Good morning everyone. It's uh now 10:00 a.m. We'll get this uh meeting going. This meeting the committee of adjustment is being called to hear applications under the planning act for minor variance andor consent. This is a statutory public meeting. Anyone having interest in any applications may make oral written submissions for the committee's consideration. The committee will render a verbal decision this date and the agent or applicant will receive a copy of the committee's decision in writing via 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 is posted on the city of Kitchener website the Friday prior to today's meeting. The chair will remind the committee of late written submissions circulated prior to the meeting that should be taken into consideration. The chair will confirm with the applicant/ agent if they have reviewed the staff report and whether in support of the staff recommendation. The chair will invite parties in opposition to make an oral submission. Parties providing oral submission should endeavor to keep their comments succinct and avoid repeating comments already stated by other parties. The committee members may ask questions of the parties in opposition if there are any and the chair will invite the agent/applicant to make any comments if they have any. The agent/applicant can also ask questions regarding the staff recommendation. The comm questions of the agent/applicant. Uh the comm may ask questions of city staff. Afterwards, the committee will pass a motion to approve, reject, or defer the application. Uh minutes. Can I call for someone to move a recommendation to approve the minutes from our last uh meeting? Uh member Bob, can I get a seconder to approve the minutes? A member Maria. Uh that the regular minutes of the committee of adjustment meeting held on April 21st, 2020 2026 as circled members be accepted. We have a first and a second. Uh all those in favor? One, two, three, four, five. All in favor of approving the minutes of the last meeting. Uh next up uh asking for any disclosures of pecuniary interest and the general nature thereof. I have a conflict on 168 uh Simeon just worked with the owner recently and I think member Bobby have a conflict as well >> neighbor and that's too close to make a call. >> Excellent. So your vice chair when I have a conflict uh you'll step into the chair uh role and then when we on edge I'll ask you then to kindly leave for uh for that agenda item. Thank you. >> And uh we got one more um from Marco. >> Yep. Um agenda item 6.4 um also on Edgefield Drive. >> Okay. For former employment. >> Cool. Thank you. Uh any others? Um seeing none, we'll move on to uh unfinished uh business in our agenda. So that's 5.1 A2026-015 126 Clive Road. We had several uh written submissions uh for this uh application. One, two, three, four, five, six. And then we did receive uh this letter here on our desk early this morning. We all had a chance to review it. I see the agent is there already seated and the owner. Uh if I can invite the planning coordinator to introduce the application and staff recommendation, please. >> Yes, thank you chair. Uh this is an application that was originally heard at our March 17th uh meeting of this year and it was deferred to um July or sooner um on three three grounds and the applicant has satisfied those and asked that it come back to this meeting. Um so the deferral was to uh have confirmation from Ministry of Transportation that they will accept the site plan. Um there were a lack of amenities such as garbage uh storage collection and bicycle parking. Uh so the applicant has proposed an accessory building in the rear yard and there was the submission of a revised parking justification study prepared by a qualified transportation engineer which has been submitted and reviewed by staff. With respect to the accessory building, I would note that this will increase the FSR slightly. So the variance for FSR should increase from 72 to 73. It's very minor. Um no readvertisement is necessary. Um with respect to the uh parking justification study, there were um a number of um differences between the original study and the study that was submitted that summarized for you in the staff report. Um in summary, um the new parking justification study or parking demand study um determines that the range of parking that needs to be provided on the site is 10 to 15 parking spaces rather than the six that was noted in the original study. There are a number of other differences again that are summarized in the report and myself or Stephan would be able to speak to those that you have any questions with um on that study. Uh in conclusion, as this staff report uh stands, in terms of its analysis of the poor tests of the planning act, there wasn't any new information that would um cause us to review the variances in in any different way than they were already analyzed. They don't meet the forecast of the planning act and staff were not recommending approval. Um with respect to the public consultation or public outreach, um there were a number of discrepancies um with the rendering that was uh submitted and circulated and staff do have some concerns. Um there are differences with respect to the number of facade openings uh on the uh front facade of the the dwelling in the new rendering. Uh you approved a variance for reduction of facade openings and I just want to make sure that those facade openings are not being reduced any further. Of note, there is a facade opening or basement window that would be adjacent to the parking space in the front yard. That was not shown in the rendering. That parking space would be a barrier free parking space with markings and signage. Um there could be the potential