Thank you. Good evening. Tonight's committee of adjustment hearing is being held by video conference and live streaming video at oakville.ca. Uh this hearing is to consider applications for minor variance and consent held under the authority of the planning act. Please keep in mind the intent of this process is to review the application that is before the committee, listen to the evidence, and make a decision. This process is not intended to be used to resolve any concerns or disputes that may exist between the town, individuals, or organizations. If a request for a deferral is made and the committee grants such a request, the applicant or authorized agent must contact the secretary treasurer to schedule a new hearing date. In order to conduct an effective and electronic efficient electronic hearing, we have adopted the following process. If you are watching the live stream of this uh hearing at opal.ca and you wish to speak to an item on the agenda, please call 9058156095. Again, the number is 9058156095. The phone number will be posted on the screen below the live stream page at oakville.ba. Staff will be standing by to take your call and any and when you do call back, staff will provide further instruction to join the video conference. You'll be asked to provide your name and number and the item that you wish to address. The applicant or agent is then given the opportunity to briefly explain to the committee the basis of their application, answer any questions that may arise. A maximum of five minutes will be provided for each presentation. Your full name and address will be pro uh requested for the record. Submissions beyond the five minutes will be at the discretion of the committee. All delegations must also state their full name and address for the record. Any submissions are um of maximum of five minutes will be at the discretion of the committee. All remarks and questions are to be directed to the chair. Any submissions beyond that sorry that was a repeat on my part. The applicant or agent will then be provided with a further five minutes to respond to any comments made by interested parties and answer any questions that may arise. And if the applicant or agent has any concerns found in staff report, particularly with the proposed condition, this will be the opportunity to advise us. Finally, the matter will then be taken into committee for a decision and this will mark the end of all discussions. Any person desiring a notice of the decision for an application must provide a written request, preferably through email to the secretary treasurer. Written notice of the committee's decision will be mailed no later than 10 days for minor variance and 15 for consent application to the applicant agent and any other person who has filed such a request. The last day to appeal appeal the decision to the um the Ontario Land Tribunal will be noted on the decision. Only the applicant specified persons or public bodies may appeal the committee's decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal. Please note that in November of 2022, Bill 23 legislation, the more homes built faster act, amended the planning act to remove appeal rights for members of the public. If no appeal is received within the prescribed time frame, the decision of the committee becomes final and binding and the secretary treasurer will then notify the applicant and anyone who has received a copy of the decision through written correspondence. People participating in this hearing are to be courteous to, respectful of the members of the committee, town staff, and any other person participating in the electronic hearing. Once again, tonight's electronic hearing is being video recorded and available for future viewing at oakville.ca. Thank you. We have one regret this evening, Miss Price. Do I have any declarations of future interest? I see none. Thank you. Um I will note that the there has been a withdrawal of application 083 of 2026 uh for 21 second street. If you are in attendance for this meeting, please note that this uh has been uh withdrawn for administrative purposes. Uh and that's again application 083 of 2026 at 21 Street. At this time, Madam Secretary, I will take any notices um any requests for deferrals or withdrawals of applications if there are any in the audience who wish to address the committee. >> We do have one hand up. I will move uh Jonathan Benowski into the meeting. One moment, please. Good evening, Madam Chair. Jonathan Bzkowski, 301 Katan Avenue. >> Good evening, Mr. Vzkowski. Go ahead, sir. >> Yeah, I'd like to request deferral to continue to work with planning to uh arrive at a solution that's agreeable for all. >> Perfect. Thank you for your submission, members. Uh all those in support of a deferral. All right. Your application has been deferred. You'll see the secretary treasurer at your earliest convenience. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. >> Thank you. Have a good evening. Anyone else? Madam Secretary Treasurer, >> I'm showing no more hands in the audience. Thank you. >> Okay. Okay. In that case, we'll take the first matter. uh on our agenda and that is a consent application B26 uh-03 at 3135 Lakeshore Road West and uh to be heard in conjunction with uh application 084 of 2026 and application 085 of 2026 related to this application again application B2 26-103 at 3135 Lakeshore Road West. >> Hi there. >> Hello. Good evening. >> Hi. Uh I'm I'm here on behalf of the applicant for the uh for the application. >> Very well. Go ahead. Pronounce your last name for me, please. >> It's Styu. >> Styu. Okay. Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Styu. >> Thank you. Um I believe the presentation slides are up. Okay, great. Okay, so um good evening madam chair and members of the committee. My name is uh Stfan Styu as I mentioned and I'm a planner and associate with MHBC planning. Uh I'm here this evening on behalf of the owner uh RBW development corporation for the lands municipally known as 3135 Lakeshore Road West. The applications before the committee uh this evening are a consent application and two related minor variance applications. Uh the purpose of the consent is to reestablish the historic lot fabric on the property by creating two residential parcels. Um and just for context, the subject lands as shown in the image before you are located on the north side of Lakeshore Road West, just west of uh Strath Kona Avenue. Next slide, please. So, by way of background, the property was previously occupied by an automotive garage, as shown on the 2019 aerial image on the left. Uh, the building has since been removed and the site is currently vacant, as shown in the 2026 aerial image on the right. Uh, although the lands have most recently functioned as one consolidated property, the site historically existed as two separate parcels. The purpose of the consent application is to basically formally reestablish the historic lot configuration and allow the lands to function as two residential lots as I mentioned previously. Next slide please. [cough and clears throat] So the proposed consent would create two parcels. The retained parcel would have an area of approximately 607 m and a front and a frontage of 16.24 m. The severed parcel would have an area of approximately 540 square meters and a frontage of 14.19 meters. The consent [clears throat] also includes a road widening dedication of uh 2.94 m along Lakeshore Road West which is required to achieve the town's uh planned right ofway width of 26 m. So as shown on the consent