A129 at 1247 Crawford Court. Have a long-standing relationship with the family of one of the applicants. >> Okay. Thank you. Not to Mr. Towski. Madam Secretary, Treasur, do I have requests of deferrals or withdrawals of applications if you are interested in >> Yes, madam. >> Sorry, Madam Chair. We have one hand up. Uh, Mr. William Hicks. I'll move him in one moment. evening. Uh good evening, Madam Chair and members. Uh with respect to the application at 82nd Street, I wish to request a deferral. There's a number of inconsistencies and questions in the reports from the planning department. So, we'd like some time to work together with them and Heritage to rectify those and make sure that everyone's on the same page because as it stands, I'm not sure the committee would be able to make a decision based upon the information that's before them. So, >> okay. Thank you, Mr. Mr. Hicks. >> I can't see out to see the members. Hey, >> I will need some time to figure this out after >> this next one can um >> tech support >> so that I can see the members >> the members >> there's an echo that I hear and I hear myself >> I can see them all from my screen but >> yeah for some reason >> for some reason >> okay I I apologize everyone I'm going to disconnect and reconnect reconnect Sorry, I'm not sure what happened. Okay, members, Mr. Hicks is requesting a deferral to work with town staff. Um, given the um comments, all those in support, the application has been deferred. Thank you for your patience, Mr. Hicks. Okay. Anyone else? Madam Secretary, Treasurer. >> Madam Chair, there are no more hands up uh from those in the audience. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, the first item on our agenda is application 054 of 2026 at 1562 Venicia Drive. Hi. Can you hear me? >> Yes. Go ahead, Mr. Merritt. >> Thank you. Good evening, members of the committee. Um, my name is Alexander Merritt and I'm representing the owners of 1562 Venicia Drive. Um, thank you for the opportunity bringing this application back to you following our deferral in April. Um, following that meeting, we took staff comments into consideration, reviewed the design, and made revisions intended to reduce the overall scale and massing of the proposed dwelling. Um, we recognize that staff continues to have concerns regarding the requested residential floor area ratio. However, we believe the revised plans represent a considered response to those concerns and that the proposed dwelling is appropriate for the property and its surrounding neighborhood. Uh, could you just go to the next page, please? Um, these revisions included a reducing of the overall depth of the dwelling, pulling back of the second story above the garage, reducing of the ceiling and roof height in the open to above area at the rear, and reducing [clears throat] the overall size of the dwelling with a reduction in RFA and coverage. Um, in that reduction, we were also able to remove one of our previous variances requesting additional coverage. Um, regarding the requested floor area ratio, the application seeks 39.3% where 37% is permitted. As staff notes in its report, the overall area of the dwelling has been reduced by approximately 20 square meters compared with the original submission. Um, combined with the other design revisions mentioned previously, we feel this represents a genuine effort to respond to staff comments. Uh we also note the staff has no objection to the requested interior sideyard setback variance recognizing that the site constraints are created by the easement. Um neighborhood context and design compatibility have been key considerations from the beginning of our design process uh with significant effort made to align the proposed dwelling with the objectives and principles described in Livable Oakville. The design incorporates several deliberate strategies to reduce perceived massing and create a more articulated built form. Uh these include lowering roof lines over the seconds story front-facing windows, breaking up continuous walls with roof lines into distinct architectural elements using window projections and recesses of wall planes, and using different materials and horizontal detailing to separate the first and second story in order to deemphasize the massing of the dwelling. Further efforts to reduce the verticality of the dwelling uh is in the use of the singlestory front porch uh to bring focus to the main entrance on a scale comfortable for the pedestrian. Um the use of generous first story windows also adds to the dwellings visual interest and lightness of first floor massing of the primary facade. Uh to conclude, we acknowledge staff's concerns and appreciate the opportunity to address them through these revised plans. We have made deliberate changes to reduce the dwellings's overall depth, size, and perceived massing while maintaining a functional and cohesive design. We respectfully ask the committee to consider and approve our application given that we feel it passes the four tests of the planning act and is an appropriate development for the neighborhood. Uh, thank you for your time and consideration. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you, Mr. Merit. Are there any questions of Mr. Meritt? At this time, if town staff would be kind enough to just go back uh to the screen pointing at council chambers. I again I'm not sure what's happening. I can only see the speaker and myself on the large screen. Can town staff panel back to council chambers? Madam Chair, it uh it might be >> settings here. Okay. >> No, I've tried everything. I I don't know what's happening tonight. They they if they can just please do that every single time for those four applications that we have tonight and then we can figure it out later. >> Um my gallery view for some reason is just not working. It's It's only allowing me speaker view. So, I'm not really sure what's happening. Okay. Uh, now I can see everyone on the screen in town C um town chambers. Are there any questions of Mr. Merritt at this time? Okay, I see none. Um, oh, thank Okay, go ahead, Mr. Towski. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, Mr. Mayor, despite staff's support of the sideyard variance, it appears that variance is only being required because you're shifting the building further from the easement to accommodate a window well. Is it not possible to shift a window well and shift the building to towards the easement to eliminate that variance? >> It it would be possible. that variance is kind of a two-parter. For one, it is kind of a relic from the previous uh recent amendment. Uh originally, we were in compliance with that sideyard setback. Um the other component of that is we it would shift the building further back and there are we are already trying to reduce the overall depth of the dwelling as that is part of the staff comments of part of the reason they they didn't agree with. So, it's in an effort to keep it uh kind of further forward so it doesn't project as far back rel relative to its neighbors. Um, and it's still in compliance with many of the other houses in the neighborhood who have had that zoning. The house had been designed before the mo most recent amendment. So, it's kind of a relic of that. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. If I can ask a question to staff. >> Go ahead, Mr. Kowski. >> Thank you, Mr. Hassan. the the applicant has indicated they've made significant changes as I read the staff report staffer's opinion that the a lot of the issues are similar to the original one. Would you care to expand on that? >> Yeah, to madame chair. Um I guess unfortunately in the presentation there wasn't a sideby-side comparison of the original application to the revised application but it is contained in the staff comments. um the open to below area at the back. Um on page uh what page is in the comments? Page seven, I believe. Um kind of more clearly indicates where the roof was lowered and the open to below um space is below the 7 m threshold for what would be additionally counted towards the residential floor area. but it's not as apparent and visually um clear on the front elevations where changes have been made. So unless um the the plans are overlaid on top of each other, which staff do um to see where changes have been made um when you hold them up side by side, the dwellings essentially look the the exact same. So there was no substantive changes that staff could see that would result in a change in the staff comments from the original to the revised submission. Notwithstanding that, as Mr. Merritt said um the sideyard setback variance um is new. Um but I can also um add to that that the applicant has gone through two cycles of the development engineering permit uh application review and there were no concerns raised with that sideyard. Um so that's um where staff stand in terms of the issues and concerns um with the additional residential floor area ratio. >> Thank you. Sorry, I'm having technical difficulties today. Now my screen's all black. Um, Mr. Towski, would you kindly take over as a chair until I figure this out? >> Probably a good idea. Okay, thank you. >> Committee members, any additional questions of the applicant or staff? >> I see none. Madam Secretary, Treasurer, has anybody called in to speak to this matter? >> Mr. Chair, there have been no calls and no one in attendance has their hand up. Okay, thank you. And we will close the discussion on this matter and look for a motion. Mr. Castle, Mr. chairman. Um uh I um I like staff have some um uh concerns with respect to the overall massing of this site and uh um I think perhaps uh like like the questions that were asked previously uh I have some reservations with respect to uh the sideyard setback um and the um minor efforts that would be necessary in order to be able to accommodate that sideyard setback. Um I feel as if the um I'm of the opinion that the um the massing in the sideyard are contributing to a building that is not consistent with the with the neighborhood and has a mass that is um um not appropriate. I will put forward a motion to refuse the application um finding that it does not conform to the uh general intent and purpose of the bylaw. Um yeah, thank you >> Mr. Hard Castle. Is there any discussion on that motion to deny the application? Mr. Dicki. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um my vote would be to approve. I find uh the design is appropriate and uh mitigates against some of the size. Normally I'd be opposed to a sideyard setback. The two factors are affecting me there. They have a wide sidewalk large sideyard setback on the other side. I know that's due to an easement and they got stuck in the middle of uh of uh the the news imple implementing the new zoning bylaw. So, and of course council I mean sorry planning department doesn't have a problem with the sideyard setback. Um so my um just to comment I will not be in favor of denial. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any other discussion on the motion to deny? See none. I just add that I tend to agree with Mr. Hardcastle. I don't think the sideyard setback is even variance is necessary with a little bit of effort as as we both suggested. The the issue is really the massing and I I understand the applicant feels they've done a significant effort to pull back the second floor above the garage. For one, I would have expected the second floor to be pulled back on the sides as well to try to mitigate the impact of the variance that's being requested. With that, the motion is to deny the application. All those in favor of the motion to deny. All those opposed, Mr. Dicki. >> [snorts] >> It is three in favor of the motion to deny, one opposed. I'm sorry, sir. Your application has been denied. >> Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Working fine now. >> Let me know if it happens again. Um just to clarify, Madam Secretary, you can mark me absent on uh on this last one because I did not attend the discussion. That's why I did not vote. >> Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have you down as absent. >> Thank you. Okay. So the uh next item on the agenda is application 127 of 2026 at 177 Woodhaven Park Drive. And um I have Mr. Tanner as the agent. Again, that's application 127 of 2026 at 177 Wood Haven Park Drive. >> Good evening, Madam Chair. It's uh Joel Tanner with the Office of Simple Design Studio on behalf of Lindseay Bruce this evening. Um, we are looking at a uh brand new build here at 177 Wood Haven Park Drive. Next slide, please. So, this is a current single family home. Uh, we are looking to remove the existing envelope and completely replace it with a new uh two-story dwelling. So there's a partial single story on that far right hand side which is the south side of the building envelope in order to allow more light infiltration into the core of the house and unique use of materiality found throughout the building envelope. Next slide please. So we're seeking two variances this evening. First variance requested is a lot covered variance. Um the proposed overall we're sitting at uh 28.91 as our overall proposed lot coverage. 