for headlight glare into that basement window. So assuming it's staying that there are some concerns with that that parking space and in the quality of life of that occupant. Um there are some others. Uh there's a third story addition that is not shown in the rendering uh that will impact the the streetscape view. Um and and a few others. So u again staff were not recommending uh approval of the the variances. They do not meet the four tests of the planning act and uh happy to answer any further questions. >> Yeah, thank you for that. If I can ask the uh agent applicant to introduce themselves please whether you've read the staff report and uh if you're in support of it. Thank you. >> Yes. Thank you. Uh Craig Dmer, development consultant here on behalf of the owner who's with me today. >> Sorry. And my name is David Salvatore. I'm the uh owner of 126 Clive Road. >> And yes, we have read the staff report and we are not in support of it. A lot of discrepancies here to speak to as well. >> Excellent. Thank you. Uh at this time, I'd like to invite uh any parties in opposition to make oral submission if there are any. Um, seeing none, uh, like to make any comments then on this, uh, staff report then, please? >> Yep. Uh, in terms of the rendering that staff was referencing, that was a chat GBT image that my the client here generated just to visually show what the front yard would look like. So, it had nothing to do with the rendering. The actual uh, building construction plans that were prepared by a qualified designer are what staff should be looking at uh, rather than a chat GBT uh, image that he created just for the purpose of visual interest. So, uh, I would recommend deferring or those comments made by staff as it has no nothing relative to actually what's being before you. Um, rather the the actual designer um drawings are prepared with the front facade is what essentially is going to be going forward with. Um, in terms of the glare, there's actually that basement is a utility room, so there wouldn't be any issue there. Um, >> sorry. Just add a note. I I literally just made that to show the committee the niceness of how I'm going to make the building. I apologize if that created some confusion. It was literally just to show the neighborhood how beautiful I'm going to make the building because as the building had stood, it's obviously very disheveled and literally that was just a picture just to show the community when I went door to door. It I apologize for that. I didn't know it was going to be referenced to be the specifics of the plans. It is not a plan. It is just a drawing and again I just did that to show the committee and the community uh you know the more of the facade of the building and you know the intent of how I intended to make an idea of how it would look. So I apologize uh you know to the committee and to staff for giving any type of misconception of what that may be. Uh in terms of the staff report, staff referenced the qualified engineers uh traffic study doesn't recommend uh the parking rate where it does. They're recommending support of uh the reduced parking to essentially provide six parking spaces on site, including the one in front of the actual building. Um they're recommending the unbundled parking. They are recommending providing the class A uh bicycle parking. They're in support of the transit passes being offered. Um, in addition to the class A bicycle parkings that were previously shown internal to the unit, uh, which would be 10 class A parking spaces, we're also proposing additional, uh, class A secure bicycle parking spaces in the accessory structure. Uh, this is something that member um, Marco brought up last committee meeting that he essentially was supportive of the class A bicycle parking space in the unit, but suggested we have a larger ground space um, that was accessible for larger bikes. So we've done that with the accessory units. So essentially there'll be 16 class A bicycle parking spaces for the 10 units giving people a variety of options whether they keep it secured within the bike room or internal to the units. Uh that structure also has garbage storage. Uh we've reached out to garbage contractor. The garbage contractor has no issue with private um on demand pickup. Uh we reached out to the MTSO MTO as well. We have an email as along as well as a full permit from the MTO in support of this. Um and then in addition to that, we provided uh the committee the floor plans which give a unit breakdown clearly showing that there are 10 units, five one-bedroom units, one bachelor unit and four two-bedroom units. Um as there was some confusion on the unit breakdown previously. Um in terms of the the parking study, um the staff report notes the nearest grocery store is 2.6 km away. uh where it's rather actually 1.5 kmters away and that's the fresh corn weaver street which is served by the GRT bus street number eight. The GRT bus street number eight is 700 meters away uh which is a short walk. It's a closer proximity than what the LRT requirement is. Anything within 800 meters of LRT is considered in close proximity. Uh the GRT number eight comes every well as frequent as every four minutes. So it comes at a higher frequency. It serves essentially a primary transit a corridor which is Weaver Street. So in addition to providing class A bicycle parking spaces on signite parking on bundled parking in close proximity to transit um we're in support and of the uh the parking study that was prepared not only by myself but the additional addendum report prepared by um the qualified transportation engineer. Just an added note as well, the engineer did point out bicycle routes in the area and that 1265 is slowmoving roadway. So allow