sketch, the proposed lot line generally follows the historic property configuration. Uh the resulting lots would allow for residential development under the current zoning framework subject of course to uh to the related minor variance applications for frontage and lot area. So the the key point is that this application restores the underlying parcel fabric and provides a clear title structure for the property moving forward. Next slide, please. So I I also wanted to briefly acknowledge that there is a concurrent official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment application for the subject lands which proposes four three-story townhouse units. Uh however that is not the obviously that's not the application before the committee this evening and I do not intend to focus on uh heavily on that proposal. Um the reason it is noted here is simply for context. The consent assists with the ongoing planning process because the lands are not within a registered plan of subdivision which means that part lock control exemption is not available as the mechanism to uh to create future ownership parcels. So that said, if uh if the OPA and ZBA applications were not approved, uh this consent would still have independent planning merit because it would allow for the the site to be developed as two residential lots consistent with the historic lot fabric and the surrounding residential context. Next slide, please. So in our opinion the consent application has appropriate regard for criteria under section 5124 of the planning act. Um firstly the uh the application does not conflict with provincial interests. It supports the efficient use of land within an existing settlement area and within an established neighborhood. Uh the consent is not premature and is in the public interest. The lands are already within a builtup residential area with access to existing municipal infrastructure and services. Uh the proposed severance reflects the historic loting pattern of the property and is compatible with the surrounding residential context. Uh the application allows for the required road widening along Lakeshore Road West to be conveyed to the town. And overall, the consent represents a an orderly and appropriate way to reestablish the historic uh property boundaries and create two residential parcels within the uh the existing neighborhood. Next slide, please. So the the consent application is accompanied by two minor variance applications. Uh for the retained parcel the variance is to permit a lot frontage of 16.24 m whereas 18 m is required. Uh for the severed parcel the variance uh the variances are to permit a lot frontage of 14.19 meters obviously whereas 18 are required and a lot area of 540.16 m whereas um approximately 557 square meters is required by the zoning bylaw. So in our opinion the requested variances satisfy the four tests under the planning act as they maintain the general intent and purpose of the official plan. Uh they're um so they maintain the general intent and purpose of the official plan as the lands are designated low density residential and the proposal maintains the residential character of the area. Uh they maintain the general intent and purpose of the zoning bylaw as the proposed uh frontages and lot areas remain compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Um the reduced lot area for the severed parcel is uh is actually also directly related to the required road widening along Lakeshore Road West which obviously reduces the uh the net area of of that site. The variances are desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land because they allow the um the historic lot configuration to be reestablished uh and allow the lands to function as two residential parcels. Finally, the uh the variances are minor in nature as they are limited in scale, do not propose any physical site alteration uh and do not result in unacceptable impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. Next slide, please. So, we've gone back and forth with town planning staff uh and obviously they've reviewed the applications and have confirmed that they do not object to the proposed consent or the related minor variances. Uh as such we agree with staff's recommendations and are supportive of the recommendation uh recommended conditions of approval. Um on that basis we respectfully request that the committee approved the consent application and the related minor variance applications. Next slide. So thank you madam chair and committee for your time in uh hearing my presentation this evening. Uh I'm happy to answer any questions you might have regarding the uh the applications. Very well. Thank you, Mr. Psycho. Any uh questions or items of clarification, Mr. Psycho, at this time? >> Okay. >> Sorry. Go ahead. >> Okay. I see. Did you have anything further to say? >> No, sorry. I I I thought that that question was direct to me. >> Um Madam Secretary Treasur, is anyone called with interest for this application? We have no hands in the audience and no calls. >> Okay. Thank you. So, if there are no questions for Mr. Psycho, we'll take the matter into committee. Who would like to uh start the motion? Oh, Mr. O'Hare. Yes, you had a a comment. >> I'm sorry. The hands up on the screen sometimes I don't see them. Just wave at me. >> Oh, no problem. Yeah. No, through you, Madam Chair. Um, I just wanted to advise committee members as well that um, we received updated comments from Halton Region on this application that were included within appendix B of the report. Um, they were provided to staff after the deadline for the report was due um to committee. Um, so they were included as the appendix, but staff were not able to address the comments at the time of print date. Um, we received an original set of comments on this application dated March 20th, 2026 that included um standard conditions of approval um and uh no opposition um for the approval and the um revised set of comments that we got dated June 4th, 2026 um have requested that the committee deny the application due to the servicing capacity constraints within the rest west river um pumping generation station area. Um I do want to inform committee that uh we have met with Halton Region. Um we have met with Mr. Styu and um his team from MHBC planning. And uh we have decided um to put forth an amendment uh on the floor to remove condition number six in its entirety as Halton Region uh would not be able to clear that condition as they stated in their revised comments. So if condition number six uh which is that the owner/applicant apply for and be granted any required permit from the region of Halton to ensure uh a development shall be subject to full municipal water and sanitary services to the satisfaction of the region of Halton. B that the applicant determines the location of all existing and proposed municipal water services, curb valves, hydrants, and sanitary sewer laterals that services property and the proposed lot and submit to the region's developer, project manager a drawing showing the relationship of the services to the new proposed lot line. And then 6C, which is no sanitary sewers or water service connections for these lots are across existing or proposed property lines. Those were the conditions provided to us in the March 20th, 2026 regional comments as a standard condition of approval with no objection to the uh consent being approved. However, when we receive the updated comments dated again June 4th, 2026, the region would not be prepared uh to support the application