Good evening. Uh, tonight's Committee of Adjustment hearing is being held by video conference and live streaming video on the town's live stream web page at oakville.ca. This is a hearing to consider applications for minor variance and consents held under the authority of the planning act. Please keep in mind that the intent of this process is to review The application that is before the committee listen to the evidence and then make a decision. This process is not intended to be used to resolve any concerns or disputes that may exist between the town, individuals, or organizations. If a request for a deferral is made and the committee grants such a request, the applicant or authorized agent must contact the secretary treasurer to schedule a new hearing date. In order to conduct an effective and efficient electronic hearing, we've adopted the following processes. If you are watching the live stream of this hearing on oakville.ca and if you wish to speak to an item on the agenda, you can call 9058156095. Again, that's 9058156095. The phone number is also posted on your screen below the live stream at oakville.ca. Staff will be standing by to take your call. When you call in, staff will ask your name, item number, and uh an item number you wish to address and your telephone number. Further instructions will be provided for you to call back to join the video conference. When the chair of the committee pulls for interested parties, please press star six to unmute yourself. The applicant or agent will be given the opportunity to briefly explain to the committee the basis of the application and answer any questions you may that may arise. A maximum of 5 minutes will be provided for a presentation. You will need to state your full name and address for the record. Any submissions beyond the 5 minutes will be at the at the discretion of the committee. Um, all delegations must be must all delegations must also state their full name and address for the record. A maximum of five minutes will be provided to make your presentation. All remarks and questions are to be directed to the chair. Any submission beyond the 5 minutes will be at the discretion of the committee. The applicant or agent will then be provided with a further 5 minutes to respond to the co comments made by any interested parties and answer any questions from the committee members. If the applicant or agent has any concerns um found in the staff report, particularly with any proposed conditions, this is your opportunity to advise us. The matter will then be taken into the committee uh for a decision. This will mark the end of all discussion. Any person desiring a notice of decision for an application must provide a written request, preferably through email to the secretary treasurer. Written notice of the committee's decision will be mailed no later than 10 days for minor variance and 15 days for consents to the applicant andor agent and any other person who filed a written request for such notice. The last day to appeal the decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal will be noted on the decision. Only the applicant, specified persons or public bodies may appeal the committee's decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal. In November 2022, Bill 23 legislation, the More Homes Built Faster Act, amended the planning act to remove appeal rights for members of the public. If no appeal is received within the prescribed time frame, the decision of the committee becomes final and binding. Secretary Treasurer will then notify the applicant and anyone who received a copy of the decision through written correspondence. People participating in this hearing are to be courteous to and respectful of the committee uh members, town staff, and other people participating in the electronic hearing. Tonight's electronic hearing is being video recorded and and will be available for future viewing at oakville.ca. Um, do we have any I see that we have regrets of Miss McCale and are there any declarations of pecuniary interest? Seeing none, do we have any requests for deferral or withdrawal of applications? >> No, Mr. Chair, I don't see any hands up. >> Okay. Uh then I guess we can move along with the agenda. Uh calling the first item on the agenda is uh A076 of 2026. It's property located 528 Burnham Thorp Road West Kings Christian Collegiate. Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of committee. My name is Steven Papovich. Um I'm representing the application uh this evening together with um Mr. John Dbor, the executive director of King's Christian Collegiate. Um thank you all for uh considering our application this evening. Um the specifics of which are to permit a maximum ratio of 4.9 parking spaces per classroom for a private school, whereas a maximum ratio of four parking spaces per classroom is permitted under zoning bylaw 2009-18 9. Um I would like to um ask Mr. Dbor just to say a few words in terms of what um how um the nature of King's Christian Collegiate um is unique in the context of our requested variance uh to permit the increase in parking on site. Mr. Dbor, are you here? Great. >> Yes, I am, Stephen. So, uh, thank you so much for me. Uh, and, uh, John have some, you know, I'm getting, so I'll try to be as clear as, uh, yeah, we think Kings is in a unique position as a as a throughout the Halton and beyond. So therefore we don't draw students and so the need for parking over I would say the added complexity for us is coming even from the uh their drives got longer due to traffic and development. So parents with students and seniors it's beneficial to have cars students bring their younger siblings to school as well and avoid the buses and happening. So uh that's that's that's a lot of this uh parking situation. >> Thank you John. Um just moving on um I'd like to provide the committee with a bit of background in terms of our application. Um initially we met in September with senior um Oakville planning staff to put forward our proposal. At that time we received some very positive and constructive uh comments from uh planning staff. Um just wanted to restate through this um exhibit that you see before you now um in through those consultations and with our um uh King's Christian Collegiate and ourselves, our sensitivity and concerns for designing this additional parking so as to not impact neighbors and to um maintain the existing landscape buffers and setbacks for parking around the perimeter of the site. We've identified on this plan two circular areas where we have focused our attention in terms of the the site um uh modifications. So you'll see they're clearly away from um the neighbors and um again internal to the site for the most part. Um we're providing um connections um a revised connection to Bernham Road and also to Nagawa Boulevard. Um may I um ask for the second slide to be shown? Thank you. So, this side represents uh the the the pink uh reddish uh tone, the areas that we've actually uh proposed the modifications to. So, as you'll see, they're all internal to the site with the exception of the new driveway access onto um Naagawa