Mhm. >> Hey. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Hey. >> Hey. >> Hey. >> Good morning everyone. Uh it's looks like winter is just around the corner, so anyway, without further ado, we'll get on with this uh meeting today. And uh this meeting of the Committee of Adjustment is being called to hear applications under the Planning Act for minor variances and or consent. This is a statutory public meeting. Anyone having an interest in any of the applications may make oral or written submissions for the committee's consideration. The committee will render a verbal decision this date, and the agent applicant will receive a copy of the committee's decision in writing via mail, email 10 days after the meeting. Please note, each application will be addressed in the following manner. The planning coordinator will introduce the application and staff recommendation outlined in the report, which was posted on the City of Kitchener's website the Friday prior to today's meeting. The chair will remind the committee that late written submissions circulated prior to the meeting that should be taken into consideration. The chair will confirm the applicant agent that they have reviewed the staff report and whether they are in support of the staff recommendation. The chair, me, will invite the opposition to make oral submissions. Parties providing oral submissions should endeavor to keep the comments succinct and provide and avoid repeating comments already stated by other parties. The committee members may ask questions of the parties in opposition, if any. The chair will invite the agent applicant to make comments, if any. The agent applicant can ask questions regarding the staff recommendation. The committee members may ask the agent applicant uh we ask them questions and the members may ask questions of city staff. The committee will pass a motion to approve, reject, or defer the application. Okay. So, moving on to the main part of the this meeting that we will read the minutes. Uh we need a recommendation from the committee. Uh and to move a recommendation that we approve the minutes. Okay, we have Amanda. Uh and a seconder Maria. Um okay. And motion is that the regular minutes of the Committee of Adjustment meeting held September 15th, 2026 as circulated to members be accepted. All those in favor. Unanimous. Are there any members of the committee that wish to declare any pecuniary interest regarding matters listed in the agenda? Seeing none. Okay, so that is is that part done? We'll move on to the agenda here and uh we're dealing first with unfinished business. A 2026- 029 326 Wellington Street North. Uh the applicant come forward. And Okay, it looks like you know where you're going to be seated. Okay, so we now invite the planning coordinator to read the staff recommendation. >> Yes, thank you, Vice Chair. This is a minor variance application for 326 Wellington Street North. There are variant two variances before you this morning. Uh two variances to the interior side yard as a back uh 0.3 m from the property abutting Louisa Street and 0.3 m abutting the property on Wellington Street North, whereas a setback of 14 m is required abutting a residential zone. And the second variance relates to parking to permit 15 parking spaces instead of the minimum required 21 parking spaces. The variances are to facilitate the use of one of the units in the building for an automotive detailing and repair operation. These This application was originally before you in April of this year. It was deferred to allow the applicant an opportunity to prepare a parking justification study for the parking variance. That study was prepared by Paradigm Transportation Solutions. It was There was further parking study data requested of city staff and this was provided to us. Transportation planning staff have reviewed that study and are satisfied that satisfied with the conclusions of the parking justification study that it appropriately supports the minor variance before you this morning. Accordingly, staff have reviewed the variances in light of the four tests of the Planning Act, find that they meet all four and is recommending approval. >> Great. Thank you very much. I see the applicant and or agent are seated in the appropriate place. Um I'd like to confirm with you gentlemen whether or not you've reviewed the staff report and whether they are in support of the staff recommendation. >> Through you, Chair McCall. Yes, we have read it and fully support the recommendations. >> Good. Is there uh anybody here in the gallery who would like to comment on this application either in support or opposition? Seeing none. Um Do the members of this committee have any questions for the applicant? Or opposition, which there isn't any, but No questions. Okay. Does the agent applicant have any comments or questions they would like to bring forward? >> Through you, Chair McCall and the committee. I just have a few comments to make on the application and again to thank city staff for their review, support, and facilitation of these variances. Uh I sent a package out just showing some photos of the property. And what I just verbally comment on is that this property has been in operation for over 70 years. It is a unique property in downtown and there was a trigger with a business licensing um application that found the variance for the setbacks. Uh the buffers related to this industrial building, you'll see that the industrial bay doors face uh Wellington Street uh away from all the housing. So, as it's mentioned in the planning reports and the justification, we believe that there is appropriate buffering to reduce the setback, which is there to provide uh a distance separation. Uh there's over 20 m separate separation distance right now if you measure it from door to the door, but this is a compatible project that we found. And with the parking, I'd simply say that uh as this use continues to move forward, uh there's going to be very limited impact based off the new use because there's bay doors and the vehicles are parked inside the bay, not outside. And so, uh we again thank the committee's time. Uh if there's any questions, happy to answer those. And uh we believe it supports the 4K test as well. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh there's no parties in opposition. Do any of the members of the committee have questions uh for the agent applicant? Seeing none, um ask Do any of the members have questions for city staff? No? I do have a motion if we're ready for it. Okay. Um We need someone to move the recommendation. That would be >> I will make a motion to move the staff recommendation. >> Is there a second or for do Okay, Maria. Uh second or okay. All those in favor. unanimous that's carried. Thank you very much. >> Thanks to luck. >> Still on on on unfinished business is A 2026-058 4202 King Street East. Okay, the applicant has been seated. Okay, for the record can you identify yourself? >> Uh it's Tom Butkovic. I'd like to invite the planning coordinator to introduce the application. >> Thank you. This is my diverse application for 4202 King Street East. It's a request for permission under Section 45 2 of the Planning Act to permit an expansion of a legal non-conforming use the retail and repair of motor vehicles to permit uh 288 square meter addition and the reconfiguration of the existing parking area. This has been reviewed in accordance with the site plan application. Staff have reviewed the uh application in light of the two case law tests and finds that it meets both of those and is recommending approval. >> Great. Thank you. To the applicant, have you reviewed the application and are you in support? Is there anybody in opposition to this? Seeing none. Do the members have any questions for the application? Seeing none. Um any questions for staff? Oh, it's moving nicely. No, they don't. Okay. Uh needs [clears throat] >> I will make a motion to move uh for approval as with the staff report. >> Is there a second in okay member? Okay, so we have a motion. We have a second all those in favor? Carried unanimously. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Moving along to new business. [clears throat] The first application 6.1 is A 20 26-060 2333 Kingsway Drive. As there We should just give you a permanent chair. Just kidding. Um okay [clears throat], the applicant is season this seated. Uh Can the planning coordinator introduce the application? >> Yes, thank you. This is a minor variance application for 2333 Kingsway Drive. There are two minor variances before you this morning to permit a parking requirement of 10 parking spaces instead of the minimum required 12 and to permit an interior side yard setback of 1.4 m instead of minimum 7.5 m. These variances are to facilitate an office addition to an existing automotive service garage in accordance with a site plan application reviewed by staff. Staff have also reviewed the variance application in light of the four tests of the Planning Act find that the variance is meet all four and is recommending approval. >> Great, thank you to the applicant. Have you reviewed the city staff report? >> Thank you, Chair McColl. Yes. >> And you're in support of it? >> Full support. Yes. >> Thought so. >> Is are there any parties in opposition to this? Seeing none. Questions? Does Does the applicant have anything further to add? >> Through you, Chairman Cole, just a few quick points just to enhance the the application and your consideration. This is an existing condition and the setback is a result of where the building is located today and just being extended out by a a short amount and a small volume of space to enhance the building. This is all about improving the site functions and in terms of providing a stronger business plan for an existing business. And that we worked through the transportation and parking reduction analysis. And what you'll find is because there's an additional bay door being added to this is the cars park inside the bay, so they're not parked outside. And so this is that turnover function that there's enough surplus parking on the site that can handle visitors. There is no retail in this store, it's a service station. And that there is four employees that will be there full-time. And that we hope to receive support for this application. The architects are here in attendance because this application is ready to move. And we look forward to any questions you may have and I believe it meets the four tests as well. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Do any members of the committee have a questions for the agent applicant? Seeing none. Okay, moving along. What's next? Do any of the committee members have questions for staff? Seeing none. Can someone move the recommendation. Okay, member Maria has moved it. >> Yeah, I'll move uh I'll put a motion for us to approve per um staff recommendation. >> Okay, is there a seconder? Member Marco has rece-Okay, so all those all those in favor? Carried unanimously. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Next application is A-2026-061, 831 Frederick Street. Can the applicant please come in? While that's happening, I'll ask the coordinator to introduce the um application and the staff recommendation. >> Yes, thank you. This is a minor variance's application for 831 Frederick Street. There are two minor variances before you this morning. The first one to permit a private patio area of 4.9 square meters instead of the minimum required 11 square meters. And the second one is to permit a building height of 28.5 meters instead of the maximum permitted 25 meters. This These variances are to facilitate the construction of an eight-story residential building having 87 dwelling units in accordance with the site plan application. Staff have reviewed the variances in light of the four tests of the Planning Act, find that they meet all four and is recommending approval. >> Great, thank you. Confirming with the agent So, is the agent or applicant state your name for the the record? >> Uh Kevin Muir of the Zehr Group, we're the agent for the applicant. >> Okay, have you reviewed the city staff report? >> I have. >> And you are in support of it? >> Uh we are, yes. >> Are there any parties in opposition to this application? Seeing none. Um does the agent applicant have any comments or questions? >> Uh nothing no, nothing further to the staff report. We agree. If there's any questions, we can certainly take those. >> Do members of the committee have any questions for the applicant or staff? Seeing none, uh can someone make a motion to approve or deny this application? >> I can make a a motion to approve in accordance with the staff report. >> Okay, that's good. Um need a seconder for that. Member Marco has seconded that. Okay, all those in favor of the motion. That's unanimous. Thank you very much. Next application [clears throat] is A 20 26- 062 56 Everglades Crescent. Is there Okay, there's the applicant. Okay, I'll invite the planning coordinator to introduce this application. >> Yes, thank you. This is a minor variance application for 56 Everglades Crescent. It is a minor variance to permit a rear yard setback of 4.6 m instead of the minimum required 7.5 m. The variance is to facilitate the addition of a sunroom at the rear of the existing dwelling. Staff have reviewed the variance in light of the four tests of the Planning Act, find that it meets all four and is recommending approval. >> Okay, uh has the applicant agent Please announce yourself for the record. >> So, my name is Syed Aurangzeb. >> Okay, and um you have reviewed the staff report. >> Yeah, I reviewed it, yeah. >> And you're in support of it. >> Yes. >> Okay. And then is there anyone in opposition? Seeing none. Okay. Does the applicant have any further comments? >> No. All good from my side. [clears throat] >> Do members of the committee have any questions for staff or the applicant? Seeing none. Okay, I need someone to hear it out. Okay, member Marco has moved that that this uh be approved as per the staff report. >> Yes, I will make a motion to move as per the staff report. >> Okay, a seconder? Member Maria. Okay. Um I guess that's it. We just need to All those in favor of the motion. Carried unanimously. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. [clears throat] >> Okay, the next application is um We just We just did Bridge Street, didn't we? We haven't done Okay. That next application is A-2026-063, 29 Bridge Street West. And is there Yeah, I see there's an applicant coming forward. While he's coming forward, I invite the planning coordinator to introduce the recommendation and staff report. >> Yes, thank you. This is a minor variance application for 29 Bridge Street West. There are two minor variances before you this morning. The first to permit a deck with a height greater than 1 m to be set back 0.7 m from the front lot line instead of the minimum required 5.5 m. And the second variance is to permit a front yard set back of 2.5 m instead of the minimum required 5.5 m. These variances are to facilitate the construction of a new front entrance and deck onto the existing dwelling. Staff have reviewed the variances in light of the four tests of the Planning Act. We find that they meet all four tests and are recommending approval. We have uh recommended approval subject to a condition. There is a portion of the driveway that's not able to be parked upon. Um if there was parking in this area, the driveway would encroach onto the right-of-way. So, staff are suggesting that this portion of the driveway be demarcated uh differently um to show that parking is not permitted here and that work would have to be done by March 31st, 2027. >> Okay, thank you. Uh so, to the applicant, state your name for the record, please. >> Larry Raguenet. >> Okay, do we get that? Okay. Um any parties in opposition to this application? Seeing none. Does the applicant have any further questions or comments? >> Um if I I just like uh I think the city has recommended that the work be completed uh early 2027. If I could have a couple more months on that into the fall of 2027? >> You're asking for this to be extended to the fall of 2027? I don't see any problem with that. Does staff have any comment on that? >> Uh yes, I I don't have any objections. Um I just want the applicant to be aware that the condition needs to be satisfied for the variance to come into effect. So, that would mean that the building permit would then not be able to be issued until that work was completed. So, fall 2027. >> Is that okay with you? >> Okay, I misunderstood the statement. So, we'll leave it at the regular um spring. >> Okay, spring of next year. Okay. Um Do members of the committee have any questions for staff or the applicant? Seeing none. I guess we need someone to move the recommendation. Member Marco. >> I will move these staff recommendation to approve. >> Is there a secondary for that? Member Amanda. Okay, that's good. All in favor of this uh motion. Carried unanimously. Next application is A-2026-064, 104 Blucher, if I pronounce that correctly, Blucher Street. Uh is there an agent here? Okay, so come forward. Uh in the meantime, we'll ask staff to uh announce the application. >> Yes, thank you. This is a minor variance application for 104 Blucher Street. There are three minor variances before you this morning to permit a driveway width of 10.1 m instead of the maximum permitted 8 m. To permit to permit an existing driveway to have a width of 1.6 m instead of the minimum required 1 2.6 m. Uh and the third variance is to permit a front yard setback of 3.1 m instead of the minimum required 5.1 m. Um the two uh initial variances are to recognize a parking area in the rear and the width of the existing driveway to the rear. And the second uh Sorry, the third variance is to permit uh the enclosure of the existing front porch. These variances will facilitate the conversion of a single detached dwelling with one additional dwelling unit or duplex to a triplex. Staff have reviewed the three variances in light of the four tests of the Planning Act. We find that they meet all four and we are recommending approval. Great, thank you very much. Um [groaning] Confirm with Okay, has the applicant reviewed the staff report and do you have any comments on it? >> First of all, my name is Giancarlo Di Jean Battista. I'm here representing the owners as the agent. Yes, I have viewed the staff report and as a matter of fact, I I like to express my gratitude to the staff. They've been excellent in the discussions back and forth. And I do support the application and I'm hoping that it be approved this morning. >> Okay, that's great. Thank you. Anyone in the gallery in opposition to this? Seeing none. Um Do any members of the committee have questions for the agent or applicant? Seeing none. And have you got any questions for staff? Seeing none. Uh then I need someone to make a motion. Member Marco. >> I will move the staff recommendation to approve. >> Is there a seconder for that? Member Maria. Okay. Well, we've got a seconder. And so let's All those in favor of the motion. Carried unanimously. Next [clears throat] application is A 2026- 065 100 Chicopee Hills Drive. Is there an applicant or agent here? While that's Well, they're coming down and getting seated. I invite staff to introduce this application. >> Yes, thank you. This is a minor variance application for 100 Chicopee Hills Drive. There are two minor variances before you this morning. To permit a street line facade height for a non-residential building of 5.2 m instead of the minimum required 7.5 m. And the second variance is to permit a minimum of zero bicycle parking spaces within a secured structure instead of the minimum required four bicycle parking spaces. Um the variances are to facilitate a one-story commercial plaza um, that has been that is currently being reviewed in accordance with the site plan application. Staff have reviewed the two variances in light of the four tests of planning act. Uh, we are recommending refusal of the two variances. Uh, as noted in the staff report, the variances do not meet the general intent of the official plan as just as described in the staff report. The variances do not meet the general intent of the zoning bylaw as described in the