nor be in a position to ever clear this condition should it be approved. So through talks with staff um as well as senior management here at the town um we decided that condition number six should be removed as it would be impossible to clear within the 2-year time frame. And that's because we've received information from Halton Region that upgrades to the West River Sanitary and Pumping Station uh will not pardon me will not be completed for another approximately 5 to 10 years. Um, so with that, obviously with the 2-year time frame for the consent, that condition would not be able to be cleared. I did want to mention to committee members, however, that there are are provisions within the zoning bylaw and I'd like to draw attention um directly to section 4.14 of zoning bylaw 2014-014 um which states that on land subject to this bylaw south of Dundas Street, no building may be erected or enlarged unless the land is serviced by municipal water and sewage. systems, the applicant would need to submit to Halton Region a regional services permit in order to be connected to those services, which again they would not grant until the necessary upgrades are completed. So removing condition number six allows the consent application to be uh pro to proceed accordingly and to be able to have a consent certificate issued within the 2-year time period while also having section 4.14 of the zoning bylaw ensuring no development will take place. Um, condition number six in this regard has been deemed redundant as there are already safeguards under the parent zoning bylaw, again 2014-14, that protects this site um from having anything constructed or erected on it without a regional servicing permit. Um, so condition number six was kind of looked at as an extra layer of protection, which is redundant in this case and would not be able to be cleared in order for a consent certificate to be issued. Um, as Mr. pointed out there are ongoing OPA and ZBA applications um for this property. Um were those to be approved by council in the future, a holding provision would be put in place on those lands and on the approval stating that the site shall not be able to move forward, meaning the H will not be lifted until adequate servicing uh is in that area. Um so I apologize for the long-winded answer. I just wanted to let committee members know that um the region of Halton have provided updated comments that unfortunately we were not able to address prior to print date and prior to publication. Um but again town staff have met with Mr. [clears throat] Syiku uh Mr. DeFebo, Mr. um Stiger at Halton Region uh as well to discuss this application. um they are still under the um impression that the application um should uh you know if it were to go forward would have the proper holding provisions in place which again through the OPA and ZBA they would um and then even through the uh approval of this consent application through again the parent zoning bylaw section 4.14 uh prevents any structure from being erected without the servicing permits again which are um issued by Halton Region. >> Okay. >> So, uh staff kindly request that condition six be uh struck from appendix A. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. O'Hare. Any questions for Mr. O'Hare? Items of clarification. Okay. I think we're we're good. We're on the same page. We got you. If there are no further comments or questions, we can take the matter into committee and um we can move a motion. Who would like to start the ball rolling? Go ahead, Mr. Thank you. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. and Cher approve that or I'll move that application B2603 be approved as applied for finding that it u is reinstating a historic loting pattern and I'm satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not required in this instance and I would make that approval subject to conditions one through five contained in appendix Okay. Thank you, Mr. Tusk. Is there discussion on this recommendation? >> I see none. All those in support. Okay. The application has been approved. Uh we'll move on to the application um 084 of 2026 and 085 of 2026. Mr. 084 pertains to the severed parcel with the frontage and lock area and then we can move 085 uh following that for the retained parcel. >> Thank you madam chair. Madam chair I'll similarly move that application A084 2026 be approved. I don't believe that there'll be any impacts of the variances being requested finding that they meet the four tests of the planning act and I'd make that con approval conditional on that the owner also receive approval consent for application E2603 which they have and minor variance application A085 2026. >> Very well. So discussion on this recommendation. Okay, I see none. All those in support. Okay. The application has been approved. None opposed. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, members of the committee. >> Um, Mr. Towski will have to move 085 at 2026 as well. >> I will again move approval of application A085 2026. Again, finding that it meets the Tesla planning act. I do not see any impact from the variances being requested. I'll also state that for all three applications there were no objections from the public and that approval will be conditional on the owner applicant receiving approval of consent application B2603 and minor variance application A084206. >> Okay, there's no discussion on this recommendation. All those in support. Okay, the application has been approved. Thank you, Mr. Cycle. >> Thank you. >> Have a good night. >> You as well. Okay. Application 046 of 2026 deferred from April the 1st of 2026. This application is for 37 371 G Avenue. Again, that's application 046 of 2026 at 371 G Avenue. I've got Mr. Joseph Mora as the agent. >> Yes. Hi, Madam Chair and committee members. >> Thank you, Mr. Mo. Go ahead. >> Hi. Hi, Madam Chair and committee members. I don't know why my videos I'll start my video. Okay, there we go. >> There we go. >> Okay. Um, yes, I'm here uh representing the um the application at 371 G. Um we had previously uh made an application in April um and uh deferred that application at that time and met with city uh planner um and um did some work uh to appease um some comments by urban design as well on the one elevation. Uh we've modified the plan since then and we've also made we've only required one um minor variance um for this application. It's on the west side of the garage. Uh the front of the garage, the setback is 1.86. The required uh setback under the bylaw is 1.8. It's the pinch point at the back of the garage which is now 1.22 meters due to the skewed angle of the lot. Um I don't know if you can if you can zoom in, but you could see that the existing house is along that same line. Um so we're we're we've kept that um we've kept that that that hashed mark that hash line. That's the line of the existing house. Um so we're we're asking the committee to uh prove this as a minor variance. We do believe that meets four tests of the planning act and we do have support of staff um on this application. >> Thank you Mr. Mo. Any questions on Mr. Mora at this time items of clarification? >> I see none. U Madam Secretary Treasure is anyone called with interest for this application? >> We've had no calls and no hands in the audience. >> Okay. And um we have uh no letters of sport or letters of opposition on hand. Um if there are no questions or items of clarification, we'll take the matter into committee. Who would like to move a motion? Go ahead, Mr. Hart Castle. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. [clears throat] Having undertaken my site visit and having reviewed the materials including the written staff report, having heard the presentation of Mr. Mora, I am satisfied that the requested variance uh uh variances conform to the four tests of the act. Accordingly, I'll put forward a motion of approval. That motion would be subject to two conditions. Those being that the dwelling and additional residential unit be constructed in general accordance with the submitted site plan and elevation drawings dated May 8th, 2026. That the approval will expire within two years of the date of the decision if a permit has not been issued. Uh I would note there were no um um materials submitted from the public with respect to this matter. >> Thank you. Is there discussion on this recommendation? I see none. All those in support. The >> application has been approved. None opposed. >> Thank you. Have a good evening. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. >> Moving forward to application 081 of 2026 at 11 Colonial Crescent. Again, that is application 081 of 2026 at 11 Colonial Crest. I have Mr. Peter Jordano as the agent. Hello, Madam Chair. Can you hear me? >> Yes, now we do. Go ahead, Mr. Jordano. >> Perfect. Thank you. Um, good evening, Madam Chair, members of the committee. I'm Peter Jordano, David Small Designs. where the authorized uh agents and the designers uh were at 1405 Cornwall Road, unit 4 in Oakville. >> Thank you. Uh we began um the process through a pre-conultation meeting with town staff in December of 2025. Can I just get you to advance to slide number three, please? Thank you. uh based on their feedback, we work closely with our clients and and refined the proposal, addressed all their comments and concerns resulting in the application before you tonight. Um our clients engaged with their neighbors and the committee is also uh in receipt of two letters of support from nearby residents. I'll just quickly briefly touch on specifics as related to the variance items. Um the driveway variance is limited to the inside curve of the uh driveway. It's a it's a um U-shaped driveway, which is basically the the same driveway that's there right now, just modified um straightened up a little bit. Um the inside curve was added to improve vehicle uh maneuverability while still maintaining the permitted access width of 4.5 for entry and exit for a total width of 9 meters as permitted. Um the walkway variance is pretty minor and straightforward. Um the garage area increase accommodates a tandem parking but maintains the appearance of a traditional twocar garage from the street. Um the building variance uh building depth variance includes the length of the covered porch at the rear uh while the actual dwelling perimeter walls um are significantly shorter at only 16.31 m. Um, finally, the building height variance is limited to the middle portion of the massing and represents about a third of the roof. Uh, while the roof slopes away on all four sides to minimize a visual impact of the massing. Um, slide number four, please. Our proposal complies with the permitted coverage uh, GFA, FSI, plus front, rear, and sideyard setbacks. Um, importantly, town staff have reviewed revised the revised proposal and conclude that it satisfies the four tests of section 45 of the planning act and conforms with the urban design guidelines for stable residential community. Slide number eight, please. In closing, uh, we respectfully submit that the requested variances we believe are minor in nature, appropriate, maintain the intent and purpose of the official plan. Uh we acknowledge the recommended conditions of approval um and accept their inclusion as part of the approval. Thank you for your time and consideration. I'd be pleased to answer any questions. >> Thank you, Mr. Donnell. Any questions or items of clarification? >> Okay, I see none. Has anyone called with interest for this application? Madam Secretary Treasurer, >> we've had no calls and no hands in the audience. And I see we have two letters of support on hand from M. Donna Mander and Brit Elgen Eler. I hope I'm pronouncing that right. Um, okay. Since there are no questions or or items of uh clarification, we'll take the matter into committee. Who would like to move a motion? Mr. Dicki, go ahead. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Based upon my review of the owner's application, the site plan, building elevations, my site visit, presentation by the owner's consultant, and the planning staff's report. I am satisfied that the variances are minor in nature and conform to the four tests under the planning act. I just want to make a note. Uh usually I'd be concerned about height, but I in this case uh your setbacks are are greater than the zoning bylaws uh requirements. Well, that to me mitigates some of the mass singing and scale that the height would otherwise uh possibly introduce. So, as a result of that, I put forth a motion that the application is applied for be approved subject to the conditions that uh sorry um that the dwelling be constructed in general general accordance with the submitted site plan number six dated May 7th, 2026 and the elevation drawings numbers three and four dated March 26, 2026 and that the appoola expires two years from the date of the decision of the building permit has not been issued for the proposed construction. ction. >> Thank you, Mr. Dicki. Is there discussion on this recommendation? >> I see none. All those in support. Okay, the application has been approved. None opposed. Thank you, Mr. Jordano. Have a good evening. >> Okay. uh application 082 of 2026 at 296 Alcott Crescent. Again, it 082 of 2026 at 296 Oscot Crescent. I have Mr. William Hicks as the agent and we do have uh two letters of support from Mr. and Mrs. Bramji and Mr. and Ms. uh sorry, Lisa Robert and James Galant. Good evening, Madam Chair. Can you uh >> Good evening, Mr. Hicks. I >> think there's a onepage presentation here, but uh evening members uh of the committee. If if you can blow that up a little bit, it might help. So, but uh not sure if that's possible. So, that's fine. So, so it's a simple application that is requesting a circular driveway with a separation between the two inner faces of the driveway, which is essentially, if you can see that, between that face and that face at the property line of 11.78 m versus the 15 m that's required. Um, I was surprised actually I thought this would be a very simple application. I was surprised by planning's comments. The residents do support it. We had another letter of support today which arrived too late, but there are three residents that are adjacent to it that have no concern with it. I think what's important is I'm not going to go through every point of planning's objection to it because I believe that we comply to all of those things, but it's important to note is that this width of lot on that street does actually permit a 15 meter separation between the driveway faces. Uh but we can't do that because we want to save that tree which is a combined town tree and private tree which is located right where my cursor is right there. So that's important to my client. It's also very important to the town. Um the town seem to place a lot of weight on the fact that oh you can't take that tree down anyway. But what I'm suggesting is that the the bylaws actually permit a 9 m separation between driveway faces on a busy road and a 15 m separation on a less busy road, which is definitely a less busy road. This