25% is allowed. So, we're sitting just over 3.91 uh in additional coverage. Uh we did highlight that area in in the sand color. Um that area is actually just a below grade component. Um so, we just wanted to note that just to kind of give you an overall perspective on um that particular component. Um you know, if we were to remove that component, we go from um 297 down to 277.5. So it splits that that overage in half. Um we we were pretty strategic in terms of the building heights, the stepped massing both not on just on the front elevation but also on that side elevation in order to kind of you know push and pull so that we're not just you know building a a simple twotory box but we've got some nice projections and materiality to to jazz up the front facade as well as the rear facade and the side envelopes. Um, second requested variance is a uh parapet height increase allowable is.3. We're sitting at 66. Keeping in mind this is only for a portion of the building. It is not the entirety of the uh the building envelope. So it is the furthest stepped back volume from [clears throat] the street facade. Um and uh this is a uh this this was actually added due to the the bylaw uh justifications in uh June 2026. Uh next slide please. Um so we feel that you know the proposal put forth is fairly minor in nature. Um you know we we're within lot coverage regulations or sorry we're within GFA calculations. We're within setback regulations. Um and uh you know we do feel that the uh proposal is is going to be beneficial to the streetscape and uh and quite attractive for the the neighborhood dwellings. There's been a lot of lot of redevelopment over the years and open up the uh discussions with committee. Any questions? is more than happy to jump in and provide some commentary. Thank you so much. >> Thank you, Mr. Bruce. Is there any questions or items of clarifications? >> Go ahead, Mr. Dicki. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. [clears throat] um some of these hyped um regulations in the new zoning by are obviously new to us and maybe you could just explain if I it your request is for 0.662 uh meter high paret wall above the maximum height. So the maximum you just sorry I the maximum height is just um measured to the top of the roof and now the the zoning ber would you would allow you to go 0.3 m above that maximum height from the flat roof and now you want to go up to uh 662. I just understand the concept. I'm not talking about the numbers right now. >> Just if you can explain that to me a little bit better. >> Yeah. Yeah. through three, you madam chair. So so the the new bylaw um basically the the max allowable building height um on a flat roof dwelling was modified. So we got forced from 9 m down to 8 m. Um so the.3 m is the max allowable parapit height uh when we are exceeding the max allowable height. Um the max allowable building height in totality. Um so it's an above and beyond calculation. Um the the driver on the parapet height I is a lot of the times partially aesthetically driven by our firm in this case. It also is driven off of how we're sloping the water to drain off of the roof cavity. And so that calculation for um sorry that calculation for basically sloping the drain and and containing the water properly is another factor in driving these parapit heights on some of these dwelling designs. Okay. So from the street so okay no let me back up. [clears throat] So if I understand it again I don't think I do. from the street. In theory, it would be it would be 8 m to the top of the flat roof and then another uh 662 m above that. So, from the street, you're looking at a height of 8 I mean the view from the street is what I meant. You're looking at a height of 8.662. This is what I don't understand or I don't really not sure that I get the concept here. >> Got it. Um through you, Madam Chair. Um Brandon Hassan, maybe you can speak to the to the additional clarifications required with uh with Mr. Dicki. Um the we we should also we can also maybe pop back to the presentation to image number two uh or or slide number two the the render or even uh even the la the second last slide before the thank you page. Um so on this top right hand image the the back set wood siding cube that you're seeing so the furthest cube in the middle of the building envelope that's the part of the parapit that is increased in height. So, the stone detail you're seeing, which looks to be the tallest, most dominant detail, um, in this in this case, actually isn't the tallest component. The tallest component is the wood cladding in behind that stone pillar. So, this this perspective is actually really good to explain those layers that we built out from the entry canopy to the second floor canopy to the stone canopy. But that would volume is actually the tallest of the four or five I guess. Um Madam Chair, I'm not sure if Brandon can jump on and clarify the additional detailing just regarding the the bylaw. >> Mr. Hassan, are you with us? >> Um through you, Madam Chair, just for clarification, Brandon uh did not prepare comments on this file. This one was one that I had worked on. >> Okay. Sorry, Miss Mcnite. Go ahead then. >> No problem. Um, I'll just note that the intent of really regulating the parapit is to control the overall height and massing and visual impact of a building of course, but still allow for those architectural features that contribute to design. Um the parapit itself is really viewed by staff as a design addition that only helps to break down the massing of the dwelling at the end of the day and therefore there were no concerns raised. Um and in addition it's only a smaller design element so it doesn't cover the full sum of the building and that is why staff provided supportive comments. >> Does that answer your question Mr. Dicki? I'm still confused, but um [snorts] I'll live with that. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Any other questions of Mr. Bruce at this time? >> Okay, I see none. Has anyone called with interest for this application? Madam Secretary Treasurer, >> Madam Chair, there have been no calls and no one has their hand up. >> Okay, thank you. and we'll move the uh discussion to um take a vote. Who would like to move a motion? Go ahead, Miss Price. >> You're muted. Taking into account my site visit, the reports by the agent and staff, and there being no letters of opposition, I find 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. As stated by staff, the proposed projection presents a modest increase associated with the design of the dwelling. I believe the overall height and massing will not affect the surrounding neighborhood. In conclusion, I find the four tests have been met and I recommend the application be approved subject to the following conditions. the dwelling be constructed in general accordance with the submitted site plan and elevation drawings dated September 25th, 2026 and that the approval expires 2 years from the date of the decision if a building permit has not been issued for the proposed construction. >> Thank you, Miss Price. There discussion on this recommendation. I see none all those in support. Okay, the application has been approved. None opposed. >> Thanks so much, committee. Have a great evening. >> Have a good evening. >> Um, application 128 of 2026 at 6243rd line. Again, that's application 128 of 2026 at 6243rd line. I have Chris Pereira here as the agent. Good evening, Madam Chair. Can you hear me? >> Yes. Go ahead. >> Wonderful. Um, [clears throat] good evening. My name is Chris Pereira. I am the principal of Embahar Planning and Design Limited. We are the planning and urban design consultants for the owner of the property which is Circle K group of companies. Um, the subject lands are located at the southwest corner of Spears Road and Third Line as a corner site. And as we can see on the screen, um the subject lands maintain vehicular access from both Spears Road and Third Line. The property itself is approximately 0.62 hectares in size with approximately 106 m of frontage along Third Line and a smaller 42 m of frontage along Spears Road. So the proposal seeks to redevelop the subject lands by rebuilding a new car wash building generally in its current location. The site design expands into the empty southern portion of of the lands uh to accommodate the stacking and queuing lanes and those can be seen on the right side of your of the image which would be south. [clears throat] The existing gas station um canopy and retail store will remain in their current locations. Um this application is part of an ongoing site application with staff. So in order to implement this design that we're looking at on the screen, a variance is required from the bylaw. So as outlined in the staff report, whereas 7.5 m is required for a rear yard setback, the proposal maintains a minimum 3.5 uh meter rear yard setback. And this is shown very clearly on actually figure one of the staff report. It's a kind of a zoomed in um um key key plan. Uh but if you want to zoom in on the pay station on the right side of the screen, we can see exactly where the uh to the right of that actually it's between the pay station and the property line on the right side. Exactly. So this is the area that we're talking about. So that dimension 3.610 m is the pinch point and the variance is being requested for 3.5 m. So [clears throat] the proposed reduction in uh to the setback will not negatively impact the surrounding land uses in any way. Uh nor does it negatively impact the overall site plan's ability to be designed properly, including necessary landscaping to assist with storm water management and drainage. The rear yard of the subject lands shares a property line with a furniture store/warehouse/off use. And along that shared property line, the furniture store maintains parking and a driveway access to the rear of the property where trucks and deliveries u can access the loading areas of those buildings. So the proposed reduction to the minimum required setback from 7 1/2 to 3 and 1/2 is solely needed to accommodate the canopy structure over the pay station kiosks. Uh this is an open air canopy structure and um as staff have noted in their own report um does not create any undue massing or scale impacts on the surrounding area um as it is not fully enclosed and it is actually at a lower height than the facility itself. Uh the canopy itself will be uh screened by a notable perimeter landscaping which doesn't show up on this plan but there is a detailed landscape plan that was provided as part of the site plan package which shows a heavily screened um landscape buffer along that self-propy line um being adjacent to the driveway that I just mentioned at 586 third line. Uh lastly, we have reviewed the staff report. We are in agreement with their assessments of the four tests and we are in agreement with their recommendation. We have also um reviewed the conditions or the recommended conditions and we are in complete agreement with them. Um thank you very much for your time and I'm available to answer any questions committee may have. Thank you. >> Thank you Mr. Pra. Does anyone have any questions or items of clarification at this time? Okay, I see none. Has anyone called with interest for this application? Madam Secretary, Treasurer. >> Madam Chair, there have been no calls and no one in attendance has their hand up. >> Very well. And we'll take this matter into committee then. Who would like to move a motion? >> Go ahead, Mr. Towski. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Cheryl moved that this application be approved as applied for finding that it meets the forecast of planning act. I don't see any impacts um being generated from this variance. The variance relates to a canopy structure that's minor in relation to the overall site development and as noted by the applicants that's adjacent to another commercial industrial use. I would make that approval subject to development receiving general accordance with final approved site plan elevations to the satisfaction of the director and planning and that the approval expires two years if a building permit hasn't been issued. >> Thank you Mr. Taski. Is there discussion on this recommendation? I see none. All those in support the application has been approved. None opposed. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Um, application 129 of 2026 at 1247 Crawford Court. Again, that's application 129 of 2026 at 1247 Crawford Court. I have um Steven Hunt here as the agent. Go ahead, Mr. Hunt. >> Madam Chair, I think I should be removed after this one. >> Uh, yes. Uh, sorry. >> Oh, yes. That's the one that you declared the conflict for. Um, town staff should be doing that now. Give me a moment, Mr. Hunt. Okay, town staff has removed Mr. Towelsski. Okay, you may proceed. Thanks, Madam Chair, members of committee. Uh once again, I'm Steven Hunt, [clears throat] authorized agent and designer for this uh property. I'm principal and Hunt Design Associates. Subject property, as we know, is 1247 Crawford Court. It's an established [clears throat] neighborhood in East Oakville. The lot is irregular in shape with approximate frontage of 31 12 meters and area of 1338 square meters. [clears throat] It is zoned RL1- under by 2014-014 and the OP designates it low density residential special policy area. [clears throat] Profit is purchased by our client, a young couple that wishes to raise their family in the neighborhood. family was home was designed with the long-term in mind. We made best efforts to also comply with the zoning by in terms of overall size and lot coverage and mostly all the setbacks as outlined in the application are two minor variances requested that we felt were necessary given specific uh property characteristics. Um first variance to permit a front yard of 7 and a half meters whereas 9.89 meters is required. One can see that in the uh right side of the uh lot, the easterly lot line to the front corner of the garage. That's the closest pinch point this home on the property. Um the zoning requirement is 9.89 m. Um [clears throat] this is set by the average setback of the homes on either side. Second variance to permit a height of 9.3 m where 9.0 zero meters is required. Um I think what we could do is just maybe skip to uh page four which can show some of the the the massing of the home just very quickly. You can see it's a twotory on the west side of the property and the onetory garage on the right side. Page 12 has a rendering to the overall character again twotory massing. Uh we worked with staff to uh produce eaves lines and getting closer approximate to the character of the neighborhood. And again a one-story garage on the right. It's it's a false former there. There's no living space. And if we can go to the last sheet page 13, it's a little clearer uh diagram. So in terms of the first variance, as you can see, the front lot line is regular in configuration. The shortest shortest depth knee side and this is as I said where the variance applies. the balance of the front yard. It's very large to the point where the setback is over 18 meters on the left side of the property as the uh property itself juts forward ahead of the uh turning circle. One can say that the average front yard is approximately 12.9 m well over the minimum. In fact, the reduction applies only to a small area which is shown shaded that gold color or yellow more yellow color in the front of the garage there. Um, we believe the house is well set back from the street and I also can see that the home is well balanced on the lot to ensure there is enough rear garden space. It's it's actually still further forward than it is uh back there given the 18 meter setback on the west side. Purpose of front yard averaging is to ensure mostly mostly on straight streets that there are no jarring contrasts with respect to each home's placement on a lot and so that as you're going down the street you're seeing things generally align. In this case, the street is naturally curving and the flow and placement homes follow it. As you can see in the uh purpley blue uh dashed line, that's where the existing house is and we're kind of straddling where that house is purposely done. We believe this placement enhances rather than negatively impacts the street experience. The second uh variance um in its terms the properties the topography is such that the grade falls from north to south from the back to the front of the property approximately 1.5 m. This means that the rear yard is somewhere between 1 and 1 and a half meters higher than the street causing the home to be raised up accordingly. Height happens to be measured from the street side. So, we have sort of an elevated situation on the lot created by a higher backyard. This negatively impacts the form and architecture of the home. Um, and so in exploring a slightly uh a slight increase in building height, staff asked us to uh do some research. The owner engaged a interial land surveyor to measure the height of the homes on either side. Um, our request generally matches the height of the home on the east side. It is within a foot of the home on the west side. So, it's it's fitting in there nicely. We again believe this enhances the street experience. In fact, is always my firm's practice, particularly here in East Oakville, we spend considerable time and effort with staff to develop a home design that suits this neighborhood. As such, we're aware of staff supported the application and we're also aware of one of the neighbors concerns. As such, the the owner met with the neighbor last night to explain the nature of our requests. And as far as I understand today, the neighbor's concerns with the application are withdrawn. Not sure if they're going to speak to the application or not, but for background, the discussion revolved around misunderstanding of the impact of the requested variances. uh as mentioned majority of home is well beyond the u front yard setback being requested. So there was a concern that the whole house would be uh jutting for forward and that the portion of the home that the variances applied to it's mostly one story the gold area onetory garage and therefore it's it's not uh overlooking um shadowing uh the front