Boulevard. Again, this is just to relieve um congestion within the site and within the uh the context of the community. Um we have um made a site plan application um late last year received um comments. We've been working very closely with both town and region staff throughout this process. We have about a month ago uh resubmitted our responses to the initial round of site plan comments and again are working closely with staff to uh to work through some of the details. But in concept uh the proposal has been accepted. Um again as I think you can reference in the the staff comments they have um been working closely with us. Their comments reflect again their their knowledge of our our application and uh um and um um relevant to our our specific application. So again, at this time, I just like to uh ask uh you know, I'd be pleased to address any comments, questions um from Mr. Chair uh or the um members of the committee on our application and be happy to to respond to any and all. >> Thank you, gentlemen. Um do I have any questions from the committee? have full view here. No, I don't see I have any questions. So, um um Madame Chair, are there any members of the public uh present with respect to this matter? >> Mr. Chair, there are no hands up from those present and we've received no calls. >> Okay. So, uh, at this point in time, there's no questions, uh, from from the committee or from, um, the public. So, uh, I'm looking for a motion. Miss Price, >> taking into consideration the reports provided by the agent and staff and there be no letters of opposition, I believe the application to be minor in nature and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the official plan and zoning bylaw and is desirable for the appropriate development of the land. As stated by staff, the increase in parking will not have an impact on the amenity areas nor the functionality of the school. As the proposed parking does not present unacceptable adverse impact, I find the application meets the four tests of the planning act and therefore recommend the application be approved subject to the following condition. The surface parking area be constructed in general accordance with the approved site plan to the satisfaction of the director of planning and development. >> Thank you, Miss Price. Um any uh discussion on the motion? Seeing none, um all those in support. Um uh your variance has been approved. Um none opposed. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, members of committee for considering your application. Very much appreciated. Thank you. >> Okay. The next item on our agenda for this evening is um A078 of 2026 for property located at 386 Allen Street. Do we have the agent present? >> Present. Yep. >> Could I have your name and address for the record, please? >> Yeah, absolutely. Um, Daniel Peters. I'm here representing the property owner, Mark Hanky, uh, with Gren Weiss Design Studio. Uh address is 341 Kur Street, Sweet 210, Oakville. >> Excellent. Uh perhaps you can uh take us through a presentation on this matter. >> Yeah, absolutely. So, Madam Chair, members of the committee, uh tonight we are presenting, like I said, on behalf of Mark Heni uh for the property 386 Allen Street uh at the corner of Allen and Spruce. We are requesting relief from a uh height bylaw with regard to accessory structures uh as we are proposing a accessory dwelling unit in a height of 6.91 m where 4 m is currently prescribed in the bylaw. Uh there are no other variances being requested at this time. Uh in working through this proposed development with the homeowner uh and talking to neighbors and receiving feedback from the neighbor uh just off the corner of Spruce Street. Uh I understand that there were some concerns with our application regarding massing uh height and um setbacks in some scenarios. I just wanted to clarify and address those concerns as I know that whenever we're proposing design changes that contradict the bylaw, we want to be conscious of how that's affecting the community and the members. Uh and we want to make sure that we're designing obviously within the intent of the zoning bylaw as an official plan. Uh and that whatever we're designing also meets the four tests of the planning act. So, as I mentioned, the only variance that we're seeking currently is for height. Uh, and if you could go to slide four, I'd just like to go through the streetscape. Um, because I think this paints the best picture in respect to what we're proposing, uh, as this is the entirety of the the block, I guess, uh, along uh, Allen Street. So, what we're seeing is two corner lots. One on the left, uh, one on the right being the subject property that, uh, I'm currently here representing. And as you can see, the proposed development is in keeping and actually below the height of the adjacent dwellings on the street and also in keeping with the height of the adj of the dwellings across the street on Allen. Um, we've placed it in such a way that there are no adverse effects in terms of shadowing on the neighboring properties. If we could go to slide two, I believe the site plan. I could walk through and illustrate that a little bit better for the committee. So our house is predom yeah yeah proposed dwelling unit is uh oriented in such a way that uh morning sun and afternoon sun and evening sun are completely preserved for the property to the west obviously with the the path of sun's travel the only shading that would meaningfully occur would be on uh our own lot on on Allen Street. So internal shading of uh you know the the landscaping between the two dwelling units uh is really the only consideration from a shading perspective. And we've also ensured that our design does not introduce overlook conditions with respect to windows that are very close to a property line uh or overlooking rear yards. So if you take a look at both the let's see A202 uh which I believe is slide six that would be the western elevation um uh one more actually sorry slide seven um so this would be the elevation that faces the most close lot line uh which already contains a quite high fence and a hedro that is uh approximately 8 ft in height. So the impact uh would be you know just that top portion of the building essentially. Um but again we're still maintaining all existing sideyard sacks as per the town bylaw and um there's no variances being requested there. There's also no variances being requested with respect to coverage. If we could flip back to the site plan uh slide two just to take a look at the positioning of the uh dwelling unit on the lot. So when placing this shadowing overlook uh all of those were obviously major considerations. height in respect to keeping with the adjacent dwelling units and ensuring that we're not uh overpowering those and then also making sure that we're meeting our bylaw requirements with respect to parking spaces. So um that is actually part of the reason for the proximity to the lot lines uh in order to achieve the minimum bylaw required three parking spaces. Um, as you can see, there's there's not a whole lot of space on this corner lot being very long and narrow to accommodate uh either a long driveway or a very deep garage or a very wide garage. So, those pieces were all um part of what informed the design decisions around both placement um shading and then um you know overall massing of the of the proposed dwelling. Um we are of the opinion that all things uh being considered the fact that height is the only variance that we are requesting here. Uh we are like I said in keeping with the general intent of the uh zoning by official plan with regards to density on the lot uh proximity to the go station providing additional dwelling units um all fall under the the town and the province's uh intent for densification and the uh current bylaws and official plan. Um, aside from that, I have uh no further comments and I would look to the members of the committee uh to answer any questions if they have them. >> Thank you, Mr. Peters. Um, any questions from the committee? Mr. Powski? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, first of all, let me apologize for my lack of background tonight. I'm neither at home or on my usual device. Chair, I have a number of questions for the applicant and problem. I've heard the resident's comments and while I recognize that the comments regarding CFA unit are not relevant because the additional additional unit is by the province. But the resident does raise very interesting point. the town amended its bylaw to deal with additional bones and it did not change the height of an accessory um building. So to me that would imply that the intent of council very recently was that these additional units in accessory buildings be limited to one story. that's the case. How does the barians who permit two stories meet the intent of file? I would suggest that in this scenario, given the lot coverages being presented, uh the density of the area and the streetscape that we presented, uh along with the proximity to uh the ghost station and the restrictions around parking that a two-story dwelling unit in this scenario is in keeping with the character of the streetscape. Uh and it's also allowing us to reduce the lot coverage. Um which we believe creates uh you know a a better streetscape, more opportunity for tree infill, landscaping, um maintaining the character of those neighborhoods with the ability for additional plantings. Uh it does obviously you know pose a little bit of a a break I would say from the from the overall height. Um but all other factors being considered when it comes to like I said proximity to to transit um height of adjacent buildings density uh lot coverage which again we're trying to to minimize. Uh I I know that under the provincial legislation we're permitted up to 45% law coverage and we're proposing 20 is it 29 I believe or 25 um which is still more in line with the town's SP10 uh prescribed bylaw uh lot coverage percentage. So, it was more of a consideration of what's the overall impact to the lot as a whole? Uh, and is coverage uh going to present more of a disturbance to the neighborhood than height? And we're of the opinion that the the coverage addition would be far more disruptive than uh adding additional height. Um because if we're trying again to to maintain the three parking spaces as prescribed in the bylaw and keep the existing curb cuts where they are currently located, uh there's not much we could do other than eat up the majority of that backyard, which we feel would compromise the character of the lot in the neighborhood more than the request for height. Be smaller. Um, so you you don't believe that a full twostory wall 2 feet from the property line causes an impact? Not desirable situation. The bylaw has written limits the accessory building to one story by its height and provides four or two foot side yards. If you're building a house, you'd require 4 foot or greater side. So, I'm I'm struggling with you want to have the advantage of a twoft side and that's your building, but you're building an additional dwelling unit that's a full twotory house. Why shouldn't you be increasing that sideyard to minimize? Again, that is more of a consideration of the the lot dimension and the parking restrictions on the lot and a desire to reduce the overall coverage. Um, I I think it's fair to say that yes, we could uh we could in some ways look at a building that's more sprawling. Um but given the height of existing fences, hedros, uh the negligible impact on additional shading, uh we felt that it was more prudent to, you know, minimize that lot coverage and increase the the height overall. Um but I do understand the the point that you're making. you you you both yourself and staff mentioned that we didn't see it the shadow impact study as part of the material was one completed. >> Um a shadow impact study was not completed. No. Um the comments about that are more just in looking at the orientation of the building uh and and understanding the pathing of the sun uh given its you know northwestern uh exposure there. So it's something that we could certainly illustrate um but didn't feel that it was was necessary given the orientation. Um staff also mentioned that you're going to require an arborist report and I find this wording strange in the staff report that it will require provision once you do one. But have you done arburous report and >> we have issues with the JC? >> No. No, we we have completed an arburous report. it was not provided as part of the uh committee submission uh just as we we don't normally go through and it wasn't requested during the uh pre-con application hearing that we had uh probably a month and a half ago. Um but we are definitely taking care and ensuring that the trees are being preserved and the arburst report as well as the uh site alteration permit that we would need to apply for in the case that this is approved um will obviously also prescribe replanting of of trees or additional planting of trees on the property. It's the the full intent of the owner to to make sure that we're maintaining canopy uh in this area and and again keeping in with the character of the street. So I I'm struggling with the orientation to to give a height variance with a twoft side yard. But also practical point, how do you build and maintain twotory building with a with an overhang with a twotory sideyard without going on property? Um it's a much shallower overhang. Um like we're we're proposing next to no overhang with an oversized uh rain collection system. Snow guards would be also used in place on the roof to you know minimize the impact of snow shedding onto the neighboring property. uh drainage and lot grading would also be a part of us obtaining a building permit for a structure like this. So storm water management uh on the lot as a whole as well as water runoff from that roof downspill locations uh all those things would be considered and have been thought through in a preliminary stage in our our proposed design tonight. >> Thank you. Um Mr. chair. Um, unless you'd like to go to other committee members. I do quite fast. Well, >> um, yeah, please advance with your your questions with staff, please. >> Um, a