people to utilize their bikes efficiently and effectively to the necessary bike routes that are nearby. Just want to add that. >> Cool. Thank you. Uh committee members, do you have any questions for the owner? Yeah. Uh and the agent that are here. >> Uh I will. So this uh permit from the Ministry of Transportation for that accessory dwelling in the back, correct? That's what it says for. Okay. Because there was concerns before about that being allowed or not given the easement at the back with the expressway. That's correct. Yeah. I I went through specifics with them with they they they got the entire plan survey everything with the uh we're obviously ensuring that they're it spec specifies the addition and the accessory unit. So I wanted to make sure the MTO was on board as well. And that's the official permit that I received. Cool. Thank you. Uh committee members, if there's no more questions for the agent, do you have questions for city staff? >> Go ahead. >> Just one question on the permit. Um any concerns with the six month to start? Uh yeah, it just feels a little tight considering >> Agreed. So I spoke with them about that because uh considering Kitchener has a water shortage as well. So I wanted to take that into consideration. She said not a problem. uh anytime I want to ask for an extension, it's not a problem considering the circumstances the city of Kitchener is going through with that. Uh number one, and number two, I'm willing to start I want to start yesterday. I want to get this done as soon as possible and uh uh make the project look beautiful. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Thank you. >> Me Marco, uh I have a question regarding the parking study. Um let me just find the image here. Um figure six. Um, I'm just curious how the the distances to the uh the GRT stops were calculated. Is that as the crow flies or is that along the streets and sidewalks because that can be sometimes a significant difference. I'm just curious. >> I can speak to that as we work directly with the engineer. Uh, it was essentially as the streets essentially sidewalk. There was no sidewalks there. So it's essentially as the street goes. So as you crows fly it's essentially 600 meters. Um and then if you follow the sidewalk it's 700 meters. >> Thank you. Any more questions for uh city staff? >> I just I guess I will follow up with one though too. So they've been able to reach most of the requirements they had from last month's uh meeting. It's just the biggest challenge we have here is the discrepancy between the parking study and the reduction in parking spaces and then the distance to those amenities is the our biggest challenge here. >> Yes, excuse me. I'm sorry. The parking justification study need to be prepared by a qualified person. Um and their finding is different than the original study. It is 10 to 15 parking spaces. Um that's the parking demand. I understand the applicant's proposing um things that could mitigate that demand, but that demand is still going to be there and there's no guarantees that those mitigations will be in place for the um internity of the the project. Uh the other aspect of it is the parking area. It's not functional. Um the director of transportation even reviewed the parking study and the site plan. Um it's not a good situation for a parking demand of 10 to 15 parking spaces. the parking that's provided, the ability to access that parking. The parking space in the front yard is problematic. Um, it is a barrier-free parking space. It's not going to fit into the streetscape. This is a residential area. Um, there are just a number of things and yes, there was a satisfaction of the three things to bring it back, but that doesn't mean that the variances and the tests that they meet have been met. um th those are still the challenges and uh there's not an ability for um staff to change our recommendation that the variances do not meet the forecast of the planning act. Uh with respect to the parking study then so the parking study indicates that the parking supply is going to be under which usually indicates that people want to own cars but may not be able to own one. Um, in the case of unle unbundled parking, if that is a condition, then people will be aware of it. But what may happen is because city of Kitchener has an on street winter ban, if vehicles do park on the street, then plows are unable to plow the road and it cost the city additional money for any illegal parking that does occur. So, it's not necessarily that everybody will own one vehicle, it's that people will want to own one vehicle, won't be able to, and what comes out of that um often creates a little bit of issues. So, the area in terms of like the grocery store being 1.6 kilometers, it's about a 20-minute walk. Um, you can take that as you will, but we we're also recognizing that the city is in high demand of housing right now as well. So, we'll defer to the council whether um the extra unit is worth some of the issues that may arise from having not enough parking for this development. Excellent. Thank you for that. Uh, any other questions? There no questions. We'll just need a motion. Got a question. Member Bob. >> Um, more of a comment than a question. Um, this has always been a a challenging uh project. Um the applicant has made great strides to u meeting the various requirements uh imposed by by zoning and bylaws and um the planning staff. Um nothing in this world is perfect. I find it interesting that u this is the first application that I'm aware of where uh uh documents have been generated by AI. Um, I guess that's what something that changes as we go forward. Uh, in general, um, is it perfect? No. Um, but I I think this is not a not a a bad