staff report. The impacts and effects of the variances are not minor as described in the staff report and the applicant has not demonstrated why compliance with the zoning bylaw is not possible and fails to satisfy the planning act test as to why the variances are desirable and appropriate development for the building on the subject property. >> Uh, the agent and applicant, have you reviewed the city staff report? >> Uh, through you, chair. Uh, yes, we have reviewed the city staff report and we are not in agreement with their recommendation for refusal. >> You're not in agreement with Yeah, we have a double negative thing here happening, so we'll have to be careful. Um, any parties in opposition to this? No. Um, do we have anyone in the on the committee have questions for uh, the applicant or for staff? No question Oh, um, yeah. >> Just a question for staff to make sure I'm understanding the issue. So, is the the crux of the issue from the city's perspective like there's no a reason hasn't been demonstrated for why this is necessary given that there seems to be plenty of space here and room for a different approach. Is that sort of the difficulty here? >> Yeah, so it's typically variances are requested because of some hardship or specific unique locational context is why the the applicant cannot comply with the bylaw. Um, the city staff have been trying to work with the applicant in terms of achieving some uh minimum height of 7.5 m at least on a portion of the building at the intersection. Um, we have not been able to come to an agreement with that. Again, there's no demonstrated reason why we can't have increased height for this this building. Um, staff also have a real concern with the provision of zero bicycle parking spaces. Um, at a minimum we're on some uh bike trails adjacent. Uh, we're trying to encourage active transportation. Again, there's been no demonstrated reason why we can't have at least uh the two that meet the by-law or the four that's in the site specific provision for this property. >> Okay. Um, that's the city staff report and answering questions as to why they're in a whole opposition to you moving ahead. Do you have any further comments to make? >> Uh, yes and uh through you, chair. Uh, again, my name is Dylan Schnurr. I'm a planner and urban designer with GSP Group in Kitchener. Um, I'm joined by my colleague uh Brendan Fluelling uh who's a development planning manager with us at GSP Group. Uh, it is our opinion that the proposed minor variance for a minimum street line facade height of 5.2 m meets the intent and purpose of the official plan. The zoning by-law is desirable for the appropriate development of the site and is minor in nature. Uh, it's important to note that the base mix three uh zone requires a minimum street line facade height of 4 and 1/2 m um, meaning the proposed development exceeds the base requirement in the mix three zone. Due to the grade change on the site with an average height grade of 6.2 m across the entire frontage, there's approximately 2.74 m of additional height to the building for a total height of 8.29 m from the southeasternmost point of the building. Uh, there's also a basement mechanical room that along the Fairway Road North frontage makes the building appear to be two stories in height. Additional height would be provided by way of a change to the parapet on top of the proposed facade and would not result in an increase in usable commercial floor space. And as such, this increase would introduce additional costs that serve no functional purpose. From an architectural perspective, the design intent is to achieve a clean contemporary architectural expression through a simple and cohesive facade. To reduce the perceived mass of the building, the facade has been designed divided into three distinct volumes complemented by vertical wood accent elements uh that provide visual rhythm, articulation, and a more human-scaled appearance. Thus, the proposed development provided in a way that interacts with the existing topography and slope of the site, and an adequate building height is provided which exceeds the minimum requirements of the base zone. It's our opinion that the proposed minor variance for zero class A bicycle parking spaces meets the intent and purpose of the official plan, zoning bylaw, is desirable for the appropriate development of the site, and is minor in nature. Four class A spaces, which are long-term bicycle parking spaces, and four class B spaces, which are short-term bicycles parking spaces, are required, whereas eight class B short-term bicycle parking spaces are provided. As such, the required number of bicycle parking spaces are provided on the site, however, in class B form. Class A bicycle parking spaces are generally defined as a bicycle locker or an enclosed secure area within a controlled access in which a bicycle may be parked and secured for the long term. Given the nature of the proposed development being a commercial use that will house individual commercial units that will generally operate during the daytime hours, class A bicycles parking spaces are not appropriate. While no class A bicycles parking spaces are provided, an additional four class B bicycle parking spaces are provided for a total of eight. These bicycles parking spaces are defined as an area in which a bicycle may be parked and secured for the short term. Short-term bicycle parking spaces are provided in an area that has accessible uh is direct access to a pathway that provides access to each individual individual unit, and is visible from the window view within the interior of the adjacent commercial unit, and are located near the parking area where there will be natural surveillance from adjacent unit units to discourage theft. There is no suitable location within the proposed development to include a bicycle storage room. As such, the inclusion of four additional class B bicycle parking spaces is suitable for the nature of the proposed development. It is our opinion that the two proposed variances maintain the intent purpose of the official plan, the zoning bylaw, are desirable for the appropriate development of the site, are minor in nature, and represent good planning. We thank you for your time and we're pleased to answer any questions that the committee may have. [clears throat] >> Okay. Uh does the committee have any questions for applicant or for staff? Member Amanda. >> Just a question for staff as I try to understand the two different versions of bicycle storage. So, is And that was really helpful. Thank you for that summary. Um for city staff, is that correct that like there is bicycle storage, it's just not the enclosed storage that is desired? >> Yeah, so there's one portion of the bylaw that requires a secured storage area for for staff use, and then there's another provision for public use. So, that's accessible for everyone on site. >> Right. Okay. Um Okay. Thank you. >> Any further questions for staff or the applicant? [clears throat] Okay. Seeing none, I guess we need a motion for this application. Member Mark Marco. >> Uh I will move the staff recommendation to refuse, and I have comments for discussion. >> Just to clarify that this motion to refuse is exactly what the staff recommendation is calling for. Okay, and you have some comments you'd like to make. Okay. Do we need a second or before we can get to comments? Okay. Okay, wait. Member Maria. >> I'll second that so we can move forward. >> a seconder. >> Thank you. My primary concern is with the the bicycle parking. I disagree that the the long-term storage would not be useful for the site. I think staff working in these retail or commercial spaces might want a a secure space to park their bike. Um I know that if I were biking to work to a property like this, I would certainly prefer that than parking it outside where it would be potentially exposed to the elements. So, I I view the class A parking for this property not in terms of a residential use, but in the terms of for staff that might be working in any of these commercial units. So, I do think it would be appropriate for this site. >> Um just on that note, um I know this is obviously under minor variance, but could we argue that within the tenant spaces they can have a common room where they can store the bicycles in the future? Or is that something that we cannot control during the building permit review? This is This question's for staff. >> Yes, thank you for the question. Uh through you, Vice Chair, the staff person on the file is working to with the applicant and was trying to find an appropriate location for that bicycle storage. And we work very closely with our transportation services staff, uh my colleague Dave sitting beside me. So, we work with the applicant to find that that appropriate location. >> And I guess right now it is the placeholders that it would be on the exterior of the site, but could we find an internal room even I know that I don't have floor plans for this, but is that something that would satisfy the staff's requirement of having secure storage in the long term? >> Through the chair, yeah, if that can be achieved that would be actually ideal to have that. Um I would just like to add that you know, this is this isn't built yet. It's not like a something a building that was built in like say 1950 and you're cramming everything in. This isn't even it doesn't even exist yet. It's just a sort of like a paper exercise trying to find a space for it and I think there's availability to find a space for it and make this work. Um Like we mentioned before, there's existing multi-use trails flanking the frontage here on Fairway and on Lackland Boulevard and I think it would be a disservice to put the the cyclist like last like they have been for many years. It's time to bring them to the forefront and give them the cycle the the spaces that they require. And we also we supported the reduction actually of half the parking the class A spaces that they required from four to two. >> Are there any further questions from the committee? Seeing none. Uh the applicant has a question and then >> Thank you. Um I I think the commenter