Thank you. Good evening. Tonight's committee of adjustment hearing is being held by video conference, a live streaming video on the town's live stream webpage at oakville.ca. This is a hearing 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 then make a decision. This process is not intended to be used to resolve any concerns or disputes that may exist between the town individuals or organizations. If a request for deferral is made and the committee grants such a request, the applicant or authorized agent must contact the secretary treasur to schedule a new hearing date. In order to conduct an effective and efficient electronic hearing, we have adopted the following process. If you are watching the live stream of this hearing on oakville.ca and if you wish to speak to an item on the agenda, you can call 9058156095. Again, the number is 9058156095. The phone number is also posted on the screen below the oakville.ca streaming page. Staff will be standing by to take your call. When you call in, staff will ask for your name, item number that you wish to address, and telephone number. Further instructions will be provided for you to call back to join the video conference. When the chair of the committee polls for interested parties, you'll have to press star six to unmute yourself. Furthermore, the applicant or agent will be given the opportunity to briefly explain to the committee the basis of their application and answer any questions that may arise. A maximum of 5 minutes will be provided for the presentation. You'll need to state your full name and address for the record and any submissions beyond the five minutes will be at the discretion of the committee. All delegations must also state their full name and address for the record. A maximum of five minutes will be provided for each presentation. All remarks and questions are to be directed to the chair and any submissions beyond the 5 minutes will be at the discretion of the committee. The applicant or agent will then be provided with a further five minutes to respond to comments made by interested parties, answer any questions from the committee members, and if the applicant or agent has any concerns found in the staff report, particularly with any of the proposed conditions, this will be the opportunity to advise us. 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 decision for an application must provide a written request preferably free email to the secretary treasurer. Written notice of the committee's decision will be mailed no later than 10 days for minor variance and 15 days for consents to the applicant agent and any other person who has filed a written request for such notice. The last day to appeal the decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal will be noted on the decision. Only the applicant, specified persons, or public bodies may appeal the committee's decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal. Please note that in November of 2022, Bill 23 legislation, the More Homes Build 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 and respectful of the members of the committee, town staff, and any other person participating in this electronic hearing. Tonight's electronic hearing is being video recorded and available for future Ewing at oakville.ca. Thank you. We have one regret for this evening. That's Mr. Hardcastle. Do I have any declarations of pecuring interests? See none. Thank you. Um we have one administrative deferral and that is at um application 114206 at 319 Balsam Drive. Please note if you are here for this application, this application has been deferred and will be on an upcoming agenda and if you are within the 100 meter radius, you will be notified as such. Again, that's application 114 of 2026 at 319 Balsson Drive. Madam Secretary Treasur, are there any other requests for deferrals or withdrawals of applications this evening? And if there's anyone in the audience who seeks to do so, please raise your hand and the secretary treasurer will invite you in to speak. >> Madam Chair, I see no hands up at this time. >> Okay, very well. We'll proceed with the next item on our agenda and the first one being A13 2026 at 1360 Lakeshore Road. Again, that's application 113 of 2026 at 1360 Lakeshore Road West. I have Mr. Jordano here as the agent listed. Hi, Madam Chair. Can you hear me? >> Yes, Mr. Jordano, we can hear you. Go ahead. >> Perfect. Thank you. Uh, good evening, Madam Chair, committee members. It's uh Peter Jordano from David Small Designs, and we're located at 1405 Cornwall Road, Oakville. Uh, we're the project designers and the authorized agents for this application. Um, I'll keep it brief. We appeared before you on April the 3rd, 2024 with the same application and it was the one variance request seeking permission to reduce the required rear yard or sorry right side yard setback from 4.2 m to 2.44 m. The application was unanimously approved at that time. Um due in part to challenging economic conditions, our clients paused the approval process. um they had recently decided to move forward again and are anxious to begin construction. Unfortunately, we missed the two-year condition of approval window, which brings us back before you today. Um so, we're here today asking for your consideration of the same application um as our clients um are now ready to build. Um I did I did submit an application for your review in case you had any questions or require clarification. As before, all commenting departments had indicated that they had no concerns with the repeat application. I'll leave it at that. Uh, thank you very much for your time and patience. >> Thank you, Mr. Jordano. Are there any questions or items of clarification of Mr. Jordano at this time? Oh, and Mr. Assan, do you have your hand up? >> Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. At the appropriate time, I would just like to provide a comment on the conditions. Um, I I can wait for the time being. Just wanted to raise my hand so you're aware. >> Okay. If there are no questions, I'll pass it over to Mr. Hassan. >> Uh, thank you, Madam Chair. I was just