yard. uh the the goldish color in front of the adjacent home uh just represents perpendicular sight lines from from the front of that home and as you can see uh the garage is not within a direct line of sight of their home does not contain windows from hab rooms that might have overlook as well. I'm just quickly responding to some of the concerns that uh a good neighbor uh provided. I believe it's an application like this one that the committee exists for, namely to address matters and circumstances that cannot be reasonably anticipated within the general bylaw. Every property decision is unique. In this case, I believe the requested variances are minor in nature, then keeping in general intent of the zoning bylaw and official plan. And lastly, it's desirable and appropriate for the development of the property. happy to entertain any questions you might have. >> Thank you, Mr. Hunt. Any questions or items of clarification of Mr. Hunt at this time? Okay, I see none. Who would like to uh move a motion? Sorry, Miss Price. Just one second. Has anyone called with interest for this application? Madam Secretary Treasurer, >> Madam Chair, there have been no calls and no one in attendance has their hand up. And uh I would just let you know that that letter of opposition that did come in was withdrawn today. >> Yes. Thank you. Um >> very well. >> Go ahead, Miss Price. Taking into consideration my site visit the reports provided by the agent and staff and there being no letters of opposition, I find the variances to be minor in nature nature and are in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the official plan and zing bylaw and are desirable for the appropriate develop development of the land. The various design elements such as the lowered roof roof lines, main wall setbacks have helped to mitigate the overall massing and scale of the diff dwelling and make more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. In conclusion, I find the four tests of the planning act have been met and therefore recommend the application be approved subject to the following conditions. the dwelling be constructed in general accordance with the submitted site plan and elevation drawings dated September 16th, 2026 and that the approval expires 2 years from the date of the decision if a building permit has not been issued for the proposed construction. >> Thank you, Miss Price. Is there discussion on this recommendation? >> Okay, I see none. All those in support. Okay. The application has been approved. None opposed. >> And thank you for your time. >> Thank you application. Okay. Let's wait for Mr. Towski to be let back in. Okay. Welcome back, Mr. Tusk. Application 131 of 2026 at 160 Trofalog Road. Again, that's application 131 of 2026 at 160 Trofalog Road. I have an Wine as Hello. Uh, good evening chair and members of the committee. Um, my name is Anna Wein and I'm a land use planner with Bowfields, which is a land use planning firm located in Toronto and we are the agent representing the owner. Um, uh, next slide, please. I'm here today seeking approval for minor variances that will facilitate the development of a four-story residential building in downtown Oakville. First, I wanted to s sincerely thank the planning and zoning team at the town who have been excellent to work with both on this minor variance application and the associated site plan application which is nearing completion. Um the final submission was made this September. We have reviewed the comment report from planning staff citing no objections in addition to the resident comments that were appended to that report. Um, and just to say we agree with the conclusions and conditions listed in that report and I'm hope hoping to speak more directly to the resident comments received a bit later in my presentation. Um, I'll also note that we filed a detailed planning analysis with the application and I'm very happy to get into specific details about any of the variances if there are questions. I imagine there will be, but for the sake of time right now, we'll be moving quite quickly. As I mentioned, the site is located Oh, sorry. Can you just go back back to the Thanks. Um the site is located in downtown Oakville which is identified as a growth area in the livable Oakville plan. Um the majority of intensification and development within the town of Oakville is planned to occur within growth areas in a manner that is compatible with the surrounding area. Um the site is located on the west side of Trafalar Road midblock between Randall Street and Dun Street. It has an area of approximately 921 square meters with about 28.8 8 m of frontage along Trfalga Road and it's currently vacant. Um, I provided a more detailed description of the site, the direct adjacencies, and a description of the broader surrounding area in our letter. Um, I won't get into it now, but I'll just note that there's a row of threestory townouses to the rear fronting Dun Street, which has been I believe some of the resident comments we've received have come from residents in those town houses. So, we'll get into that in a little bit. And now you can switch to the next slide, please. The site is subject to a previous reszoning from 2015 um exception 366 in the bylaw. The exception includes a variety of zoning requirements for a four-story residential building. Those zoning requirements are based upon the building concept which was prepared as part of the 2015 approval. Following the approval in 20 in 2015, the current owner purchased the property in 2017 and has continued to advance its development. The design continues to contemplate a similar four-story residential building and has made minor revisions to the building and site design to modernize and customize it. Exception 366 as enacted is quite prescriptive with respect to built form and other performance standards and therefore the current design requires variances. And I'm just going to ask you to hold on this um slide as well. This is a rendering of the proposed building. I'll give you some key stats. It remains a four-story residential building. It contains um eight units. The original approval was for 11 units. Um so we're below that threshold. And there are two levels of underground parking accessed by a car elevator. The proposed