we've heard the comments on the bicycle parking. Perhaps I'd like to remind the committee that there's two variance requests, one being the height and the other being the parking. Um functionally from a a building height perspective adding additional height at the corner, well we've we've heard staff's comments and had the site plan review committee meeting. Um the design intent is really important in maintaining the you know, a a contemporary looking facade. Um we think that one that's that's a pretty major hurdle to um to clear especially when the the base zoning in the new bylaw only requires 4.5 m. So if the committee, um, perhaps I'd just like to remind you that there are two variances in front of you and, um, when you're, when you're deciding on them, if, if I think we've heard on the parking, um, and if there's, you know, if the, if that's the decision, then we'll, we'll figure that out. But I'd also like you just to give special consideration for the height request as well, cuz that's pretty significant to the form of the development. So, thank you. >> Sorry, I just had a couple questions for the applicant for my own understanding. Um, are you able to just confirm for me how many of the class A bike spaces are going in? And then second question, um, is it clear at this point what kinds of tenants are going to be occupying these spaces just based on the existing zoning or is that still kind of up in the air? >> Uh, thank you. Through the chair. Um, first of all, with the response to the type of tenant, not determined at this point and that that's part of the reason that's part of the hesitancy of uh, identifying a specific space for class A parking. There is a mechanical room on the lower level. Um, however, if the building's demised into a number of spaces, it's not ideal to be introducing a number of different people into that mechanical room where there's, you know, equipment that controls the entire building. So, that's a hesitancy of putting secure parking in there. Um, and then within the space itself, it because tenants aren't there yet and the internal demising walls haven't been defined, there's a hesitancy to understand how that could impact the overall use of the space. Um, we thought the provision of eight total on-site parking parking bicycle parking spaces would be sufficient. Um, and then I think the first question was just about the number of class A. So, currently we're not proposing any because the additional outdoor um, class B type spaces were provided. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Are there any further questions from the committee and um, okay. Member Marco. >> Um, in in respect to the applicant's uh reminder that there are um um two variances being requested. Um if any fellow members wanted to split this into two separate votes, I would consider that a friendly amendment. >> Comments from staff. >> Uh yes, uh I do have a an option for the committee to consider. Um The other option is to defer the application um to allow the applicant to continue to work with staff to come to a variance that can be supported by both uh staff and applicant. Uh we've been trying to do that. I mean, I understand the entire building may not be able to be 7.5 m, but there may be an opportunity to adjust the grade or a portion of the building at height like we've been trying to do to at least achieve some uh built form that meets the intent of the bylaw. >> Okay, thank you. Um any further comments or questions from the committee? Okay, let me ask the committee this. We have two options. We can turn this down or we could three options actually. Uh we can turn this down or we can defer it. Um it seems counterproductive to turn this down and have it come back or go to the tribunal. Uh what about a a deferment for How long would staff suggest? 2 months? >> I would suggest a minimum of 2 months. It could always come back sooner. Um maybe 3 months and could come back sooner just in terms of if it needs to be re-advertised if if there's a change to the variances. So, I would suggest uh let's January 2027 or sooner. >> Okay, question for the secretary. Uh we have a motion on the floor that has been seconded. Do we have to turn that down before we change this to a deferment? >> Um no, we cannot vote twice. We can't have two motions on an application. So, if anything, um Marco would have to amend his um his motion. >> original applicant motion. Member Marco, do you think you would like to amend your initial motion? And you're [clears throat] suggesting a deferment, if I got this correctly. >> Yeah, I am I am happy to amend the motion to instead of refusal uh a deferral for 3 months or sooner. I'm happy to do that. >> Okay, do we need the seconder to also do that? Who seconded it? Okay, member Maria. Um Are you prepared You're Okay, you are prepared to uh second the amended motion to defer for 3 months or sooner? Okay, that's the motion. >> Uh yep, through you, chair. Um yeah, we're we're happy to um to take another look at this with staff and um would support that that motion. >> Okay, so we have a motion amended uh and seconded. And all those in favor of the amended motion. Carried unanimously, so that you guys can carry on, but you have to get back to staff and work this out together. And uh 3 months or sooner. Okay. Next application is uh A-2026-067, 59 Lancaster Street. Okay, we have the applicant coming forward. Um I invite the planning coordinator to introduce this application. >> Yes, thank you. We have uh three minor variances this morning for 59 Lancaster Street West. Uh the first one is to permit a deck to be located 3.5 m from the rear lot line instead of the minimum required 4 m. To permit a parking space to have a width of 2.3 m instead of the minimum required 2.6 m and to permit the front parking space to be located 0 m from a street line instead of the minimum required 0.5 m. These variances are to facilitate the conversion of a single detached dwelling with to a single detached dwelling with additional dwelling unit or a duplex. Staff have reviewed the variances in light of the four tests of the Planning Act and we find that they meet all four and are recommending approval. We do have two conditions at the requirements of CN and Metrolinx in terms of registering easements or covenants and ensuring that there is an agreement advising prospective purchasers of noise. >> Okay, thank you. I see the Metrolinx and um Canadian National Railway. Okay. Um [clears throat] has the uh applicant read the staff report? >> Uh good morning chairperson, committee members, and the planning staff. Uh yes, we have read um all the comments from the planning staff regarding the CN Railway and the Metrolinx as well. Uh just uh we fully align with the comments that's been provided by the planning staff. But just the one question that um rise it in my mind is um the agreement of purchase and sales. Uh who is going to initiate that? Is it going to be Metrolinx and CN Railway or it has to be initiated by the homeowner? >> Question for staff, I guess. >> Yes, so the um agreements with Metrolinx and CN would need to be with the applicant and CN and Metrolinx as it is not involved in those agreements. So the applicant would need to reach out to CN and Metrolinx to initiate those agreements. And uh then we would receive confirmation from those agencies that those agreements have been executed. >> To to say to answer your question. >> Absolutely. Okay, thank you so much and before they align with the comments. >> Okay. So, other than your comments, you are in support of staff recommendation? >> That's correct. Yes, I I'm aligning with the staff recommendation and will request you for the approval of the same. >> Okay, is there anyone in the gallery that's opposed to this application? Seeing none. Is there any members of the committee that have uh questions for the applicant or staff for that matter? Seeing none, I guess we can move to a motion. Member Marco. >> I will make a motion to move for approval as per the staff report. >> Member Maria gives the second. Okay. Uh I have no comments. Anyone have further comments? Okay, then I'll call for the vote. All those in favor? Carried unanimously. Thank you very much. Good luck. >> Thank you so much, members. >> Next application is B 2026 -026, 54 Brubacher Street. And I see the applicant or agent is already seated. Can the planning coordinator uh introduce this application? >> Yes, thank you, Chair. Uh this is an application for a consent, our first one of the morning. Uh it is a consent to create two lots, sever the property so that a semi-detached new semi-detached dwelling can be constructed on the property. Um staff have reviewed the application in light of provincial, regional, city policies. We find that it meets all of those and is recommending approval subject to a number of conditions. >> Yeah, as usual [clears throat] with uh these kind of applications, there's all kinds of conditions. Um So, has the applicant uh or agent state your name for the record, please? Uh >> I'm Gordon Cassell. And I have read the staff report and agree with it. >> Okay, is there anybody in opposition to this? Seeing none. Do the members of the committee have any questions for the applicant or staff? Then in that case, seeing none, uh I guess we need a motion to deal with this. >> I will make a a motion uh to approve as per the staff report. >> Okay. Um It's been seconded by uh um member Maria. Okay. Uh any comments from the committee? Seeing none. I have none. So, call for the vote. All those in favor of the motion. Carried unanimously. Uh next application is B 2026 -027 to B 2026-029, 9 Pleasant Avenue. Is there uh Okay. We have um the applicant uh coming forward. Um I invite the planning coordinator to introduce this application. >> Yes, thank you, Vice Chair. Um the applicant's requesting consent to create four uh lots in total. Uh three separate lots, one retained lot. Each new lot is proposed to contain a townhouse dwelling unit having four dwelling units in each for a total of 16 dwelling units uh over the properties. Blanket easements are proposed for shared drive aisles, parking, rear