development. I think it's a good development. It's on a nice quiet street. Uh, and um issues with parking. Well, the applicant is going to unbundle those, so there could be no parking needed at all. So how do we tell the future? So generally uh Mr. Chair, I am in support of uh the application. I think that this should be approved. So those are my comments. >> Is that a motion as well? >> Okay. Uh we'll change that to a motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh I move that the application A2026-015 126 Clive Road. the um application be approved, not the staff recommendation. >> Okay. So, member Bob made that motion to approve the application. Uh can we get a seconder to open this up for a debate and discussion? Member Marco. So, it's uh first and a second. Uh floor is open for debate on this uh agenda item. Marco. >> Um yeah, I'm a little torn on this one. Um, I appreciate um that the applicant has endeavored to address uh a lot of our concerns. Um, I think the main thing holding this particular application back is the um is the parking. Um, yeah. Um, I appreciate the uh additional housing. I appreciate the additional storage for for bicycles. that definitely makes it more um feasible to for some of the tenants to own fewer vehicles. Um yeah, I'm curious to hear what um my fellow committee members think. >> Go ahead, Miranda. >> I appreciate member Bob's comments, but I I really do disagree. um in order to afford, you know, the cost of living and rent, people need to work and eat and and so on. And in my mind, like the bus stops being so far away, like when condos and purpose-built rentals are sitting vacant in the rest of Kitchener, I find it hard to believe that this is going to be a desirable um place for a person to to live. Anyone else? >> Uh, one final comment, and I've sat on a number of these committee meetings, and it isn't very often we get 100% neighborhood support. That really to me tilts the balance in favor of the applicant. Uh, when we get letters or people showing up, it's usually they're in opposition, um, not so much in support. And, uh, as to the density of the city and housing and we need to think what's going to be here in 10 years from now and how we're going to deal with that. Um the applicant has made great strides with regards to bicycles and storage of garbage bins. Um as I said, is it perfect? No. I don't know much in life that is. So um the fact that neighbors support it uh and the fact that they applicant has made great strides to uh meet uh difficult conditions and I think they've done a a passable job. So uh that's why I made the motion, Mr. Chair, and that's why I'm in support of this application moving ahead. >> Yeah, I'm uh in support of this application uh as well. I don't uh I think it might be a bit much, but I do appreciate that. There were challenges that the uh owner has um made great strides to make things right and make it uh better than it currently is right now. I think ultimately tenants will have the choice if they want to rent a unit or not that has parking or doesn't. It'll be their choice and you know his rent will be affected by that. And I find the grocery store is uh not close but it's not far either. Having 700 meters to uh a bus stop isn't um isn't unreasonable. We've seen things that are uh you know, tougher here, more challenging. So, as a result, I'm in favor of this. You know, 12 spots to six isn't outrageous given where this place is, and I feel everything else has um kind of been met here. So, I'm willing to disport this uh application. Uh any other comments or debate on this, Mia? I mean, um, it is different than the last time that we saw it, and we do appreciate that you have taken the extra steps to clarify, um, the the parking study. And while that walk is something that we probably wouldn't want to do in the summer, the fact that they do have a bus stop and other options, um, I do also want to bring up that a lot of people nowadays are actually gearing towards delivery of groceries. I find that that's something that a lot of people are doing and that is just another layer that you are able to kind of work in your favor. Um so again, thank you for working on this and clarifying the extra information. I do also support those application. >> Excellent. So if there's no more debate or comments, I will call for the vote which is >> sorry chair. I'd just like to make some comments as what I'm hearing here this morning. Um with respect to the um neighborhood support um staff's concern with the image that was uh presented is not so much in our approval uh review of the application. It was what was used in outreach to the neighborhood and asking for their support of the variances or indicating what the variances are. Um only one person spoke to the front yard parking as a variance. There was no comments received in support of the parking variance reduction. Um, do the neighborhood does the neighborhood know that there are not going to be enough parking spaces on this site? Um, the distance of the commenters was well beyond what we would even circulate for a zoning bylaw amendment application. So, I would challenge that there is not overwhelming community support for this. Uh, if you look at the comments, their distance, and what they're commenting on, it's not in the totality of the variances. and if they were reviewing a rendering that is not an accurate representation of the proposal that is problematic for staff. >> Okay, thank you. I'll allow a comment then from the owner there. >> Yeah, I just like to comment on that. You know, I pride myself in being an honest individual and a professional and uh the reason I did the rendering in the front is to show the community that the front of the