client's request, which is an existing house that's been before the committee before for an existing sideyard setback, um is requesting this not from a safety factor at the road, but from the point of view of having to back all the way out of his driveway all the way around that corner and then back out onto the street. Planning has suggested, I think there was a sketch in your comment say that we could put a uh um a hammerhead sitting right in this area. My suggestion would be that as they've sketched it, it it doesn't work, but you can't turn that tight into a hammerhead. It would need a variance for driveway width. So, we'd be replacing one variance with the other. And it would have a greater impact on the biggest tree that's on the site, which is this one, which is a very important tree to the streetscape. So, so my argument probably sits in the fact that the the lot would allow 15 m separation. Um, we have 70% landscape finish within the front yard. The requirement is 50% and they in their comments they put a lot of weight into saying that we have to maintain that landscape. We've well exceeded that landscape. They admit that we've got a that green area that's shown there is a type of paving that does has no damage to the trees and we'd have an harvest report obviously before we got a permit. We'd have to go through a engineering permit. But in the rest of their discussion, certainly in their does it comply with the design guidelines, they state seven different things. And my interpretation of that is that it complies with absolutely all seven of those. So is it desirable in the neighborhood? I think they they also suggest that there isn't another one other than down the street where it exists, but I'm not sure that the design guidelines say that you can't have it. Uh because we in fact, if there wasn't a tree in the way, we would have that that width. But in fact, we've got the same amount of landscape in front of the house, be it 11.5 or 15 meters or 11.87 meters. So, so as I say, it was a fairly minor one. I think it's has no impact on the neighborhood. Uh it's certainly not in uh because the bylaw accepts the fact that it could be 9 m or or 15 meters. So, it seems to recognize that both of those are still fine. Uh, and I don't think it has any impact on the neighborhood as as suggested by the neighbors who are seeing two major trees preserved. But bottom line is it's going to help the not so much the safety, but you can call it the convenience of having to back all the way out probably a 100 foot driveway to get out to the street. And if you put in a hammerhead, as the town has suggested, I'm going to come right up to the edge of that uh one major tree and it is going to impact. So I think this is a better solution than the hammerhead. But I will leave it up to the committee to uh give me their comments uh without extending and going through actually every one of the comments that the planning department has made. So as I say I was surprised. So with that madame chair uh open to questions from the committee. So >> okay thank you Mr. Hicks. Any uh comments questions items in clarification on Mr. Hicks or town staff. >> Mr. Towski. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, my questions are for town staff. Um, like Mr. Hicks, I was surprised by the staff report. Um, Mr. Hassan, it would appear to me that this variance is being required um in order to save a tree, which I would see as a good thing. Um the applicants proposing using permeable paving under the tree canopy. Um something that as recently as a May 13th application, town planning staff have supported um for driveway extensions under tree canopies. Yet staff are opposing this and um like Mr. Hicks. Um, the staff report reads to me that staff are opposing a circular driveway which is permitted, not the distance between them. So, and but what I'm really confused about and I would seek your clarification on when the staff report does talk to this operation distance. It seems to imply to me that the town's driveway procedures override the zoning bylaw and that even if the committee were to approve this application, the town wouldn't issue a permit. Um, in the earlier application, Mr. O'Hare said it would be unfair to impose a permit or a condition on someone that couldn't be cleared. Um, if I'm reading this staff report correctly, isn't it equally unfair to take an application that the town's never going to approve a permit for? So, am I reading the staff reporting correctly? That it seems to imply that you there's a 50 meter requirement in the driveway procedure and you cannot bury that when it would seem to me that if the bylaw is varied, it would vary the procedure. >> Yeah, through through you, Madam Chair. Very good question and um obviously respect Mr. Hicks comments. It was a difficult application to review. Um, and as you know, the alternative recommendation with the hammerhead isn't something that staff would typically recommend, but we do respect that they are trying to retain that uh town tree. Um, in this situation, it really does fall to the fact that the town wouldn't be able to issue a permit. We have development engineering staff um with us today that would be able to explain a little bit more but unfortunately there's no uh regulation or clause in the entrance procedure that zoning would supersede what their requirements are. So, um, since those entrances would be within the right ofway, um, our our town engineer, Abashek, is here to speak to it. But ultimately, um, the staff, um, stance on this application really came down to the private tree bylaw and the entrance procedure, um, that can't be superseded by by zoning. So, I can let our engineer respond to anything that I may have missed. >> Go ahead, Mr. Kumar. >> Yes, good evening, everyone. So yeah this the variance is only applicable for the private property. This regulation applies for the municipal right of way and uh that's why the 15 m requirement has to be met and uh to support the application like there are a couple of other solutions which can be taken here like you said the hammerhead can be applied uh we do allow a 6.5 m driveway on the double car garage they could widen the existing driveway with but we can't support the 15 uh the driveway without a 15 m separation And >> and as you said, like there's no clause in the procedure that says that it uh that zoning overrides the driver procedures guidelines. So >> go ahead, Mr. Sask and then I'll I'll let Mr. Hicks uh comment. >> Thank you. Um Mr. Asan, I my memory serves correct. We have very distant separations on driveways before and the town has supported it. So >> yeah, >> this appears to not be a new policy. So I I don't understand what's different here. And I guess second question would be did you advise the applicant that if they were successful, you're still not going to issue a driveway permit? >> You madam chair. Personally, I don't think I've dealt with a driveway separation distance variance application. Perhaps one of our other planners have, but at our team meeting um we reviewed the application um with various members of of town staff and departments and ultimately it came down to that we couldn't issue a permit. Um so, so that's why we ensured that we had engineering staff attend this meeting to explain the procedure side of things that's outside of of the the zoning regulations that would apply to the property. Go ahead, Mr. Hicks. >> Just a quick comment to Mr. Tleski and to engineering. I've definitely been before this