yard access, pedestrian movement, parking allocation, building maintenance, waste facilities, private servicing, stormwater management, and drainage. The Planning Act and the city's zoning bylaw permit additional dwelling units in a single detached dwelling, a semi-detached dwelling, and a street townhouse dwelling. The RES 4 zone permits the use of a street townhouse dwelling, and a street townhouse dwelling can have up to three ADUs. The definition of a street townhouse dwelling is that it shall be the designed to be on a separate lot. A street townhouse dwelling shall not include a cluster or a multiple dwelling. The use as a street townhouse dwelling unit applies not only to the building, but also to the arrangement and design on the lot. And in this case, the function each proposed townhouse dwelling unit would be dependent on necessary shared physical infrastructure, services, and facilities, which are located on other lots or across the multiple lots. The proposed building is a 16-unit multiple dwelling. A multiple dwelling is not a permitted use in the RES 4 zone and would require approval of a zoning amendment application. The subject application formally requests consent to create blanket easements to share the necessary common physical infrastructure, services, and facilities. However, there are several inconsistencies and concerns with the easement requests. Blanket easements do not require consent and apply over the entirety of the subject lands, including the building. However, the easement plan that was included with the application excludes the buildings. Easements, blanket or specific, are not appropriate tools for establishing rights, responsibilities, and cost sharing related to common infrastructure facilities and services. And in this case, there's significant risk to the homeowner and future residents. Uh through the proposed easements approach, there's no measured approach to sharing of necessary facilities and services. There are no standards to how necessary infrastructure services and facilities are maintained. There's no clear framework to determine how services are provided or repairs and replacements are administered. And there's no formal legal or financial structure to support and protect homeowners. The property is located on a very steep slope. There is a 12.6 ft drop in grade from front to back. There's no grading plan that's been uh provided, and based on the grade, there may be some grading-related infrastructure facilities, which would likely need to be shared amongst the property owners. Fire services staff were also consulted. From a fire services policy perspective, this would be considered a stacked townhouse with a maximum 30-m distance from the fire route to the principal entrance. There appear appear to be entrances on the back of the two buildings on the west side. Those entrances will be too far from the fire route to meet the emergency service policy. And also for fire access, there may uh be some sort of easement or agreement required to ensure fire access is maintained around the back of the building. Planning staff have determined that the proposed consent applications are being used to artificially subdivide a multiple dwelling into separate lots, each containing no more than four dwelling units for the purposes of enabling a land use that's not permitted within the RES 4 zone, and circumventing the site plan and condominium approval processes. In staff's opinion, the proposal is procedurally inappropriate, is contrary to the intent of the applicable planning framework, and does not represent good planning or in the public interest. The applications pose a risk to future homeowners and may result in a disorderly development that has unacceptable adverse impacts on residents. Moreover, the applications do not conform to the city's official plan and do not comply with the zoning bylaw. Staff have been informed that the applicant would like to request deferral of the consent applications to a future meeting in order to submit minor variance applications. Minor variance applications will not resolve the issue issues as identified in the planning staff report including permitting the use of the lands for a multiple dwelling in a RES 4 zone. The committee would not be in a position to approve variances to a use that is not permitted in the RES 4 zone. Staff recommends that the consent applications be refused. There are numerous tech-technical reasons for this recommendation as outlined in the staff report, but the overarching reason is to protect potential homeowners and residents and uphold the public interest. Staff have uh prepared a detailed staff report. There are three recommendations before you. And in the recommendations, there are reasons uh why the applications cannot be supported. Number one, the proposal is not consistent with provincial planning statement, does not constitute good planning, and is not in the public interest as described in the staff report. The uses and overall proposed development of both the severed and retained parcels are not in conformity and compliance with the city's official plan and zoning bylaw as described in the staff report. And the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots are not suitable for the proposed use of the lands as described in the staff report. [clears throat] >> Okay. Um Confirm with the applicant, you have read the city staff report which is to refuse all three uh consent severances. >> Chair McColl, yes, I've read the report. >> And do you have comments on it? >> Yes, I do. Should I talk about those now? >> Okay. Uh before you get started, I should make a note to the members of the committee that there were three written applications that we received over the weekend. And they are in um opposition to this development going forward. Again, the double double negative. Um So, okay, I'll hand the floor over to the applicant and make his or their comments. >> Thank you, Chairman Cole, committee members, staff, and audience. My name is Ryan Mounsey. I'm CEO of Urban Insights Incorporated. We put a lot of hard work into understanding what missing middle housing is. Um My only recommendation is to defer the application. That's what I'm looking for. To consolidate the easements and the comments what the city has provided to refine it a little bit more. And to accommodate the variances that were flagged. Um All I will say is I'll leave my comments to next meeting if we can get the deferral. I am on the opposite end of the city's position in their planning view. I would not submit an application that was not in good planning. So, on the basis of the deferral, I'd simply say that um the city staff didn't describe what lot is. Lot means a parcel of land that can be legally conveyed pursuant to the planning act. These lots can be conveyed like every other lot for a street townhouse dwelling. And so, we object on every single element that the city has raised. We'll be coming back with the minor variances to the next meeting. We have this week to submit the applications. And if there is a refusal, we'll be going directly to the Ontario Land Tribunal because we believe we are correct. We'll have the city We'll have our own lawyer present at the next meeting to talk about planning law and to present the lot legal aspects of what's being asked for. Which again, we dis agree strongly with the city's interpretation that this is a multiple dwelling. It's a townhouse with three ADUs. And so, that's the position that we'll be taking next meeting. And we're not prepared right now to have a decision on the application because the variances that were noted with a 1.9 m uh curvature on Queen's Boulevard and a few other details that we must address. So, uh I'm at your hands uh committee. Um I hope that we can uh walk through it in a very clear way uh at next meeting and we'll be very prepared to uh deliver our position on it and knowing that we will see this one to the end. >> Okay. Do members of the committee have any further questions for the applicant or staff? Member Amanda. >> Just on the topic of deferral. So, um in 1 month's time is the intention to sort of modify the application in a substantial way or is it just to come with the lawyer and other sort of preparations to sort of make the same application? >> Uh through you, chair. Uh great questions. Um the reason to come back is we want to consolidate the minor variances that were flagged as a consolidated set of applications to come with the consent. We are going to take a look at some refinements. There was questions talking about waste collection. There was questions talking about um it's a substantive report that the city wrote. I would like to have an opportunity to respond to some of those comments that we just received Friday at noon hour and to come back to the committee to provide a fullsome discussion about what we were able to propose and to be ready for your decision. >> I appreciate that. It just seems to me that like the city's main concern is like the easement the proposed easement structure. So, is there an intention to sort of re-look at that or is that as it is for us to decide next month? >> Um it gives us some time through you, chair, to talk to the city this week uh to see if we can uh prepare the easements in a slightly different way to define their uses versus a blanket easement. And maybe there's ways that we can create parts to identify what activities are permitted because there we were trying to make it simple. I did this exact same application last month in St. Jacobs and it was approved. The exact same. And so, in terms of the multiple of lots, the way that we're handling it uh, the permissions of easements um we've done this before. And so, I kindly ask the committee's, um, support to come back with everything in front of you, and then we can make a decision, uh, as a, as a team to say: "Do you support it, or don't support it?" Uh the plant provisional planning statement talks about intensification. Um I don't see how safety is affected at all by this, but I'm going to leave this for our comments for next meeting in a report. And the the two are