building effectively was going to change for the better aesthetically. Again, I want to emphasize that aesthetically, the whole point of walking around the neighborhood was to show the neighborhood that I wanted to allow a parking in the front, and the parking has been allotted in that entire neighborhood since the 1980s. So, that was one. Number two, I emphasized and showed every single citizen in that neighborhood the survey of what I was doing in the back, and they thought it was spectacular what we were doing because there's multiplexes in the entire area. I emphasized exactly what I was doing specifically to the tea because I want to ensure that honesty uh with the community is of the utmost importance as I work for a community myself and I was there I was the one who went doortodoor to emphasize the circumstances. I ensured the neighborhood that I want to make sure that that building is going to be livelihood with children in the neighborhood to enjoy the parks etc. And obviously yes there is a reduction of of parking. Um, we we are aware of this. Um, and I'm going to be honest with the tenants and unbundle, etc. But to comment again, I went to every single home that was me who went there and I asked for the community support and I emphasized every single thing of the project that I was doing. >> In addition to that, um, essentially all the members of the public reached out to the committee which were made aware of this as essentially was advertised uh, anyone within 30 meters received notice is advertised in the city's website. So when they actually went on there, it was obviously the entirety of what was being asked was advertised. So to Tina's point there, they would have been aware of the variances being spoken to. Uh Miss Baloneright wasn't there when Dave went door to door and speak to residents and he did show them the entirety of what was proposed. >> Excellent. Thank you. Um yeah, listen, I think it's going to be really tight, but ultimately I think the tenants will have the choice of what they wish to do. Um any more comments from the committee before calling the vote? No more comments and we'll uh ask for the vote. So all those uh in favor which is in support of the application uh raise your hand. All those in favor uh one two three are in uh favor. All those opposed to the application uh one two. So three in favor two opposed. So that uh that carries. Uh good luck. Uh, Madam Secretary, are you okay? We're good. Excellent. Thank you. Uh, moving along, we now have new business uh, A2026-30 uh, 55 Hibbury Crescent. If I can invite the agent or applicant to come forward to the microphone, uh, please. And while that's happening, if I can kindly ask the planning coordinator to introduce the application and staff recommendation, please. >> Yes. Thank you, chair. This is a various application for 55 Hairberry Crescent. There are two variances before you this morning. A sideyard setback of 0 meters instead of the minimum required 1.2 m. A rear yard setback of 6.9 meters instead of the minimum required 7.5 m. Both of these variances are to facilitate the construction of a sun room addition at the rear of the existing detached dwelling. Staff have reviewed the variances in light of the four tests of planning act find that they meet all of these and is recommending approval. >> Uh thank you very much. if I can invite the uh agent or the owner to introduce yourself, please whether you've read the staff report and if you're in support of it. Thank you. >> Hi, I'm Pri Kohli and I am one of the owners and he's my husband and we are in favor of the SP staff report. >> Sorry, you've um you read it and you're in support of it. >> Yes, I I I we are in support of it and we read that. >> Thank you. Yeah. >> Uh any parties here in opposition this application? Uh seeing none. Uh members of committee, do you have any questions uh for the owners here? No. Any questions for city staff? Uh seeing none. So just uh we'll need a motion then. Bob. Yes, Mr. Chair. This is fairly straightforward. Although I will comment whenever I see something dropping to zero, my eyes open wide and I take a second and sometimes third look at it. But I think this is a pretty straightforward application. So I will move that this be approved as per the staff report. Uh thank you. So member Bob made that motion to approve, seconded by member Marco. Yeah, as far as debate, I think it's one of those zero, but it's one of those corner lots where things get a little bit funny. And I think proofs in the pudding there with the pictures how much more sense it makes with uh the variance in place. Um yeah, any other comments or debate? If seeing none, uh I'll kindly ask for the vote. All those in favor of this application, one, two, three, four, five. All five are in favor carried. Uh good luck. Uh, moving along, we've got 6.2, that's A2026-0319 Cyber uh, Avenue. If I can invite the uh, agent or the owner to come forward, please. And if I can, please ask the planning coordinator to introduce the application and staff recommendation, please. >> Yes, thank you, chair. This is a minor variance application for 9 Cyber Avenue. Uh, the variances are to permit steps greater than 0.6 6 mters in height to be set back 2 meters from the street line instead of the minimum required 3 meters for a detached building containing two additional dwelling units. Um the variances will allow uh front steps to be constructed in a manner that is complimentary to the dwelling. Um there's a drawing in the staff report that shows if the variance is not approved what the steps would have to be um constructed like in order to uh meet that setback. So a much desirable outcome for the um detached building if the steps can be set back 