building maintains all of the above grade building setbacks from the original approval with the exception of one variance that has resulted in questions from residents which I'll get into briefly. I keep sort of saying I'm going to get into it, but I will get into it in just a minute. um they refer to it in their correspondence as variance 13. So maybe if I can actually ask you to skip to page number seven and I'll address this this uh variance in particular. Oh, so we're just up one. There we go. Exception 366 requires the building to be set back 3 m from the rear lot line. However, it also allows for an underground ramp to be set back o only 75 m. And you can see that with that orange little bar on the drawing on the right hand side. As part of the redesign of the building, the owners decided to switch the ramp to an elevator. So car elevators, and you can see it on the elevation drawing on the left, it's a sort of singlestory entrance right here, a car elevator entrance. Um, car elevators are more efficient than ramps because they take up less space in an underground garage. Um, in in addition, a car elevator is narrower than a conventional ramp. So, we were able to pull the elevator further from the rear lot line, thereby increasing the setback from 75 m from a ramp to.94 m to the elevator. The rest of the building will meet the 3 m minimum rear yard setback. The switch from the ramp to the elevator will result in less impact than the approved 2015 design. uh as variance 13 is only required because the zoning provisions specifically mention a ramp not a car elevator. So I understand that there are comments received regarding the relationship between this building and this elevator and the town houses to the rear particularly regarding construction of the building and potential damages to um a retaining wall and fence and there's a shared driveway that provides access to the townouses on Dun Street. Um and those comments arose related to this variance. It's my understanding. Um but just to begin, the retaining wall and driveway on the townhouse site falls entirely outside of the subject site and are not expected to be disturbed through the construction process. The owners are experienced developers and they are working with an experienced construction management firm that has worked on much tighter and denser sites in downtown Toronto and elsewhere in the GTA. However, accidents can occur on this site and on any construction site, and the residents of the adjacent townouses have been in contact with the owner, discussing how damages would be assessed and responded to urgently without cost to residents and with minimum disruption. The owners have been forthright in engaging with the townhouse residents and will continue to be so and have been looping in their construction management firm to provide details about the process. As a I think as a team we are working amicably with the residents to provide the necessary assurance that their retaining wall and driveway will not be impacted. Construction liability is typically addressed as construction moves ahead and is considered separate. So sorry and is typically considered separate from zoning matters. In my opinion, this variance is appropriate from a land use planning perspective and is actually less impactful than the existing zone zoning would permit. We are hoping the committee will approve this and other variances today and allow the conversation between my client and the townhouse residents to continue separately. And if you I can just ask you to go back to slide four and I'd like to wrap up um hopefully quite quickly. Um I also understand that 13 variances is a higher number than this typic than this committee typically considers. Uh in this regard I want to briefly mention the test of minor. With a number of variances, there may be a perception that the current proposal is a significant departure from the inforce zoning. In my opinion, the number of variances should not be part of the test of whether an application is minor. Rather, the merits of each variance should be considered and evaluated individually. Um, I'll note that there have been a series of tribunal cases that have led to how we as planners assess a variance or a group of variances as minor and the conclusion of which is that the test of minor involves an assessment of impact. Um, as I outlined in my letter filed with the committee, it is my opinion that each individual variance will not result in unacceptable impacts and taken collectively um will facilitate the construction of a building that remains substantially similar to the original proposal. And this opinion is echoed in the town comment letter um who did not um identify any objections with our proposal. So in my letter filed with the committee I provided analysis of each of the variances and I am happy to go through each of them in detail I if you have questions but perhaps I'll conclude now and state formally that is my it's my opinion that this application satisfies the four tests set out in section 451 of the planning act. The application maintains the principles of good planning and we recommend that the application be approved subject to the conditions listed in the comment report. Thank you very much for your time. question from Miss Win. Go ahead, Mr. Towski. >> Madam Chair, uh thank you for that uh very helpful presentation and somewhat remarkably I think you've got 13 variances and you seem to have distilled it down to one variance being of concern to residents. So, I just wanted to focus on that and >> um because I I got I think I got great clarity from your presentation I didn't have before. So, the original proposal there would still be an excavation 75 meters from the property line and probably a one meter air pit wall around the ramp. And the current the only change here is the excavation's actually moving further away uh from the property line and instead of it being a parapit wall, it would now be probably a 3 m I think I I calculated um enclosed uh part on the building for a small portion of the building that's furthest away from the actual residents themselves. Am I reading that correctly? >> So my understanding is that the ramp in the original proposal was always envisioned as being enclosed in the building