integrated. Uh we will find ways to refine it to respond and come back with a more complete proposal for your decision because the issues have been identified. >> Yeah, I guess and I don't know if this is the time for general comments. Like uh from a legal perspective like I see a lot of issues with what's being proposed here. So I'd be curious what your lawyer has to say. Um but yeah, it just seems if we're just going to be re-litigating the same issue then especially on the easement portion cuz that seems to be the the city's major concern. I I'm not sure the point in the deferral, but I'll leave it with the committee. >> Um may I respond? Thank you. It's critical that it gets deferred because through this process it was identified that there was two variances that uh have to be addressed. And if we're going to um have a decision on this, I would like the complete package to be presented in terms of the next steps versus delaying and having two separate applications. I don't want to come back and do a separate minor variance without it being connected to the consent application. Also in terms of the main issues, it's more than the variance. It's a zone change that the city's asking for. Uh we comply and we meet the definitions of street townhouse. This is exactly what it is. And so the city permits ADUs and this is exactly what we're doing. And the whole point about it is that if this was if this had no property lines, then yes, this would be a site plan application. But there is four lots, four units exempt from site plan control. So, I think the issues are very clear, but I require a deferral to bring all the information to you as a committee so we can make a just consolidated decision. And if it's supported, wonderful based off the information that you receive. If it's not, we'll contest this at the Ontario Land Tribunal with a complete package with full comments. >> Vice Chair, may I respond to some of the comments that were made by Yes, thank you. Um so, I want to first clarify that this proposal is not the same as the proposal in St. Jacobs um that was approved. It's single detached dwellings that were a permitted use in the zone with ADUs. These are street towns, a multiple dwelling in context that's not permitted use in the RES 4 zone. Um in terms of a complete package, um staff have been discussing this proposal since July. Uh in July, we notified the applicant this was not a permitted use, suggested the pre-submission consultation meeting. We suggested uh to discuss the ZBA process. Um the applicant submitted a pre-submission for a consent, did not want to go through the process. Um the other process we have is a zoning occupancy certificate to identify all the variances. Um that was submitted after the consent applications. Uh we've been pretty um consistent this is not a permitted use. Minor variances are not going to resolve that issue. Um staff will not be supporting that. It's a disservice to accept minor variance applications, have the applicant pays the cost when they've clearly indicated they're prepared to go to the OLT. And I can say that staff is prepared to go to the OLT as well to defend our position. >> I'm somewhat put off by everybody talking about the Ontario Land Transfer. Uh I I don't think this is the place to discuss that. Uh thank you for letting us know, but uh, I I'll leave it at that. So, yes, the applicant has a question or comment. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, I come back to the issue of the purpose of the Planning Act. The Planning Act allows you to sever lands and to put uses on it. We are at an impasse. We need a decision on the complete applications to take it to the next step. And so, it's not as simple as saying just do a zone change. We we just don't believe that that's the correct path. So, there's a decision to be made. One uh, puts a lot of pressure on the committee to decide which path to choose. But, we are working within the Planning Act. We hope to provide housing quickly to the market, and that's the intent of missing middle housing. If this was a multiple dwelling, there would be no lot lines throughout the property. And yes, it's a little unusual to have blanket easements, but easements are provided all the time for access, including on townhouses, to get access to get your lawnmowers in and out. So, this is complicated uh, because there's so many moving parts. I'd ask for the deferral so that we can simplify the issues, spend a couple days working back and forth. And while city staff has said that uh, this issue's been raised as a zone change, we disagree. It's not a zone change. It's a minor variance. And that's up to the committee to decide, not myself, not the city, the committee. And so, I look forward to a deferral decision that we can present this in a way that makes more linear sense. Thank you. >> Okay, question from the chair. How long a deferment do you want? >> Next meeting. Yes, uh, I'm filling out the applications right now. And we're going to be working on it tonight, and we'll get it to you by Friday. >> It's not possible to get on the November agenda. That deadline has passed. So, if there's applications submitted Friday, they would have to be considered on the December agenda. So, I would ask that the committee refuse the applications. There is no point in submitting minor variance applications for a use that is not permitted by the zoning bylaw. It's not for the committee to decide whether the use is permitted. That is a staff decision. Your roles and responsibilities are determined variances and whether consents meet the policies in the provincial policy statement and city official plan. >> Member [clears throat] Mercul. I have a quick question for the applicant. Um if you do get a deferral um and you come back um will that subsequent meeting, will there be no requests for consent? Or will it be will those consents still be there? >> Through you, Chair. A deferral would cause inability and create inability to bring our full team to share with you information that is really needed. It would cause undue hardship at this moment to refuse it and then we come back this Friday with minor variances and then to explain how the minor variances relate to the lots that were refused. I'd like to come with the complete package to provide a fair, reasonable and clear presentation about what's being asked for. I am not asking for anything that's going 6 months, a year out. We will be here for next meeting to pick this up. And what I ask for is the committee's lenience in allowing us to give the proper information for a full decision. Just because the city doesn't support this doesn't mean that this is incorrect. We believe that this is a public interest to provide housing. Let's do it right. Thank you. [clears throat] >> Hm. Um lots of missing information, uh differences of opinion. Um the applicant wants to come back in a month. Staff says it would have to be 2 months. >> 2 months is fine. Yes, sorry. I meant uh December. >> Okay. Uh so, you're requesting a deferment until December. Uh I think that that's prob-in my opinion only, uh not a position of the committee, but I think a deferment is probably uh the best way to handle this. But other than that, um I'd like to hear from the committee. Member Marco. >> Yeah, I think we need a motion so that we can get into uh debate. Um >> In terms of the deferral, I just want to jump in as well. If uh the deadline for all applications is this Friday, minor variances and consents, that would mean the consent application would need to be updated uh for the required easements, a draft reference plan by an OLS. Um There are a number of things. As I said, the minor variance applications are not going to resolve the technical issues. The committee can't approve minor variances to a use that's not permitted in the zoning bylaw. The applicant is using consent to artificially subdivide a multiple dwelling, circumventing site plan approval and the condominium approval process. There's no reason for the deferral. The applications do not meet the policies in the provincial policy statement and the city official plan. It's not good planning. It's not in the public interest. >> Okay. One more comment and then we're going to see if we can get a a of some kind. Through you, Chair. I am surprised by the report positioning. So, I need time to process all the information we just received. The zoning bylaw permits a street townhouse. That is what we're permitting or proposing. We are not proposing the definition of multiple, which is five or more units. There's four units and it falls under the ADU. And so, our opinion, equally as a planning opinion and professional opinion, is that it is a permitted use. And so, we want to provide the committee with the best information because this is going to have ramifications for future applications and that's what was noted in the report. And the word circumvent, I take exception to that. We're following the planning rules and processes to get housing quickly to market as a street townhouse with ADUs. So, I have a very different position on this as a planner, but also in terms of this application and the way that it's being presented, I'm just asking for a 2-month uh deferral to come back to the committee, which is pretty standard. And even though there's a lot of issues, we will deal with them in a way that provides our best foot forward. We have submitted the zoning occupancy permit. We have submitted the pre-consultation, which we still haven't had a meeting defined or it's scheduled yet. So, even though the timing came after the applications, we are working ahead to get the comments. We're rushing for year-end construction. The hardship is is that this developer wanted to be in the ground. That's not going to happen now. So, we're bumping it to next construction season already. And so, we want to be positioned in all cases to get housing to market and we believe that we're using the proper instruments to do this. And despite virtue of definitions, this is not a multiple dwelling. And so, that is not the issue. We're going to come in as a decision or as a proposal with street