2 meters rather than the required 3 meters. Staff have reviewed the variance in light of the four tests. The planning act find that finds that it meets all four tests and is recommending approval. >> Thank you very much. If I can ask the uh agent applicant to introduce yourself, please review the staff report and if you're in support of it. >> Hi, I'm Robert Westbury. I'm the homeowner and the applicant and I've read the report and I support it. >> Excellent. Thank you. Anyone in opposition? Uh seeing none. Uh any questions for the owner that's here or for for city staff? >> No questions. If it looks easy, we'll just need uh a motion. Meco, >> I will move the staff recommendation to approve. >> Cool. So, member Marco made that motion to approve. Need a seconder. Meia. So, me Marco and member Maria floor is open for debate if anyone wants to say anything. Uh, no debate. Uh, the vote. All those in favor of this, uh, application, one, two, three, four, five. Uh, it's carried, passed. Good luck. Thank you very much. Uh, next up is 6.3. That's A206- 32, 240, uh, Autumn Hill Crescent. Uh, I see the, uh, agent or the owner is already there. If I can invite the planning coordinator to introduce the application and staff recommendation, please. >> Yes, thank you chair. This is a minor variance application for 240 to Adam Hill Crescent. Um they're requesting not to provide a visual barrier in accordance with section 4.18 of the bylaw and this would be along the lot line abudding a residential zone. Uh staff have reviewed the variance in light of the four tests of the planning act and finds that it meets all four. I would say that this uh application is being reviewed in in conjunction with the site plan application. So staff are satisfied that the site will function accordingly through that that site plan application. >> Excellent. Thank you. If I can ask you to introduce yourself, please if you've read the staff report and if you're in support of it. Thank you. >> Good morning. Jennifer Paci, manager of planning with the Waterl Catholic District School Board. Yes, staff has reviewed the uh staff report and appreciate staff support and the recommendations therein. >> Thank you so much. Uh anyone here in opposition to this application? Uh, seeing none. Any questions for the agent that's here? Uh, any questions for city staff? So, my only question, so typically there'd have to be like a fence or you block the visual of the parking just for my understanding. I don't really have an issue with this, but just kind of more of curiosity. >> Yeah. So, a visual barrier is something that you cannot see through. So, it could be a board fence or it could be landscaping that is dense uh more um coniferous so that it's it retains its greenery during the winter months. So, it has to be an opaque barrier, but typically a visual um sorry, a board fence is is the typical um mitigation measure to satisfy the zoning requirement >> and they don't want need to do this here because >> yeah, so staff have noted that its location is not required in order to to mitigate against the low-rise residential. So, typically it's where an institutional or commercial use is adjacent to a low-rise residential. It's just to minimize impacts of that use of say a parking area adjacent to lowrise. >> Okay. Yeah. Cuz here it just feels like that cars going to be parking and there's homes and they're going to get the headlights and everything else, right? >> So if you look at uh figure one, that's the the location of that visual barrier. The there's a bit of a slope there. So any headlight glare would be going into the slope rather than to the rear yards of those those dwellings. >> Excellent. Thank you for that clarification. Cool. Any questions? Any more? If seeing none, I'll just wait for a motion, please. Member Marco. I will move the staff recommendation to approve. >> Excellent. So, motion made by member Marco to approve, seconded by member Amanda. First and seconded, Marco and then Amanda. Uh, any comments or debate? Seeing none, uh, call for the vote. All those in favor of this application. One, two, three, four, five. All five in favor. Pass. Car. Good luck. Uh, next up we have item number 6.4 A226-033 93 Edge Hill Drive. We've got two members that have a conflict. So, finally ask you to step out. Okay, they're gone. If I uh can ask the planning coordinator to please introduce the application that recommendation, please. >> Yes, thank you, Terry. This is a minor various application uh for 93 Edge Hill Drive. It's a variance to reduce the sideyard setback of from 3 mters to 1.2 mters. Um 1.2 2 m is the setback of the existing attached garage. However, the applicant would like to construct a larger attached garage. So, that non-compliant sideyard is um not applicable any longer as the size of the garage is changing. So, the variance is required. Staff have reviewed the variance in light of the forecast of the planning act and notes that it meets all four. I was recommending approval. >> Excellent. Thank you for that. if I can ask you to please introduce yourself, whether you've read the staff report, and if you're in support of it. Thank you. >> Great. Thank you. Good morning. Uh my name is Brandon Fuing. I'm the agent uh joined by the property owner, Shawn Malloy. Uh we've read the staff report and uh agree with the staff recommendations. It's a uh really it's a variance to replace what's already existing. It's um a new garage is being built in the same location of the existing one. Uh it's just a little bit larger than the current garage. So, uh we're happy to answer any questions. >> Excellent. Thank you. Uh first up, anyone in opposition of this application? Uh seeing none, uh committee members or