as well. >> So I don't think it was ever an open ramp. I think it was sort of a more more of like a a a downtown type concept where you would have the ramp entirely enclosed in the building facade. There would be a garage door and and it would elevate and then you would drive down the ramp and into the building and then you would sort of cycle through the underground garage. So I I don't think it was a parapit wall. I think it was actually an fully enclosed ramp and now we're replacing that with a fully enclosed elevator that is you're correct in saying further away from that rear lot line. >> Okay. So that's even more helpful. So the only impact of this variance is to have a similar structure further away from the property line even though the variance makes it sound like you're building closer to the property line. >> That's correct. We were we worked and and you know my my my thanks to uh the planning and zoning staff was very sincere. We worked very closely to make sure that we had captured all of the variances and we had structured them properly. And when we worked with the zoning team, they said, cuz we had put forward an option, well, what if we just change changed the wording to say permit a permit a ramp to permit an elevator in that same location? And they said, no, we would preferred if you varied the rear yard setback of 3 m to permit the elevator rather than changing the word from ramp to elevator. Do you understand what I what I'm getting at there? That was at the direction of the town that we worded it in such a way. So I understand why when residents of those town houses looked at that and saw oh you're reducing it from 3 meters to 0.94 that is a significant departure but it's due to the way the variance needed to be worded based on our dialogue with town staff. >> And one final question in scenarios like this it's common to have municipality require a pre and post construction survey in this case in terms of the retaining wall on the existing property. Do you know if that's been part of the discussions with the neighbors? >> It has been part of the discussion. It's my understanding that um that there will be necessary pre and post construction surveys and monitoring during construction and that is actually typical protocol of the sort of building permit process. So I think that that's something that's quite reasonable and is expected to excuse me is expected to occur. >> Thank you. >> Mr. Russ, if you had your hand up, do you still want to address anything? >> Uh, it was just to clarify for member Tleski that it would have the same uh like the underground ramp would have the same look as the car elevator does in the drawings. It would just be longer and a bit taller. Um, so they've reduced the actual effect of of that built form element. >> Thank you. Any other questions or items of clarification? Okay, I see that. Miss Wang, how many units are in this building? >> Um, eight units. >> Eight. Okay. All right. Um, we do have uh two letters of objection that I I will note on record from uh Jed James and Roger uh Newwell. And they do seem to want to address the committee because they've requested to attend. So has anyone raised their hand madam secretary treasurer with interest to speak to the committee at this time? >> Madam chair, no one has called in and no one has raised their hand. There is a neighbor though in the audience that he did have concerns and wanted to attend and speak at the meeting, but his hand is not up right now. >> Okay. Okay. Right. Before we do take this matter into committee, um I'll just if you're in the audience and you'd like to speak to the committee before we do so, please uh raise your hand. If not, then the matter will be taken into committee and the committee will do uh will take its vote. >> Madam chair, I do have one hand up now. Uh Chris Kurthers, I can move him in to the meeting. >> Okay, go ahead, Mr. Kathers. Yes. Hello, Chris Kurthers. >> Go ahead, Mr. Kthers. >> Thank you. Yes, I'm uh one of the uh um the residents in the nearby location and we've been working with a developer. They've been very forthright and and helpful and we are working through an agreement in case of a um construction mishap, but I they've been very forthright and and good to work with and so we don't have any objections at this time. >> Okay. Very well. Thank you for making mention of that. >> Okay. If there's no one else seeking to speak to the U committee, we'll take the matter into committee and uh start the discussion. Who would like to do so? Okay, go ahead, Mr. Towski. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I've moved that this application be approved as applied for finding that it meets the test of planning act. As I said earlier, I think quite remarkably 13 variances, all of which are very um minor in nature and even in accumulative sense do not uh appear to cause an impact. The uh intended use is very much still intact with these variances. Um with the one variance that was raised uh a concern by the neighbors, it it would appear in my view that it's actually a better scenario than uh what existed in the previous approval and it's just the perception of the reduced setback that raised the concern when it's actually increasing the setback marginally from what was previously approved. I would note there were letters of objection. Um and uh our attendee um supporting um I think the uh discussion has addressed the issues that were raised in the letters of objection and uh I would make the approval subject to building in constructed in general accordance with the final approved site plan and elevation drawings to the satisfaction of the director of planning and that The approval expires 2 years if a building permit hasn't been issued. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Tosski. Is there a discussion on this recommendation? >> Okay. I see none. All those in support. Okay. All those opposed. Mr. Hardcastle, are you yay or nay? >> My apologies, Madam Chair. I am in support of the application. >> Very well. Then the application has been approved. None opposed. Thank you. >> Thank you so much. >> All right. Um we have um minutes to confirm for October the 14th. Miss Price. Thank you. And we have um motion to adjurnn. Mr. Hart Castle. Thank you. And we are