townhouse dwellings with ADUs, just like it's being done across the entire city of Kitchener. Semi-detached, single-detached, and street townhouses are allowed to have ADUs and that is what we're proposing. By very definition of street townhouse, you need easements to get access over people's property. Because that's how you get the lawnmower, that's how you get the garbage, and that's how you work with street townhouses, which is a permitted use as a policy and in a zoning bylaw. So, I would really like the opportunity to have one last opportunity to bring to you a very clean proposal that outlines the issues. We may choose to disagree on this on planning terms, but what we believe is equally our opinion and our right to present to the committee. Thank you. >> Okay, I think we've discussed this enough. Is there [clears throat] a motion from one of the members? Member Marco. >> Um, I'm concerned that um if the the applicant has a right if these variances, if these consents are refused, they have a right to submit um a new application that is revised. Um I have a number of concerns which I'll get into in discussion. Um so for the time being, I will move the staff recommendation to refuse. Um all three consents. >> Is there Okay, the [clears throat] the motion on the floor is that we refuse, follow the staff recommendation, and refuse the consent applications. Is there a seconder for that? Seconder is Amanda. Okay. Um So, I guess we get into the debate stage on this. Anybody have any comments or questions for committee. >> Sorry, I guess I just want to be clear exactly what we're doing here. Um I have an interest in sort of just rehashing it today and sort of hearing the full proposal today. Um as opposed to deferral, but is there appetite amongst the committee for a deferral? I just don't want to sort of engage in that exercise if we're just going to end up deferring it and then we have to do it all over again. >> I think what we're hearing from the applicant, however, is that he doesn't have all of the information that he would like to present. And I'm not positive that all that information will come by Friday anyways, which is the deadline. Um so what member Hannah said, we might end up on the same boat in December. Um I just don't know if hearing it today will make a difference. Right. The motion right now is to refuse. Sorry. >> Member Marco. >> Um if there's appetite for it, the motion can be amended. I'm not against that. Um I do think there's an opportunity for missing middle housing here. Um I'm not entirely opposed to the density. Um but from looking at the the site plan, um to me it looks like it's acting as one site. Um and I think that's the the general concern. Um and so severing it is a way to technically support that number of units. Um but from from my perspective, it's still acting as one site, especially with all the parking in the back. Um and city staff has made it clear that there are policies and other um mechanisms that are intended for if that if the site is acting as one site, there are other processes Um to use. On the note of I don't want to get too deep into it in in case that there is appetite for a deferral. But I'm not necessarily convinced that there will be a substantive difference in this application in two or however many months. I asked about whether the consents would be still present in a couple months and it sounds like they will be. So to me it's still acting as one site, but that's not what the application is asking for in technicality, but it is behaving as one site. And I don't necessarily have a problem with the density, but if city staff has said that that density can't be supported with existing zoning, then subdividing the lots is kind of just a way to get that density with a technicality. I think that's that's all I have for now. I'm here I'm curious to hear from my fellow members. >> Yeah, I'm just I'm just wondering whether I should be getting into it with, like, asking questions of the applicant that I have for the overall easement structure and how that's going to work, or is that Yeah, I just, I guess I just need to hear from you guys a little bit of: are we doing that or or not? [clears throat] >> Well, the applicant is requesting a deferral. Um and staff is saying no, we're going to refuse this application. The applicant has said go ahead and we'll refuse it and we're going to end up at the OLT. And maybe that's the best place for it. Although it takes away uh local ability to make these kind of decisions. So I'm I'm very confused on all of this and there's no clear path forward. Uh seems both staff and the applicant are diametrically opposed to each other on this. >> So, maybe just a suggestion to keep things moving and um make sure we're not wasting anyone's time. Um what if we put a a motion for deferral, run that through its course, and then I I guess maybe it's a question for the secretary. Like, can we vote on deferral and then if it fails in deferral stage, then vote? Like, I'm not sure how that would work. No. >> So, again, there can only be one motion voted on. So, it has to be either approve, reject, or defer. So, even if the um the what did you say? The deferral? >> we voted on deferral and that motion lost and they we didn't grant the deferral, we couldn't then >> Yes. Yes, sorry. You can. Mhm. >> Then we could have a >> You Yeah, because in that sense, there's no decision on the application. It just hasn't been deferred and there's >> then we could have another motion to either approve or refuse in accordance with staff report. >> Thoughts on that process? >> So, you're recommending that we go or suggesting that we go for a deferral and see if it passes this committee. >> Yeah. >> And if we do get a deferral, well, then it is a deferral. And if we don't get the deferral, then we it comes back and we can either accept or refuse the application. >> Yeah, and come back today. So, that we're not having we're not having a big discussion about the substance of the application only to have it deferred and then have that same discussion about the substance of the application. >> Okay, good point. Um so, where are we now? We have We have a motion on the floor to uh as per the staff report to refuse. So, we would have to vote that. Nope, we could just defer? >> So, same process as earlier. If um Marco, who brought forward the motion that's currently on the floor, wants to amend that motion, then he could. >> Gotcha. Um to Marco. >> Uh I'm not entirely opposed to um a deferral. I have concerns whether it's really going to change the discussion. Um but I'm not entirely opposed to it. Um >> So, does that mean you're amending your initial motion? >> Yeah, I think I will amend um my motion to refuse. I will amend it to um defer for 4 months or sooner. >> And who seconded that? Was that you? You seconded? >> can second second that to put it on the floor. >> Okay, so we have a motion on the floor, which is to defer. Uh comments. We've already talked this over lots. Do we just want to go to the vote, or do we want to discuss this more? Okay. Motion on the floor is to defer this for 4 months or sooner. >> And Chair, Vice Chair, I just want to say before you make that motion that there's nothing going to change from a staff perspective in 4 months. The use does not comply. It's not a street townhouse dwelling unit as you reviewed for 180 Aaron Street West previously. So, I just want to make that clear. The use is not permitted. I think you need to make a decision on the applications. Deferral is not going to resolve the issue. [clears throat] >> Um Where do we Where do we want to go here, folks? Uh staff is saying uh they're putting their foot down, drawing a line in the sand, saying, "No, no, no, No, Not Not going to happen. not going to happen. And the applicant is saying,"Well, okay, if that's your approach, then let's take it to the tribunal." >> Marco. >> I mean, it's every applicant's um right to contest or to appeal at the at the OLT. Um that's something that's outside of the scope for our decision-making. Um what the applicant wants to do after our decision is up to them. Um if a deferral were to I don't want to speak on behalf of of staff. Um but generally um perhaps this isn't a an assumption. Um but often um when we propose deferrals often the applicant is concerned about project timeline and project cost. Um so if the applicant is fine with the deferral and then we have the same discussion, I'm not convinced that the uh application will be fundamentally different in however many months. Um but I'm also not entirely opposed to a deferral. Um since it's mostly the Again, I don't want to speak for staff, but it seems like it would be mostly the applicant that would be bearing the burden of the the delay. Um yeah. [clears throat] >> We seem to have reached an impasse. Staff are saying,"This is never going to happen." And the applicant is saying, "Well [clears throat], that'll be for the OLT to decide. So, um in the motion on the floor as as amended is that this be deferred. So, do we amend the amended motion? I I I don't know uh >> I think we just need to vote on it and then we move on to the next step, whatever that may be. >> I think that's a good idea. So, the motion on the floor is to defer. Uh all those in favor of deferral for up to 4 months. Okay, that motion has been defeated. Nobody voted. Okay, the opposed to the motion then I guess we have to officially do the Yeah. So, those who are opposed to the amendment the amended motion. Yeah. >> To defer it? >> No one two >> Opposed to the deferral. >> So, we would need a new motion on the floor. So, I believe what we just voted on was for deferral, which was defeated. So, essentially a new motion has to be put on the floor. >> Okay, a new motion then. And what are we going to say? >> Um I I think we know how this is going to go. Um I will make a uh motion to refuse as per the the staff report. >> Okay, Amanda um No, Maria seconds that. Okay, um we've already talked this to death, so you already >> Yeah, I I have a a few questions for the applicant just uh just sort of get into a sort of the more technical aspects and