lot of similar questions. Uh, this week we've got a proposal for a twotory building, two foot sideyard. I think the next meeting we have proposal for a twotory factory building with a one foot side. My question about how do you build and maintain these buildings with essentially no side guard? Is this part of the analysis that staff do when coming up with the recommendation? >> Thank you. Uh through the chair to the member. The provincial government had issued a regulation concerning um additional dwelling units um and it allows um and it provides uh four additional residential units that uh when they are provided in an accessory building, the accessory building is subject to the same setback requirements that um would be for any accessory building. the um there is when it comes to height the um town has determined that they um that on a case-byase basis we would consider uh height additional height for an additional dwelling or residential unit. So on a case-byase basis we would determine uh is the requested height appropriate or is it um too much? Is it in keeping with the bylaw or not? When it comes to the sideyards and um maintaining a two-story building, um that would be up to the designer, when it comes to the um engineering and the storm water management, that that may have an impact on where this the building um eventually lies. But uh as you can see from the elevation drawings in the submission package as the um applicant has indicated there is no significant overhang over the um the main walls. So uh does it come into our consideration? The variance that's being requested is the additional height and that's what u my review is based on. But the additional height is again I I let me ask it this way. Would staff support a new dwelling with a two foot side yard as opposed to a bylaw requirement for 4 ft or greater? This is it's not an accessory dwelling anymore. It's additional dwelling essentially a second house on the property which I understand is permitted but a outside of an accessory unit a dwelling requires a far more significant sideyard than that's being proposed here and I'm just I'm struggling with a twotory wall 2 feet that I don't support if it order a separate application for a dwelling new dwelling unit on the lot side. >> So um through the chair to the to the member the uh the principal dwelling is subject to different setback requirements for the reasons that you've identified. Um an accessory dwelling is um subject to the setbacks or access sorry accessory um buildings are subject to different setback requirements when it comes to additional dwelling or residential units in an accessory structure. Um as the Ontario regulation indicated there was no need for any increased setbacks. Uh but that height would be um subject to the zoning bylaw. So, so when it comes to and in this case we have an accessory or an additional residential unit in an accessory building um that is is smaller in size is so it's subordinate to the principal dwelling. Uh the impacts on the adjacent neighbors is reduced because of the limited size of the building. the um so so yes these these are different than the principal dwelling >> council had the opportunity to increase the height they amended the bylaw and I guess you've indicated that there was a conscious decision to leave it in place and deal with things on case by case basis But you know a twotory additional dwelling unit and accessory building with a greater setback may not have an impact versus this application which I believe it does have an impact because of the two foot side yard. So even if you know so when I read the bylaw it strikes me as the intent council was that additional dwelling units and accessory builds single story but if I accept the response that it was the intention to look at it case by case basis the committee still has to address the case of is this desirable appropriate development property and had the second floor been set back or the entire step back. I think I'd have a lot easier time determining that desirable, but um I guess from your perspective on a case by case basis, this twostory straight wall 2 ft off the property line. >> Yes. Through the chair. Yes. um staff report as and again I'm using the words from the staff report they need to this application will require revision to do the process doesn't say may it says will and if town knows there's going to be changes why are we being asked to approve something that's >> uh through the chair to the member because the principle of the requested variance of height is um irrespective of any location like the the requirement to move uh or shift the dwelling further away from the boundary tree that's at the southerntherly lot line. So yes, the applicant has been um advised through the comments uh report that because of this boundary tree and forestry um staff having um concerns with the with the proximity of the location uh to be shifted. Uh it so yeah, but when it comes to the variance, the requested variance is height and um in my opinion, the the fact that they have to shift it closer to the principal dwelling uh away from that um boundary tree uh made no difference to my opinion. yet you're recommending approval in accordance with the submitted pipeline which you're saying is going to change >> uh through the chair to the committee member. Yes, we have uh seen in a number of cases where general accordance is can um can allow for some slight movement or um adjustments uh through through the process. where there are circumstances where staff is recommending um uh something other other than that uh we would uh we would indicate in our report that um we would want it we wouldn't support it for example um andor we might suggest changing the wording of of the condition but in in my opinion the shifting of this accessory uh or additional residential unit. This accessory building uh is uh would would still be in general accordance with the with the plan that was submitted. >> Yeah. The applicant's own evidence that they purposely did a two-story building and in that location moving the building further into it would have a greater impact. So that you seem to be contradicting what the I don't through the chair to the member. I don't believe it. I haven't seen a shadow study if that is what um the applicant was alluding to. Uh when it comes to shifting the accessory building closer to the principal dwelling, it just means in my in my view and opinion that there's a smaller um um amenity area between the two buildings on the subject lands. If we're shifting the um the building towards to make it a smaller amenity area, um in my view, it I don't know that that would really impact the adjacent neighbor. It would just mean that they're getting closer to alignment with where their uh rear story addition is. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Um thank you. Um, any other questions of our committee members, of the applicant or of staff? I did go a little out of order here to give Mr. Towski continuity. Not seeing any hands. I do understand that we have um a letter of opposition and request to attend. Um, in the absence of additional questions from our committee, Madame Chair, do we have uh have somebody seeking to speak with the committee here? >> Yes, Mr. Chair, we do. We have Daniel Mascll. I'll move him in. One moment, please. >> Thank you. Uh good evening chair, committee and members. Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak. Um just a few points uh to to respond to. Um the first one being um the only engagement or any communication that we have had from the the design team or the property owner on this project was at approximately 300 p.m. today when a member of the design studio team uh called to our door unannounced and that was subsequent to us submitting our objection letter yesterday morning. So we I would suggest we have had no engagement or no communication from anybody involved in this project. Um that's the first point. Um the second point is the the boundary tree that was being referenced on the south side of the boundary I believe has been removed in March of this year. uh a large black walnut tree, quite a mature tree was removed um in March of 2026. So I would again not seen an arborist report or not seen any drawings with tree removals indicated. Uh I would ask that the the the committee and the town planner take that into consideration. Uh also, um I would have a a concern as we own the property that backs onto the proposed development to the west. Um as part of their proposed drawings, they're they're suggesting they're going to do a basement which will require an excavation approximately 10 ft deep based on their drawings. Um so as the committee member had suggested I would have a a significant concern from health and safety from the the the uh integrity of our boundary fence and the mature cedar tree hedge that's growing between the two boundaries as to how they would propose doing a safe excavation 10 ft deep um 600 mm or 2 feet off a property line. So, being a building owner, we have a six-year-old and a four-year-old, two girls that play in our back garden every day. So, I would I would have a significant concern as to how they can make excavate such a large basement excavation uh so close to the boundary line. It would appear that the developer here is trying to use the new adjacent dwelling units and a building permit. They're trying to get the best of both worlds to build what is a very large house on what is already a very narrow um corner lot. So I would again have concerns that the building owner or the design team are trying to construct a full-size house at 6.91 m which as we said is 7 nearly 75% higher than what's permitted by the adjacent building unit um bylaws. So I would I would seriously ask the town to to review and reject this uh proposal on several fronts. It it does not seem to take into consideration um several factors that affect adjacent properties. The the other question I would have and I think why the adjacent building unit why they're trying to go down the route of the adjacent building unit is because if what they're trying to propose effectively is two houses on one lot which would not meet the um the lot coverage the current lot coverage ratios if they were two separate houses. We recently went through a a renovation on our own family home and we worked very closely with our architect to stay within or worked very closely to the the current or the proposed bylaws with respect to lot coverage. This development or this proposal seems to have no regard for um lot coverage and are trying to use the adjacent building unit as a a way of getting away from lot coverage. But they also seem to have no regard for the permitted maximum height of four meters and have decided that they're going to try and build a full house under one set of bylaws and try and piggy back on other bylaws to help them where they fall short on other criteria. Um, again, I would the setback building a house 6.1 or 6.91 m tall 2 feet off a property line just seems very disproportionate to what good building uh bylaw practices are. I think that's Yeah. So, I would sincerely request that the town reject this uh proposal. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you, sir. Um, do I have questions from our committee members on this presentation? I don't see any questions. Thank you, sir. Um, I'll ask Mr. Peters to please respond to um the um the comments raised by the uh the uh neighbor. >> Absolutely. So um again I can understand a concern with regard to the proximity to the lot line uh the the height of the dwelling. Um I would just like to highlight that the eaves condition on the westward facing lot line um is is actually at a maximum height of 5 m. Um so we are we are a meter above the bylaw requirement to the eaves at the rear which is the higher uh of the two eaves and that would still put us a meter below uh the 6 m uh 6 m height being requested currently. The only comment that I have regarding the excavation depth uh and the safety and how that would be managed would be to say the proposed excavation is uh 7 ft in depth uh not 10. So we are we are being conscious in that way of not proposing a a full basement. It's more of a storage space for the additional dwelling unit uh on the lot and precautions would be taken uh in the form of shoring along that back edge as we often do with uh you know full residences on infill lots shoring both sides of the property um or sides of the property where needed. Um, with respect to the removal of the walnut tree, that was done through a private tree removal permit, um, which did require an arbitrage report and actually genetic testing uh, that was sent out to a laboratory in G. Um, I don't have that permit available to me at the moment. Um, but I'm I'm sure that, you know, town records will show that that uh that was applied for and approved through the uh builder and homeowner um back in March uh as Daniel had indicated. Um that was done in accordance with fil requirements and with the approval of both the town and the adjacent neighbor uh who was also looking to have that tree removed just in terms of its shedding onto his driveway. uh and the you know the shadowing uh that it caused at his sideyard. So um those would be my uh my comments in response. Um yeah, thank you Mr. Peters. Um any questions from our committee members on that uh that addition those additional comments? Mr. Chilowski. point of clarification. So am I understand that the tree that staff have referenced that they believe would cause a change no longer exists. It's already been removed through a town permit. >> Correct. Thank you. >> Any additional questions? Seeing none, um I would seek to understand whether there was anybody else in the audience who would wish to speak to this matter. >> Mr. Chair, there are no other hands up uh from those in attendance and no calls have been received. >> Thank you. Um we'll go to the committee for a motion. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Chair, I'm obviously struggling deeply with this application. It's not because it's another unit. I understand that additional unit supports the concept that's put in place. My concern is twoft sideyard for a twostory residential dwelling unit that almost the same size as the existing residential unit on the property with no consideration at all for stepping back the second floor or widening the setback sideyard setback for what would be appropriate um for the construction of a twostory residential dwelling side bylaw seems to indicate that this accessory structure should be single source committee is here to bury the violence but as As I said earlier, I have to look at the test of desire. If I accept that this meets the intent of the bylaw to have two stories accessory buildings to support additional dwelling that may well appropriate, but Mr. Chair, not in this context. I just cannot find that this is desirable. No attempt to step back floor. No attempt to hide the second floor in the ease just cannot bring I'm not sure this meets the intent of the violence but I absolutely in my view is not desirable. They had opportunities to make it a little smaller through different design make it more compatible chose not to do so Mr. I cannot find that this needs to before test the bylaw. >> Thank you again Mr. Towski. Um do we have a discussion on this motion? Sorry, Mr. Chair. Do you mind just having member Steve repeat the motion? It was a little hard to hear. >> Certainly the the end of all that discussion that my motion is to deny the application finding that it's not. Madam Secretary, Treasurer, were you able to um record that? >> Yes, thank you. >> Okay. Um did I see member Dicki with his hand up before uh before that or uh on the on the mo on the request for discussion, please? I think I got an echo quite a while. Um >> um I'm going to support the motion. I agree with what was said about the setbacks and the height and whatever my echo is. I don't know what's going wrong. >> Any thank you. Thank you. Um any additional discussion? Okay. So, we'll go to uh all those in support of the motion to the to refuse the application. Sorry, I can't see my full screen here. Okay, I see that uh all members have supported uh the motion on the on the on the floor. The um application has been refused. Thank you. We are moving on to the the third item on the agenda today. Um application A079 2026 property located at 485 Trillium Drive. I see that we have the agent here. Uh, could I have your name and uh and business address for the record, please? >> My name is Amy Tupter with Jansen Consulting. Our address is 70 Main Street North in Campleville, Ontario. >> Excellent. Would you uh take us through a brief presentation of your proposal? Absolutely. So what you see on the screen here is the site plan. So we are proposing or requesting an increase in residential floor area ratio uh to facilitate a threeseason sun room on the back existing covered patio. And we are also enclosing the walk up. The walk up is existing the stairs and the concrete landing below. you just want to put a roof on it um to make it more accessible through the out the winter time um remove the ice off of the steps. They are stone steps. They get real slippery. Uh so this uh proposal, this house was built a few years ago. So the previous owners and um designer did receive a um increased residential floor area ratio through a minor variance for uh where's it here for 48.09%. The allowed is 41%. uh because they are enclosing that covered rear patio to be a threeseason sun room, that now does count towards the residential floor area. So, we are now requesting um 48.5%. In the uh notice, you will see that the original variance was higher. Town staff has been kind enough to throughout this process review and let us know that we can actually reduce our percentage to 48.5% for this exact proposal that you see on the screen here. I believe that covers most of it, but if you have any questions, I'd be more than happy to answer them. >> Thank you. Um questions from committee. I don't see any questions from committee. So I'll ask the secretary treasure if there are any members of the public uh present or to that have raised their hands that wish to speak to this matter. >> Mr. Chair, there are no hands up and we've received no calls. >> Excellent. Okay. Thank you so much. I will go back to the committee for a motion then Mr. Dicki. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Based upon upon my review of the owner's application, the site plan, building elevations, my site visit, the presentation by the owner's consultant, and the planning staff's report. I am satisfied that the variances are minor in nature and conform to the four tests under the planning act and I put forth a motion that the application as applied for be approved subject to the conditions that sorry um that the enclosure of the below grade below grade stairs and sun room be constructed in general accordance with the site plan dated October 21st, 2025 and the elevation drawings dated November 5th, 2025 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, sir. Um, any discussion on the motion? >> Oh, m Mr. Chairman. >> Yes. >> I think the condition also should have included that the proposed uh residential flurry area be revised from 50.43% to 48.5%. Thank you sir. Yes. So uh so um if I understand correctly Mr. Dicki that the the uh conditions that you're proposing are on the revised minor variance with the reduced um RFA figure of 48.5%. >> Yes, thank you. >> Just to be clear. Thank you. Um discussion on the motion. Seeing none, all those in support and oh there we go. Okay. Uh that's a unanimous uh decision. Thank you all. Um your application has been approved. >> Thank you. Have a good evening. >> Thank you. And we are on to our last item uh this evening. um application A 080 of 2026 for uh property with municipal addresses ranging from 2365 through 2,377 Lakeshore Road West. Uh this is um Claystone GP, Inc. Um do we have our um I see Mr. Hannifford here who I believe is the agent. Could I of your name and uh and uh business address for the record, please? >> Sure. Thank you. My name is Andrew Henford, associate with MHBC Planning. Our business address is 12 James Street North in Hamilton. >> Thank you. Can you take us through a bit of a presentation on this one? Um uh you know, yes, if if you wouldn't mind, please. Thank you. >> Sure. Thank Thank you, chair, members of committee. So, so this application seeks a single technical variance to permit below grade structures and site services prior to the formal lifting of the holding provisions on the site. This will enable record of site condition paperwork to be processed concurrently with underground construction. We have reviewed the staff report and are in full agreement with recommendation for approval before you tonight. Next slide, please. The site is centrally located on the north side of Lakes Shore Road West right within Bronty Village. It's currently occupied by an existing two-story building and surface parking. Next slide. As you can see, we're surrounded by a diverse mix of low, mid, and high-rise uses with Bronty Harbor and Heritage Waterfront Park just a short walk to the south. Next slide, please. In February