what's left of committee members? Any questions for um the owner, the agent? None. Any questions of city staff? None. So, we'll just need uh a motion. A first and a second. >> I said a motion forth to approve as per staff recommendation. >> Cool. So, member Maria made that motion. I I hope member Amanda you make that second. Thank goodness. Okay. All right. So, we got a first and a second. Uh yeah, floor is open for for debate. Yeah, there's no issue here. It's just replacement's already there. So, looks straightforward enough. We will call for the vote which uh is all those in favor. Raise your hand. One, two, three. So, all three are in favor. Unanimous, carried. Good luck. Okay, moving along. We have uh 6.5 82026-34 168 Simeon Street. So, we'll do the old switcheroo here now. Thought I did that. Okay. Uh, yes. The next application is uh minor variance application for 168 Simeon. Can staff do the introduction for this? >> Yes. Thank you, chair. This is a minor variance application for 168 Simeon Street. There are three variances before you this morning. to to permit a driveway width of 4 point sorry 6.6 meters instead of the maximum permit of 4.6 to permit a driveway sideyard of zero meters instead of the minimum required 1.2 and to permit interior sideyard setback of 0.2 m instead of the minimum required 1.2 meters and this is to facilitate the demolition of an existing attached garage and reconstruct it and replace it with a new larger attached garage similar to the previous application. I would note um that variance number three we advertised it as a three meter sideyard um similar to the previous application where the sideyard is actually 1.2 meters instead of 3 m. So the variance is not as large um so it's 1.2 to 0.2 rather than the 3 mters as advertised to 0.2. Staff have reviewed the variances in light of the four tests of the planning act and finds that they meet all four. It's uh the variances are really to um legalize the location of an existing driveway and they are to facilitate the construction of a slightly larger attached garage. >> Thank you. Um and the applicant owner is I believe sitting here. Um do you have any comments as to the staff report? Have you read the staff report? >> Good morning. My name is Kevin Boland. I have read the staff report and I support it. We are looking to demolish an existing garage, replace it in the same spot. Does the committee have any questions for staff or the applicant? Seeing none, oh, Marco. Yeah, just it looks like the garage is basically just getting a little bit deeper. You seem to be constrained on the sides. Is that correct? >> Thank you. >> Is there any uh body in the gallery who is opposed to this application? Seeing none, um I think it's pretty straightforward. Um existing driveway, tear down the garage, little larger garage. Maybe it's to store bicycles in. Um so um any other comments, questions from the committee? Then can we have a motion? Mr. Gambetti. >> I will move the staff recommendation to approve. >> Seconder. >> Member Maria is seconded. And so nobody's in opposed. So all those in favor of the motion that's four of us. So motion is carried. >> Thank you. Cool. Thanks, Mayor Bob. Appreciate that. Um, moving along then, uh, item 6.6, that's A2026-035 530 Mil Street. If I can invite the agent applicant to come forward, please. And while that's happening, if I can kindly ask the planning coordinator to introduce the application and set recommendation, please. Yes, thank you chair. This is a minor variance application for 530 Mil Street. There are two variances before you this morning. To permit a front yard setback of four four meters instead of the minimum required 4.5 m and to permit a landscaped area of 20% instead of the minimum required 30%. Uh these variances will facilitate a second floor addition um to the existing mixeduse building and this will add an additional dwelling unit attached. Um staff have reviewed the variances in light of the four tests of the planning act and finds that they meet all four and is recommending approval. I would note in the staff report there is a condition for tree management plan. Um the applicant and I had a discussion before the meeting began. Um and just noting the street trees that were of concern to our parks planning. Uh it appears from the drawing that the street trees are well outside the work zone um outside the driveway. So, um staff do not feel that the condition is appropriate and are recommending uh the variance be approved without the condition. >> Excellent. Thank you. If I can ask the uh agent to introduce themselves, please if you read the staff report and if you're in support of it. Thank you. >> Uh good morning, Mr. Chair, members of committee. My name is Scott Patterson from Patterson Planning Consultants. I have read the staff report uh here in full support of the recommendation for approval. Uh but as noted, not in support of the condition for the tree management plan. I did have that meeting with staff as noted. Um I just see it as a burden on the landowner with increased cost, increased timeline. Uh the trees do appear to be well removed from the area of work on site. Um so yeah, I would ask that that condition be removed by committee. Uh and that would allow this property owner to move forward with his building permit and zoning certificate and hopefully get this project underway. >> Excellent. Thank you so much. Uh, anyone here in opposition to this application? Seeing none, uh, anyone have any questions for, uh, the agent or then city staff? Bob, um, maybe just a a comment. I was kind of wondering about the tree protection. I I don't know the applicant. I have met the applicant actually uh, years ago. Uh, I know the property. I used to live not far from there and drive up Mil Street quite a bit. Uh, and I was kind of wondering why there was a a tree protection. I'm all for protecting trees, but I just kind of wondered why that was in there. So, and the applicant consultant has indicated that that's not really an issue. So, uh, I would like to move that this application be approved as amended without the requirement for, uh, tree protection. >> Excellent. Thank you. So member Bob made that motion to approve with that amendment seconded by member Marco. Uh floor is open for debate. There's no debate. We can call for the vote. Uh all those in favor with re application with the amendment. 