some of the issues that the the city are raising. Um why isn't this a condo? Like when I look at this, like this should be a pothole or some sort of variation of condo, whatever you prefer. Why did you decide not to go to that route? >> Thank you, Chair, and through you. Um time, cost, process, the ability to provide missing middle housing. There is a system in place which we are following through with. It's more than a technicality. It's a process. And so, to consolidate everything in here means a 6-month site plan process. Means you have to pay for all the fees that go on top of that. You have to do a condominium application fee that takes time and money. And then you're a year into processes. And so, just just simply saying, "Oh, just condominiumize it." There's 16 small units on this property. How many condominium applications do you see coming through with a couple units? Uh these are rental-based units. It's purpose-built rental on separate lots. And that's the path that we've chosen to take. And so, in terms of the process, we did not want to come through site plan because we believe there is a process that we can have to get street townhouses permitted, which is a permitted use. And so, I say equally, it is a permitted use. And so, by deferring it, what we would be doing is getting all the information together to provide a balanced decision. And the decision can be made quickly. Um but I think it's in the best interest for missing middle housing. >> hold on a minute. We've already dealt with the deferral issue. >> a question. That's right. I'm done. Yeah. >> Yeah. Sorry. Yeah, I I really do appreciate like the time and cost that that condominiumizing a property takes. But I guess like the benefit of the like the condo approach is it addresses a lot of the concerns that are at the city's raising in terms of the functionality of the easement. Maybe just a sort of pull it back. Like so, is the idea it's going to be four separate lots owned by different hold codes, and then those are all going to be party to sort of the overarching easement agreement? Is that the idea? >> Correct. That's exactly. And as a condominium unit, they're not selling the units, individual units. These are rentals. >> Right. >> And so, as a rental property, you don't go through condominium for rentals. >> Right. >> And so, this is again this reinforces our position in this. This is a rental purpose-built proposal, and yes, those easements will transfer over. >> Yeah, I get that the easements transfer over and they'll run with the land. My My only question is like like there's a parking lot, there's sort of a lot of shared use space between the units. There's going to be positive obligations on these landowners to sort of maintain the property, make sure that it's salted and sanded, snow removal, like positive obligations don't run with the land. So, like how are you going to navigate that when there's a transfer of ownership of each individual unit, essentially? >> Through you, Chair. They're registered agreements on title, and so the easements run on title. It's a legal requirement. And in terms of the property management, um it's through the rental lease agreements. They'll have to shovel, they will have to provide the the parking spaces. Like, if you rent your basement unit in there, it's up to the property owner to make sure everything's cleaned and looked after. And so, that's kind of the principles coming in through here. There is sufficient open space. Every lot has its own amenity space. Every lot has its own bike parking. Every lot has its own parking. And so, these are free-standing uses that are tied together by the shared easements to make it function. >> Yeah, and I and I I do get that the easements run with the land, but like at law, positive obligations out of an easement don't run with the land. You would have to have a separate contractual right that binds each of those parties, meaning that like whenever there's a conveyance of each of those individual parcels, you're going to have to then enter new contracts to bind them to those positive obligations. And if there's a missing link, no one's doing the snow clearing. No one's salting and sanding. So, it's just like it just seems like a technical like if everyone remains the same, same owners, go forward basis, in perpetuity, no issues. I'm with you. And everyone If everyone's friends, no issues. I'm with you. But to the extent there's a break in that chain and there's a conveyance where there isn't a sort of contractual right binding everyone to the same agreement or if there's a disagreement amongst the parties, then mayhem. Things aren't happening. Property's not being maintained at all. >> So, what I'd respond to that is that each individual property will have to look after its own operations. And so, to to your point about the transfer is that um this has happened before. This isn't anything new. Uh it will be through the property management, a process that you'll be responsible to look after these uh amenities. >> Yeah, and and I'm with you. Like I have seen these arrangements before, but it's not usually in this context. At least my experience, it's more not-for-profits, certain groups uh in pursuit of a general enterprise. It's it's not sort of you know, residential residential tenancies for profit, which I I assume this is the case. So, yeah, I'm with you. Like that certainly does exist. It's just in this context when there's so many different parties and yeah, and I just my my mind goes into a rabbit hole of here of like, what about insurance? Like is there going to be a general policy of insurance? Like as a general principle of insurance law, like you can't insure what you don't own. So, it's like if someone slips and falls in that parking lot, like boy, that's going to be something to untangle. [snorts] >> Okay, the uh motion on the floor is to uh support the staff report, which is to refuse all three of these uh consent applications. Um so, any further comments from the committee? No. So, uh all right. Okay, the motion is to support the staff report and to refuse this these applications. So, all in favor of the motion on the floor to refuse or support the staff report. >> Okay, staff support is supported. The applications have been refused. Um I guess it's up to you what you do next. So, anyway, that has dealt with that one. >> Thank you. See you in December. Bye. >> Okay, the last [clears throat] item on the agenda is uh A B 2026 and -030 and A 2026- 068 to 069, which is 4286 and 4288 and 4290 King Street East. And the staff recommendation is to defer. Okay. Um I I'll I invite staff to give a explanation as to this particular application. >> Yes, thank you, Vice Chair. Uh there are two minor variances and a consent application before you this morning uh for 4288, 4286, and 4290 King Street East. Um the purpose of the consent application is to sever the um the two the property into two parcels, so the two towers will be on separate parcels. And the minor variances are to facilitate the severance by recognizing the setbacks of the existing buildings. Um a similar proposal that was before you uh last month with uh Weber Street or a couple months ago. [snorts] Um the applications um staff have been reviewing them and working very closely with the applicant. Uh we've been known uh knowing that this has been coming in for severance for some time. Uh in August, there was an opportunity to Typically, I'll back up. Typically, as condition of consent is that the properties have separate water service connections. Um there was an opportunity in August with the King Street reconstruction to get that water service connection in the ground while the road was being dug up knowing that this application was going to be coming in and requiring that separate connection. When they did the the installation of the water service connection, they put it directly adjacent to the other connections. So, unfortunately, the severance line would either have to move to adjust to that water service location or we're going to require an easement to bring that over to the retained parcel. So, the option is to get an easement for that water service connection rather than um redoing the severance line. And so, we're requesting that the applications be deferred another month to get that reference plan prepared. Uh in actual fact, it's already been prepared and submitted. So, we'll be able to consider these applications next month in November. So, um just a simple deferral this morning to the November meeting just to allow an opportunity to recirculate the applications with that easement for the water service connection. >> Thank you. [clears throat] All these deferments going around in my head at once. So, to the applicant, have you read the city staff report and are you in support of this deferral until next month? >> Uh yes, uh Chair McCall. Thank you. Um just to introduce, um I'm here with Jesse McLellan who's working with me and my name is Hugh Handy. We're both planners with GSP Group um in here behalf on behalf of Trikar. We have reviewed the report. To Tina's point, we have been working closely and we are in support of the deferral uh today. >> Okay, anybody in opposition seeing no one will go on to the next stage. Um the city is asking for a deferral. The applicant is asking for a deferral. We need a motion, I believe, to go ahead with a deferral till next month. >> Thank you for making that easy on us. I'll move a motion to approve um the deferral per the staff report. >> Is there a seconder for that? Member Marco. You're seconding that? Is there any discussion on this? Seeing none. Okay, there's a motion on the floor to defer supported by the applicant, supported by staff, and the motion on the floor. So, all those in favor of deferment till next month carried unanimously. >> Thank you, Chair. Second the motion. >> Okay, uh that's it for the rest of the business except the last, which is motion to adjourn. Member Marco moves that we adjourn. Is there a seconder for that? Member Amanda. Okay. So, all in favor of adjournment unanimous. Okay. Thank you very much. We'll see you folks in November.