of this year, final site plan approval submission was made and the site plan agreement has been signed for this site. The approved development consists of a sevenstory mixeduse building with ground flooror commercial space on lakes shore 111 residential units above and two levels of underground parking with 154 parking spaces. This design is entirely consistent with the December 2023 OOLT decision and is the product an extensive and collaborative review with town staff. With the site plan agreement finalized, the owner is now ready to advance construction later this year. Next slide. Within the town's official plan, the site is designated main street one with exception as approved through the OOLT. This designation permits up to seven stories on the site uh range of residential retail and service commercial uses with the required for ground floor retail. Within the town zoning bylaw, the site is zoned MU1-425 withholding provisions H1 and H54 applicable. H1 is a standard condition in Bronty Village requiring confirmation of servicing and I can confirm that we have received that confirmation from the town and region to clear the first condition of the holding provision one. H54 is specific to the site. It requires an RSC or record of site condition prior to any site alteration or grading but it does allow building permits for the excavation necessary to file that RSC. Uh next slide please. It's this holding provision 54 from which we're seeking variance today. The variant seeks to permit belowgrade structures and site services for the proposed building prior to the removal of the holding provision. It's fundamental fundamentally a construction sequencing issue. Our goal is to limit the timeline and impact that the construction of this development has on the surrounding Bronty Village neighborhood. Next slide, please. So, this slide displays the construction timeline without the proposed variance. And you can see on the left the impact of the um the work required to complete the RSSE. So following demolition uh shoring and excavation will occur and we estimate that to take 5 to 6 months. Once we hit the bottom of the hole on the site, final soil testing and long-term monitoring must occur and then the RSC can be filed. That's expected to take 6 to 8 months. Without a variance, no structural work can happen during that window. So the site would complete set completely open as an open pole on Lake Shore Road. Only after the RSC is cleared, then the 6 to 8 months of foundation work that follows can begin. So the community would be exposed to an open construction site for up to 22 months on this site, which is obviously not desirable. Uh, next slide, please. The requested variance attempts to fix this. It allows us to safely construct the underground garage and foundation simultaneously while the ministry is processing the RSC and the monitoring period is ongoing. This overlaps those stages. It pulls the construction schedule ahead by 6 to 8 months and safely closes the hole almost a year sooner. By the time the structure reaches grade building back up, the RSC would then be issued. The H provision could be lifted and the above grade construction can move forward without any delay in work happening on the site. The owner of the site fully acknowledges that any underground work undertaken via conditional permit prior to the lifting of the H is at their sole financial risk. We have agreed to provide the necessary clearance letters to the town to confirm this and a qualified person will be on site to ensure that the underground work doesn't interfere with ministry requirements for that RSC. Next slide, please. So, in our opinion, this application does meet all four tests under section 451 of the planning act. First, it maintains the intent of the official plan by ensuring the orderly and efficient staging of development. Second, it maintains the intent of the zoning as the underlying environmental protection of the H54 clause, which is intended to prevent um sensitive land uses from occurring prior to the RSC being issued. That remains intact because the town can't grant occupancy until the RSC is finalized. Third, it's highly desirable for the land, enabling standard construction formatting while significantly easing construction impacts on Lakes Shore Road. And fourth, it's minor in nature. We're changing nothing about the building's approved height, massing, or structural forum. We're just seeking to overlap the construction schedule to reduce the duration of disruption on the surrounding community. Um, next slide, please. In conclusion, we would respectfully request that the committee approve the proposed variance. Uh, we believe it meets all four tests of the act, and we thank you for your time. I'm available for any questions that you may have. >> Thank you, Mr. Hannah Ford. Um, before I go to the committee, um, you touched on a point that had been sticking in my mind in trying to understand. And I mean this is an unusual situation at least for my experience in having the multi having two holding provisions in there that are independent and contain language that are specific particularly with respect to 54 H54 which is specific about its own holding provision. But you did touch on you started to touch on and and maybe you could take a little bit of time to explain if I recall correctly from the staff report and reading the materials there's two through five different provisions on H1 you spoke about the about the servicing capacity um but you didn't speak specifically to the other matters although I I think you in an agency you did it might be worthwhile going through all of those pieces and then perhaps you can extend from that um a answer the question why not lift that holding symbol right now. >> Uh sure a thank you question to the chair. Um so there's two H provisions that apply to this site as I mentioned H1 is a general provision that applies to all of or almost all of Branch Village. So there's there is there's five points to clear. So the first is that there's sufficient water and wastewater services available to the satisfaction of the region in the town. But I can confirm that through the site plan review there is sufficient water and wastewater services for the site and that's confirmed through the functional servicing reports that were submitted through the site plan process. The second for H1 is that the owner has entered into any required servicing agreements with the town regarding storm water management and again our site plan agreement has been finalized with the town. So that agreement has been entered into. The third is completion of detailed design drawings for the construction of road and infrastructure improvements that has also been undertaken through the site process and is subject to that site agreement that was executed with the town. Uh fourth is registration on title of an agreement between the owner and the town uh with respect to those agreements. So again that that's also covered off by the site plan agreement that was finalized. Uh fifth is a registration on title of a section 37 agreement for the