committee for widths of driveways and I've never been told and in fact have had permits issued for less than 15 meters. I'd have to go back and find those old files over a large number of years. But that that would be the first I've ever heard that you can't have this approved because we've asked for this variance a number of times. So, >> um, go ahead, Mr. Han. >> Sorry, Madam Chair. I should clarify. Yes, we have dealt with driveway with variances. Um, a couple moments ago, we dealt with Colonial Drive that had a width variance, but this is a driveway separation distance variance, which I again personally can't recall that we um have dealt with. And I believe we talked with our supervisor of roads and corridors and he can't recall um granting a permit for a reduced um separation distance either unless it was pre-existing um and historic in nature. Um perhaps um Abashek would be able to speak to that. >> Thank you, Mr. M. Have you considered >> the the hammerhead solution with the per permeable driveway? I I've looked at I looked at their sketch, but the hammerhead that they've suggested there is too tight to the garage. You can't make that turn and do a a 30 or 90 degree turn and then drive out drive out out the driveway. And that's their intent is they want to drive onto the street. They don't want to back onto the street around that corner. But it has to be further from the garage door and because if it's that close to the garage door and a guest comes in it, he can't turn around. He can't back out. the garage doors aren't going to be left open for him to back into it and then drive out to the street. So, so I I I know I can assure you and I'd have to go back through old files, some of which aren't accessible because of the change in the firm. I've applied for 15 less than 15 meter separation be before this committee before. I know that. So, >> okay. Thank you, Mr. You still have something. Yeah, go ahead. >> Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, again, question to staff. So, if the town, the current bylaw says 15 m separation, if the town decided tomorrow to amend their driveway policy to say 30 meter separation with no public legislative process that would override the zoning bylaw because that's what this is suggesting to me >> and that does not make sense to me. Yeah, through you, Madam Chair. That would be an extreme example. Um, but that's my understanding of the way that the dry driveway procedure would work as it relates to the zoning bylaw. The zoning bylaw regulations are contained within the bylaw to advise um owners and applicants what the requirements are. So, it's a little bit of belts and suspenders um so that when they're designing their sites, they know what the requirements are. They they're reflected in the driveway procedure. Um but sorry I had missed your your previous question that if we had had consultation with uh Mr. Hick and unfortunately this didn't come through a pre-conultation process. I believe a a development engineering permit has been applied for for the site works and is currently under review. Um but talent planning staff aren't involved in that. That's purely an engineering application. >> And my apologies for not doing that. I thought this was such a simple application because I've done them before that I didn't think it was worth wasting the time of the staff. So, I mean, I could I could probably reduce the width of that driveway and maybe meet 15 m. It's be a ridiculous solution for it, but uh I mean, to me, it's the bylaw says 9 m or 15 mters. Depends if it's a busy road or not a busy road. I don't understand what's it take to call this a busy road. I mean, backing out onto any road isn't the ideal scenario for anybody, but it's common for people's driveways, but not around a long circuitous corner to get back out to the street, but I'm prepared, if the committee's prepared to accept it, I'll take up the battle with engineering and I'll figure it out because I've got a permit for this before. I know that. So, so I'm I'm shocked if something's changed and I think, as Mr. Tleski said, I don't think there's a new policy. So, that's the first I've ever heard of that working here for 40 years. So, But I'll I'll accept the impact of if I can't get it approved, I can't get it approved. I think it's a minor variance for sure. Uh I'd be happy to accept the minor variance if it was approved by the committee and then I will deal with how I get approved for it. So if I can't then I'll be back to ask for variance for a hammerhead which is a worse solution as far as I'm concerned. So >> Mr. Would you not rather I know this is unorthodox and we usually encourage the deferrals to be later. would not rather take that deferral and take up the the battle so that you don't have to forgo an application if it doesn't work out with engineering and have come back. At least that you kept your space uh hold. >> Um and I don't like to waste the time and I know you're going to have to deal with it in the other process which is already underway anyway. But, uh, if you think that's going to make a difference to the committee, then I'll take up that battle with them and and defer it. But, uh, my client's anxious to get underway with this. His house is almost finished and he wants to get this thing finished. So, I don't want to see it drag on for 6 months. >> I mean, it's just it's just a suggestion. Your call is I don't know if anyone else has anything else to chime in. Um, maybe take a second to think about it. Yes, Mr. Hardcastle. Go ahead. Yeah, if if if I may, I have a question with the town engineer first and then I might have a comment following that. Um, the >> interrupt you. Is anyone else hearing the same echo I'm hearing? >> Yeah, >> your audio is off. >> If we can just ask maybe the uh the text just to check something because I thought it was just me. >> No, I can hear it as well. So, yep. >> Okay. If we can just >> your audio sounds off to me. >> Yeah. Okay. So maybe town staff um I mean town engineering can give us a a thumbs up whether they can do something or they can't. >> Is it now? I changed to headphones. >> Sorry. >> Yeah. >> Is it my headphones? That's why I thought it was me, but it there's a vibration and an echo that I'm getting. >> Um, I've changed my settings to headphones. So, if it's still happening, it's maybe not me. >> No, if it's happening for everybody else, I'm I'm pretty sure it's something else. >> It sounds to me, Madam Chair, like it's all solely with you. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Oh, it's me. >> Yeah. You sound funny to us. [laughter] >> Okay. Thank you for noting that. Okay. >> Without the earbuds. >> Everyone else is clear. So, >> Madam Chair. >> Okay. Is it better now? >> Much? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Much better. Okay. It could be the connection between my pods and the the iPad. Okay. We'll leave them for now if everyone can hear me. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hark Castle, for telling me that it's me. [laughter] >> I'm happy to point things out today, Madam Chair. >> I appreciate it. Go ahead. >> Um, yeah. to to Mr. Kumar. Um just uh I'm trying to understand is there a technical standard engineering practice something like that that would inform the utilization of the the 9 m and 15 meter separations and define the the different types of roadways that this is applied for or or something else that's informing this standard that's being applied uh rigorously by the town. Uh so these private permits and procedures are enforced by our roads and corridor department and they are the ones who created this guidelines and so all these roads and everything they are defined by our roads and corridor department. So, so are thank you for that, but I was kind of looking more like um you know examples like um uh uh you know tax standards developed by uh professional engineering association or something like that being informative of these standards that are being applied within our own pract within the town's own practice. >> Sorry, I'm not aware of that. >> Okay. Thank you. Um I I do I do um as a as a a point to the original question then um um u madame chair I I I'm I'm somewhat hesitant to um uh bring forward a motion that the town is telling us that they're not prepared to implement because they can't deviate from their established practice. But in light of the scenario at play, I I'm uh I'm of the opinion that that a deferral is probably the best approach in this scenario to get full information in front of us. Um but I'll I'll I'll position in terms of for for a discussion and conversation. >> Perfect. Thank you, Mr. Orgasm. I I saw your hand go up, Mr. Taski. Go ahead. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to be very uncharacteristic and disagree with Mr. Hard Council. I I don't think deferral is in order here. Um the issue that staff are raising is not applicable to the four tests in my mind and I I I have difficulty accepting guidelines override legislation. I would like to see a motion on this one and just move forward tonight, Mr. Hex. >> Um, yeah, Mr. Dicki. >> Um, I would also be willing to make a decision on this tonight rather than to defer it. I uh in my limited experience on the committee of adjustment, I could swear we've done we've given um driveway separation uh variances, approvals for driveway separation um variances and without this becoming an issue. So I think in uh uh relative to the engineering department, so I think uh um Mr. Hicks's uh position is reasonable to ask us to approve if we know to ask if we approve this uh committee of adjustment variance then he can deal with the engineering department. I think that's a fair and reasonable thing. Uh it's something new to us and it's something new to him and uh whether it's just a fluke that we've never heard about it that's fine. But I I think that in my opinion, I prefer to go ahead make a decision and let uh let if there's more issues to be resolved. That would be Mr. Hick's problem. >> Yeah, I'm satisfied with that. So, >> okay. Very well. Then, if we're satisfied with the discussion, we can take the matter into committee. Who would like to move a motion? >> Go ahead, Mr. Towski. Madame Chair, I am prepared to move that this application be approved as applied for finding that it meets the four tests of the planning act. When I look at this application and apply the four tests, it meets the intent of the official plan. The driveway is permitted in this zone. It meets the intent of the bylaw. It's a couple meter variance which I believe is minor. The driveway not only avoids the tree, it uh includes permeable paving to help protect that tree which are desirable for the development. The issue being raised by staff while I I find troubling u I'm going to put it in the same category as development engineering site plan approval process not part of the committee of adjustment process and um Mr. Hicks will have to get his required permits just like everyone else has to get their site plan approval after the fact and if he can't then he can't proceed. I'm so again, Madam Chair, and um noting two letters of support for this application. I'm moving approval subject to development proceeding in general accordance with the site plan dated April 22nd, 2026. >> Very well. Uh we've had some discussion, but I will still give the ability to discuss. Uh is there discussion on this recommendation? Go ahead, Mr. Hart Castle. >> Yeah. Uh, thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I find this to be the weirdest kind of comment to be making here as I agree with much of what Mr. Towski has said here uh in terms of the analysis. But I do feel that um that this committee must have confidence uh or or or in in the professional evidence that's provided to us that advises us that this is not implementable. And I think that an abundantly cautious way of proceeding is a deferral in this scenario. Um uh and I'm yeah as I said I struggle with uh being having advice that provides us um with uh with an opinion that is not implementable and so unfortunately I won't be able to support the motion notwithstanding uh significant support for the actual technical analysis under the forecast of the act. Thank you. >> And uh I I do agree with you Mr. uh hard castle. Okay. So, the motion before us is to approve as submitted. Uh all those in support. Okay. All those opposed and the chair will have to abstain. All right. So, the motion has uh passed. Um Mr. Hicks, good luck and uh we'll know shortly if we have to see you again. >> You know, I always like the challenge. So, thank you members of the committee. >> You're welcome. Have a good >> check. You'll you'll be hearing from me soon. Thank you. Have a good evening. So, >> good evening. >> Bye. >> Hey. Um, application 086 of 2026 uh at 2035 Devon Road. Again, that's application 086 of 2026 at 2035 Devon Road. I have Mr. Tony Viska as the agent. >> Is Mr. Visco with us? >> He's just joining now. Madam Chair, >> thank you. There we go. >> Go ahead, Mr. Visa. Hello. >> Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the committee. How are you this evening? >> Good, thank you. >> We are presenting to this evening uh 2035 Devon Road uh which is a single family bungalow. And if we could kindly go to slide two. It's a corner lot situated at the corner of Devon Road and Dmore. Um the frontage, if you will, of the property is off of Devon Road and the flanking yard is off Darmore Road where the swimming pool and a significant landscaped open space is currently situated. intent. What we're doing on this property is to add a second story addition and increase the size of the garage. Um we were able to work with staff in zoning to determine um four um variances that we that are required on this property in order to satisfy what we're trying to achieve. If we can go to the next slide, please. the first three points um we have um determined with planning and with zoning that um they're acceptable and u within the you know the uh general intent of the bylaw. The fourth uh issue is what I wish to speak to tonight and that's to permit a second floor balcony um overlooking the uh the swimming pool area and the landscape open area on the west side. Um if we can kindly go to the next uh slide please. Where you see item number four is that variance that we're referring to uh that we're requesting for the second floor balcony and it will be overlooking the area um on the west um of the west side of the property. the concern and I respect um the fact that they're um you know that the um that they're looking at privacy and overlook factors and I and I respect that completely. Uh however, the site's kind of unique in the sense that on the north side or the southside house or the north side of the property, the south elevation of the existing house there, uh there's an an existing 1.8 8 m fence that runs along that property line to about up to Devon Road, pardon me, Darmore um street. Um and right at that corner up to the actual house itself, there's a 6 and 1/2 m