1 2 3 4 5. Uh unanimous carried. Good luck. Next up we have 6.7. That's B 20226-006535 man to drive. If I can invite the agent applicant to come forward, please. Uh and if I can please invite the planning coordinator to use the application and staff recommendation, please. >> Yes, thank you chair. Uh this is a consent application to create a new lot. Um the it also will create an easement in favor of the retained lands for servicing and access. Uh staff have reviewed the consent in light of provincial, regional and city policies and finds that it meets all of those and is recommending approval. Um as noted uh the part of the site uh the severed lands are subject to a site plan application have received conditional site plan approval. Um the region I would note have no concerns with the application for consent as this is a technical consent for existing development and there will be an agreement uh registered noting that there are no services available for the retain lens. So again, staff is recommending approval of the consent subject to conditions. >> Excellent. Thank you for that. I know Scott, you just introduced yourself, but would you mind doing it again, please, just for the record, and then if uh you read the report and if you're in support of it? >> Uh so good morning again. Scott Patterson, Patterson Planning Consultants here on behalf of 535 Manitu, Inc., which is the owner of the subject property. I have reviewed the staff report, also provided it to the landowner. Um I've received a confirmation from him that he has no concerns with the uh recommendation or any of the conditions and I myself also have reviewed the conditions and have no concerns here in full support of everything associated with the staff report and uh as noted it is a technical severance really. Uh it's being used for the purposes of financing and to just split up the property and how it advances. Um but it's the same property owner at this time and uh the easement will continue to allow for servicing and access. Uh so from my perspective it looks straightforward but if there's any questions from the committee I'd be happy to answer them this morning. >> Excellent. Thanks Scott. Uh anyone in opposition to this uh application? Uh seeing none uh anyone want to take Scott up on that? Uh any questions for him? Amanda >> just just a couple questions just trying to fill in the gaps. So there's there's existing access easements along the sort of bended portion or those are being established now at the time of severance. I'm just looking at um figure four. There's reference to to existing easements along those portions. >> Yes, through the chair I can answer that. Um so along the bended portion where it's referenced as an easement that is an easement in in favor of the railway. >> Oh, okay. Uh there was a former spur line into this property. Um st not to get into a lot of detail, but our friends at the railway uh will not release their easement for some reason. >> Um we've tried repeatedly to get them to do so, but they won't respond or deal with that. Right. >> Um so it is still subject to the property, but the the new easements will be in the hatched area specifically for access and to shared servicing and things like that, >> right? And then sorry the easements over the hatched area. Um because where's the access point to the open road? Manitu >> uh through you Mr. Chair. There's two access points to this property. Manitu Drive is a right in right out. >> Okay. >> Uh that was prescribed by the region at the time and the main access is to um Homer Watson. Sorry. And that's where Homer Watson is where it spills out at the top. >> Homer Watson is at the bottom of figure four. So where it says severance sketch, that is actually Homer Watson >> boat. Okay. So the more oddly shaped lot is jumping over to the the sort of new more rectangular lot and accessing spilling out onto Homer Watson through that that piece. >> That is correct. Yes, a new access to Homer Watson is not being proposed. I don't think it would be supported in any way. >> Okay. >> Uh so a shared access facilitating uh to both developments uh same property but two halves I guess I'll call it. Yeah. >> Uh is what we're proposing. Yes. The shared access. >> All right. Thank you. >> Any other questions for uh the agent or for um city staff? No questions. Just uh look for a motion, please. Member Marco. >> I will move the staff recommendation to approve. >> Excellent. So, member Marco made that motion to approve. I need a seconder. Member Amanda seconded the motion. Uh floor is open for uh for debate. Any debate? No discussion. We will call for the vote. All those uh in favor? Uh one, two, three, four, five. All five in favor? Unanimous. Carried. Good luck. All right. So, one more item number seven uh adjournment. If I can ask someone to put forward a motion to uh to adjurnn Marco seconded by me Maria. Uh all those in favor to adjurnn. One, two, three, four, five. Um yeah, that's carried. Thank you. All five in favor. That concludes the meeting for today. Cheers everyone.