planning act that is no longer um required as section 37 was removed by the province. And then the final one is that all required land conveyances have been undertaken. I can confirm that that's also been done. A direct reference plan was um filed with the land registry office to complete that. Um so all of the provisions of H1 have been met. Uh the reason why a holding bylaw removal application for H1 has not been filed at this time is because uh it just doesn't make sense from a financial perspective to file two separate applications when you can clear both age provisions with one application and there's no benefit to clearing the H1 ahead of the H54. Um it doesn't really slow anything down as H54 is really the the gatekeeper I guess on advancing this application further. H54 the second holding provision that applies to this site um is a product of the OOLT settlement um it's basically requiring that um the RSC work be undertaken prior to um any work beyond the excavation required to complete the RSC work. So the site through the phase 1 ESA through the initial OPA ZBA process was identified it formally contained a laundromat and other uses that impact the soil and groundwater. Those uses unfortunately require a lot longer of a period of testing to ensure that there's safe levels of or no contamination really prior to residential occurring on the site. So what we're intending to do here and what we think was overlooked initially with the language of the holding provision is that H54 requires you to dig the site down and again two stories and then you have to establish monitoring wells on the site which takes 6 to 8 months. During that time, with the way the the holy provision is worded, all that you can do is dig the hole down and that hole remains for those eight months. In most instances in construction, you would then also be advancing your underground works. So, doing your shoring, um doing your site servicing that occurs underground so that by the time the um the RSC is issued, you can then just proceed with developing up and there's no delay in construction. That's not possible with the way H54 is currently worded. So, we spent a great bit of time with town staff trying to workshop how we can tweak the language of H54 to allow for less disruption on Bronty Village, allow for less water to be just pooling in a in a pit on the site and and less impact on the adjacent land owners. So, we believe that this this does that. Um, it still protects the intent of H54, which is really to not allow sensitive land uses to occur until it's safe. That will still be the case. There's no concerns there. So I hope that answers your question. >> Yeah, I I think um you know I I I appreciate the efforts that are being undertaken. I think as as the committee that's being asked to deviate from an Holding provision, I I was looking for clear articulation particularly a lot of the effort was spent on uh H54 and explaining that but not on the H1 provision and and as not being the um the the decision maker on most holding removals or temporary or or or setting it aside. um I I I would have looked for greater guidance in terms of the the articulation of this um and understanding this. So uh that has been certainly helpful to me in understanding the situation. So I'm going to stand aside at this point in time and look to my other committee members to see if they have any questions on this matter and they don't. Um sorry my Oh. Oh thank you Ms. Price, sorry you you keep showing up on the second screen. I miss you. Um, yes, please. Uh, questions. >> Um, yes. Um, what you're excuse me, what to the agent, what you're proposing, has this been done in other instances with other pro projects or is this something unique just to Oakville or to this particular site? >> Um, thank you and to the chair. I will call in the town planner answer this. I I would say that the the construction sequencing that we're proposing is quite standard in other municipalities. You don't typically want a site to kind of go on hold for 8 months, you know, short of a stop work order. You don't want that because it just delays the impact on the community. Um amending a holding provision through a committee of adjustment application, while uncommon, is within the powers of the planning act for the committee and it has been done in Oakville before and I would turn it over to Colin, the town planner to to clarify that point. Certainly. Thank you, Andrew and through your chair to member Price. Um Andrew's correct. Uh we have varied a holding provision. It is not common. However, um I believe it was I mean I did one personally. I think a couple years ago I I believe it was within Kur Village, which also has an H1 that is applied as almost a blanket um throughout these secondary and and primary growth areas. Um it's it's a bit of a relic of a holding provision, but we've we've done one and and one's been before the committee in terms of varying the H1 for um I believe it was a you know residential addition. Um so this has been done before. Um however you it is it is uncommon, right? >> Okay. Thank you. Any additional questions from my colleagues? Okay, I see no additional questions. I'll go out. I do uh see that there was a uh request to attend. So, I'll go to the secretary treasurer to see if there is anybody in the audience who wishes to uh speak to the matter. >> Mr. Chair, there uh is no one in attendance. So, no one has their hand up and no calls have come in. >> Okay. Well, if that is the case, then uh I'll I'll take it back to the committee for a motion. >> Miss Price. After reviewing the agents report and staff's comments, I believe the application is minor in nature as in keeping and is in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the official plan and zoning bylaw and is desirable for the appropriate development of the land. Taking into account that both holding provisions would will be maintained and that the m minor variance would allow remediation and monitoring work to occur in conjunction with the construction of the work being done below grade. I find the four tests of the planning act have been met and put forth a motion to approve the application subject to the following conditions. that the underground parking and garage be constructed in general accordance with the approved site plan to the satisfaction of the director of planning and development and that the approval expires 2 years from the date of the decision if a conditional building permit has not been issued for the proposed construction. >> Thank you, Miss Price. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, those in support of the motion, check the other screen. Okay. Um the uh your application has been approved. There are no none opposed. Uh you have a good evening, Mr. Manford. >> You too. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um do we have confirm? That is the last item on the agenda. So we'll go we'll move on to the administrative matters of confirmation of minutes from the May 13 2026 meeting Miss Price and uh motion for adjournment. Miss Price meeting is adjourned at 8:16.