high trees that um that basically block that entire view that way. And I'll show you some photos here shortly. that elevation on the south side um is there are no windows or doors. Uh it's basically the driveway heading into the garage of that property where the balcony sits. It would align basically with the addition that's noted as as the addition on the site plan there. And there is no potential to actually see anything on the north side towards the backyard. If you can go to slide eight, please. Slide eight, please. I've drawn a sight section to sort of show you towards the north side. What happens where the yellow circle is is the height of the finished second floor deck off the master bedroom at 3.8 m above finished grade. And you can sort of see the canopies of all the trees and the fences there. There's absolutely no vision at all going towards Daramore or even towards um Devon Road for that matter. So in I'll give you a better indication if we can go to slide um nine please. You can see if I look down Damore Road, the the tree canopies on either side of the road. Um, and towards in photo two, what you're seeing are is the driveway heading into the neighbor's uh garage and the 1.8 m high fence that runs along there. But from the front of the house is in towards the neighbor's side there, you see that tree line that's over 6 and 1/2 mters in height. Next slide, please, which would be slide 10. So, if I'm in the backyard of the existing house, you can see the actual fence, but that is not near where the balcony is going. The balcony we pardon me, the balcony would be under where photo 3 is represented, and that's situated um on a ladder. We were up at around 3 mters overlooking the pool area. and you see [clears throat] the entire area around Daramore and the driveway, a canopy of trees that there is absolutely no sight line or any way of potential privacy issues. If you can go to the next slide, please [clears throat] slide [clears throat] 11, please. There we go. So, if I'm on Dairymore, um you see where we have the application sign there uh for the committee. That's the only slot that's actually open in that section where you can see a hockey net there. So, I guess when the owner was younger, uh he uh that's where he took shots off the road. But um you can sort of see the ca the eve line of the roof of the existing house well beyond which is about 85 ft back from the road in itself. So the purpose here is really just to get some clarification as to why um we were proposing the second floor balcony. It's to enjoy the view the lovely view of the u of the pool and the landscape area and treat tree treat area outside that area. So, if we can go to um if you don't mind slide five, there it is. There we have that deck coming off of the master bedroom overlooking the west side, which would be overlooking the uh the swimming pool area. You can sort of see it on the key map to the right there. So with that, I thank you for allowing me to uh give you some kind of clarification as to why we would like to get this variance approved and um and I want to thank the staff in planning and in zoning for uh assisting us in um getting the rest of the um matters attended to and agreed upon. So with that, I leave it to your questions. >> Thank you. Any questions of Mr. Visco or town staff? Okay. Missina, has anyone called with respect to this application? Madam Secretary, Treasurer, >> we've had no calls and no hands showing in the audience. >> Okay. Thank you. If uh there are no questions or items of clarification, we can take the matter into committee. Who would like to move a motion? >> Give you a minute. and we can get the discussion going. Okay, go ahead, Mr. Towelski. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll get the discussion going. Uh, in this instance, I'm going to agree with the town planning staff. Had the applicant tried to at least I understand his arguments. Um, some of which are convincing. Had they at least tried to tuck the uh balcony into the house somehow to limit the uh the views to the uh north. I I may see it differently, but um there is some thought going on with the committee. But to get it started, Madam Chair, I'm going to move that uh variances uh one through three for the application be approved, finding that they meet the tests of the planning act. that variance 4 be denied as it is not desirable in this situation. Um and I would make the approval subject to the addition being constructed. uh general that the uh well I'm going to say that the site plan and elevation be amended to reflect the removal of variance number four to the satisfaction of the director planning and development and that the approval expires within two years of a building permit has not been issued. I would note that there was no objection thank you Mr. there discussion on this recommendation. Okay. Um all those in support. Okay. And the chair abstains. Thank you, Mr. Vess. Thank you members of the committee. Madam Chair, >> application 087 of 2026 at 124 Olster Drive. Again, that's application 087 of 2026 at 124 Olster Drive. I have Mr. Dome as the agent. Mr. Joseph Dome. Go ahead, Mr. Dome. Uh, yes. Joe Dome, 133 Torresell Avenue, agent for the owners. Um, this is a relatively straightforward application for a proposed uh two-story dwelling. Uh we have proceeded through the the uh pre-conultation process with staff who are supportive of the application. Um as per the report on file uh two variances are requested. Uh variance number one pertains to the proposed RFA of 43.3% and variance number two refers to the proposed garage area of 50 square meters. The uh design includes a number of articulation features which help to uh break up massing such as uh varying roof lines, stepbacks to the second story, and the use of different materials. The uh proposed lot coverage and height comply with the bylaw as do the front, rear, and sideyards even while the uh the east side lot line narrows toward the the rear. The additional garage area for seasonal storage um is also located further from the streetscape. Uh the owners have received a letter of support on file from the uh adjacent neighbor at uh 120 ster and overall we feel the application is uh is quite reasonable and minor in nature. Um and I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions or items of clarification of Mr. Dome at this time? Okay. I see none. Who would like to move a motion? >> Go ahead, Mr. Hart Castle. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, having undertaken my site visit and having reviewed the materials, including the written staff report, having heard the presentation from Mr. dome here. Um I'm satisfied that the um uh that the requested variance is confirmed before test the active motion of approval subject to the two conditions outlined in the staff report. Those being that the dwelling be constructed in general accordance with the site plan and elevation drawings dated February 18th, 2025 and that the approval expires two years within the date of the decision if a building permit has not been issued. would note I would note that there was one letter of support um wi with this application. >> Thank you, Mr. Harkath. Is there discussion on this recommendation? I see none. All those in support? >> Okay, the application has been approved. None opposed. >> Thank you very much. >> Have a good evening. We have a meeting minutes for May the 27th. Thank you, Mr. Hardcastle. And motion to adjourn. Thank you, Mr. Hart Castle. We are adjourned at 8:18. Thank you.