taking a look at the plans that were submitted with the application. And although condition number one references drawing number eight, I see there's various versions being 2, three, four, and eight. So, just to simplify things, um I'd recommend a revision to condition one if that's okay, being that the addition and alterations be constructed in general accordance with the submitted site plan and elevation drawings dated June 23rd and 24th/26 just to simplify things. >> Okay, very well. Thank you, Mr. June 23rd and 24th of 2026. >> Correct. with no version number. >> Uh yeah, I think it might complicate things. There's about uh there's several different documents. Um and since it's just the site plan and elevation drawings, um it may get confusing with multiple version numbers that are all different. >> Okay. Thank you. Any questions of Mr. Assan at this time? I see none. Very well, Mr. Jordano. You've heard the amendment. Um, has anyone raised their hand for this application? Madam Secretary, treasure. >> Madam Chair, we've received no calls and no one in attendance has their hand up. >> Very well. And we have no letters on hand from the public. We'll take the matter into committee in that case. Who would like to start the ball rolling and move? Okay, go ahead, Miss Price. Taking into account my site visit, the report provided by the agent and the comments from staff and conservation Halton, as well as there being no emails or letters of opposition, I find the variance to be minor in nature and is in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the official plan and zoning bylaw and is desirable for the appropriate development of the land. As this application was previously approved by the committee and maintains the previous submitted plans, I find the four tests of the planning act have been met and recommend that the application be approved subject to the following conditions. Did the addition alterations be constructed in general accordance with submitted site plan and elevation drawings dated June 24th 20 and/26 and that the approval expires 2 years from the date of the decision if a building permit has not been issued with proposed construction. >> Um Miss Price uh the suggested amendment was June 23rd and 24th 2026. Sorry. June 23rd and 24th. >> Thank you. >> Sorry. Okay. Is there discussion on this recommendation? See none. All those in support. Okay. Uh the application has been approved. None opposed. >> Wonderful. Have a good evening. you as well. Okay. Application 115 of 2026 at 26 Park Avenue. Again, that's application 115 of 2026 at 26 Park Avenue. I have Mr. Michael Barton as our listed agent. Mr. Barton, are you with us? >> Yes. Good evening, sir. It took a moment to promote me to panelists there. >> Okay, thank you. Go ahead. >> Thank you very much. So, my name is Michael Barton, MB1 Development Consulting. I'm the agent for the owner of 26 Park Avenue. Uh so yes, we this application for two variances. I've reviewed the staff report and agree with the uh the findings and the recommendations. I think the the way the house has been designed is to help mitigate the overall scale and massing uh particularly as it relates to the garage projection. Um so I would agree that it does meet the four tests. Uh there were four letters of uh support that were provided by neighbors. The owners went and spoke with uh with the neighbors about the the proposal and they were supportive of the application. Uh so again I happy to go into any of the details that's needed from the committee but overall I feel as though this this design does a good job at achieving the the overall intent purpose of the official plan and zoning bylaw being minor in nature and desirable uh through the methods to help mitigate the overall lot coverage uh and the effects on massing and scale as well as with the the way the garage projections been mitigated with the second floor and the inclusion of the front porch. Uh so on that basis uh my opinion is it meets the four tests and would ask for committee's approval. >> Thank you Mr. Barton. Are there any questions or items of clarification of Mr. Barton at this time? Okay, I see none. Has anyone called with interest for this application? Madame Secretary Treasurer. >> Madam Chair, there have been no calls and no one in attendance has their hand up. Very well. And we do have four letters of support from Mr. Juliet, Goldpink, Gib, Gibbons, and Sparks. Um there are no questions and there is no one waiting to speak to this matter. We'll take the item into um committee. Who would like to move a motion? Go ahead, Mr. Dicki. Thank you, Madam Chair. Based on my review of the owner's application, the site plans building elevations by site visit together with the presentation by the owner's consultants and the planning staff's report and also the letters the uh letters of four letters of support from the owners in the neighborhood. I am satisfied that the variance is minor in nature. It conforms to the four tests on the planning act and I put forth a motion that the application is applied for be approved subject to the condition that um sorry um sorry I lost my just give me a Sure. over there that the dwelling be constructed in generalance with the submitted site plan and elevation drawings dated July 27th, 2026 and then expires issued for the proposed construction. >> Okay, thank you Mr. Thank you. There discussion on this recommendation. Okay, I see none. All those in support. The application has been approved. None opposed. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Uh, application 116 of 2026. at 416 Amblesside Drive. Again, this is application 116 of 2026 at 416 Ambleside Drive and we have the owner, Mr. Jandu or sorry, Carmen Jandu representing themselves. Um, we do have a letter of support from Sue and Dave Jacman. And I will remind the committee that this is an application under section 452. uh of the planning act. >> Uh good evening madam chair, members of the committee. My name is Carmen Jandu. I'm the owner and applicant uh for this application and I reside at this address as well. Um the relief we're requesting tonight is straightforward. Um, in a nutshell, we're requesting that the committee recognize and approve a legal non-conforming provision for our northernly interior yard setback so that we be able to continue the wall from our existing home into a proposed addition um in the rear and apply the same setback. I've reviewed the comments from planning staff who've recommended approval um for request. Therefore, I'm just making myself available to ask any questions from the committee or from members of the public for our application. I did in preparation for tonight um prepare a presentation. However, happy to save the time on the committee and not present it um unless the committee feels that they need a little bit more information. Um I do have one clarification though to address. Uh we are currently in a building permit process and we have been updating the elevations in response to some municipal comments. Um we do have an updated date for our latest elevation which is September 11th, 2026. Um but the revision to the elevation has nothing uh has no revision to um the proposed addition extent or the sideyard. It really has changes just related to the slope of the roof. So the the elevations that you see are are very close to what we have with the building department. Um it's just the roof of the slope that uh the slope of the roof, sorry, that's changed. >> And that's really it. >> Okay, Miss Jendu, when when we approve um an application, it has to be tied to the revisions. And if staff or or us have not seen them, then we cannot approve the application without them. Now, let me uh just uh direct the question to Miss Mcnite. Um are you aware of these um updated elevations? Have you seen them? Um >> yes, for you, Madam Chair, um I do believe that the updated elevations are those that remove a balcony above the second story and staff do um or are of the opinion that that is in general compliance with the plans that were circulated initially for review and so staff do not have concerns with the revised plans. >> Okay. But it it is within staff's recommended conditions that the drawings be dated as of June 16th of 2026. So would you like to revise those conditions? >> Yeah, if sorry through you madam chair um staff did not see those drawings before those conditions were made rather the drawings were uh shared afterwards. So if we are able to revise those conditions to um reference the updated plan that would be preferred. I do not um have that revision number in front of me as I do not have that drawing but maybe Miss Jandu would be able to provide that. Okay, Miss Jandu, I think you should go through your application because I'm personally not comfortable approving an application without seeing the attached um elevations that we are accepting to to be admitted. So, go ahead and make your presentation and then we'll see if my colleagues have further questions for you. >> Fantastic. Um maybe if you can go to the first page then. Um, this is an application I think we discussed uh for relief under section 452 of the planning act. Um, I just wanted to clarify that this application wouldn't have been required prior to June 15th because the required interior yard setback at that time was 1.2 m, which is what my house is at. Um we had a h the town of Oakville had an adoption of an amending bylaw for low density homes south of Dundas um on June 15th and this is what required the interior yard setback to go to 1.8 m. So prior to that this was not an issue. Um if you if you want to go to the next slide please. Um our proposed addition and setback is identified just here um on the northernly parcel unworthy part of our house. It's just a continuation of this of this um of this wall. Uh it doesn't propose um any kind of uh revision to or relief for the rear yard setback. And when we go to the context of why these rear yards were um reviewed, if we can go to the next slide, please. Uh actually, let's go to the next one after this. Uh to give you context of why these viewer yard these um sideyards were reviewed, it's that concerns were for interior yards to be large enough for equipment such as wheelbearers and lawnmowers to pass through and have access through our yards. Uh we live in a very special part of River Oak's community where we have detached rear yard garages and we have separation between our homes with ex with um single car uh driveways. This is not a condition that is a concern in our in our community. Um the proposed uh sideyard would not have any impact to my neighbor. They have my neighbor to the north which is 412 has provided a letters of support as well as um uh as well as a recommendation from the municipality. Can we go to the next slide? Um, I provided some photos to give you an indication of the impact of of of allowing for the the 1.26 meter setback. You can see here that our our houses are well separated from each other, providing access to our driveways um from our drive from the driveways that separate us. Next slide. And here is a photo again just of my driveway access. This is our This is how our entire neighborhood is set up that we have access to our rear yard from our driveways. Next slide. And again, this is this is this would be the wall that would continue on um about uh about 15 to 16 ft further into my rear yard. Again, we are not looking for rear yard variance at all. We're well beyond the required 7 1/2 m. We're actually at 10 m. So it is just a minor addition that we're proposing. And if we could go to the next slide. And again, this is kind of a rudimentary, but this gives you an idea of the impact of what our rear yard addition would be at the street side. And really the the slope of the roof is what was the change to address um concerns with uh during the building permit process. um when we look at the tests for um review under the section 452 of the planning act, we have no impact to our neighbors or the surrounding areas. Um and I feel that and I believe that this is a desirable uh development for the property. We're trying to invest in Oakville. We're trying to keep our family here and and plan for aged parents. U and this is the reason why we're doing this why we're doing this addition. So that's that's really it in a nutshell. Madam Chair, members of the committee, uh, and I'm happy to answer any questions. >> Great. Are there any questions? Um, Miss Juu at this time, Mr. Towski. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I can just get clarification. Is it's unfortunate that you didn't have the revised elevation in your presentation. Is the only change the removal of the uh balcony on the third floor or are there additional changes to the massing? Uh through you madam chair uh to member Talowski. Uh the the other addition was that we just had to make the slope of the roof a little steeper and the removal of the balcony. Those are the two changes. If I can ask Miss Mcnite if that's her understanding. I guess you've seen the elevation drawings. Hear you, Madam Chair. Yes, that is correct. Um, zoning had briefly shared the elevation drawings through a meeting, so I do not have them on hand. Um, but my understanding is that it is only the slope of the roof and that balcony. And in your opinion, are these two revisions u actually beneficial to the application? Through you, Madam Chair? It is my opinion that these uh two revisions will not significantly alter the application. Um I do not raise any concerns with those two alterations. >> Thank you. Any other questions, items of clarification? um rather than put in a revised elevation can um I think perhaps we could um make it to the satisfaction of the director of planning um uh so that that it's covered that way uh versus having a specific uh revised elevation date that we have not seen and we cannot attest to through this presentation. Um, that's my suggestion. If anyone else has anything else to say, um, maybe think about that for a second. Um, while I ask the secretary treasurer if there's anyone who would like to speak to this presentation. Um, Madame Secretary, uh, anyone raised interest to speak to this matter? >> Madam Chair, we have no calls and no one in the audience has their hand up. >> Okay. Very well. We'll take the matter into committee. Who would like to move a motion? Go ahead, Mr. Talowski. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess I'll preface this with um this is not something we like to see or do. Um but in this uh case in an effort to be helpful uh I had the same thoughts as uh you did um in changing the conditions as we have not seen them but u I was uh Miss Mcnight's comments and I again without seeing the drawings I tend to agree that these revisions are only helpful to this application to minimize any potential impact. act and um it would be unfortunate um to send this back on a deferral um just to have the revised drawing which um I believe and the staff believe is have a less of an impact um as a result of these variances. So, manager, I'm prepared to move that this application be approved, finding that it meets the um finding that it's an addition to a legal non-conforming use that's similar to the existing use and compatible with the neighborhood that is echoed by the immediately or most impacted neighbors um to this property as well. And I would make that approval subject to two conditions that the additions and alterations be constructed. General accordance with the site plan and elevation drawings to the satisfaction of director of planning and development and that the approval expires in two years if a building permit has not been issued. >> Thank you Mr. Towelski. 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 for your time. >> Thank you. Okay. Application 117 of 2026 at 327 Macdonald Road. Again, that's application 117 at 2020 of 2026 at 327 McDonald Road. I have Miss Amelia Via here as the listed agent. >> Hello. Give uh go ahead, Miss Via. >> Good evening, Madame Chair and members of the committee. My name is Emily Via of Wilmont and Strickland and I'm here on behalf of the owners of 327 McDonald Road. Our design proposal includes two principal components. And if we could turn to the rendering on page two, please. We have a front cover porch on an existing two-story dwelling and we have a second story edition. It's to add space on the east side of the dwelling that includes a modest can lever above the garage. And if we turn to page three, please for the rear rendering, we have a smaller rear production that provides additional space in the upper level bedroom. We requested a pre-conultation to review the proposed development and the scope of the required variances with town staff and their feedback was generally positive. The proposed improvements require three variances. There's a minimum easterly interior sideyard of 1.17 m whereas the permitted uh minimum sideyard uh setback is 1.8 m. And secondly, there is the westerly interior sideyard of 1.18 m on the other side whereas 1.8 m is required. And thirdly, we are requesting a maximum lot coverage of 25.6% 6% whereas 25% is permitted. We find the relief to be minor. The sideyard deficiencies result primarily from aligning the new seconds story walls with the existing walls below and replacing exterior cladding with shingle siding. The relief is modest. Each sideyard would be reduced by approximately 6 m and the lot coverage would increase by only 6%. to achieve compatibility with the streetscape. If we can go back to page two, please. The second story edition is carefully integrated with the existing dwelling. Its front facade generally aligns with the front building plane of the neighboring house to the east and that would be the right side. This maintains the established rhythm and character of the streetscape and the front covered porch creates a clear transition between the home and the street. It improves the function of the principal entrance but most importantly it reduces the visual prominence of the attached existing garage and this brings greater balance to the front elevation. To achieve architectural articulation, a box bay window above the front porch adds depth and visual interest, and it breaks up the second story massing and creates a layered facade with a more balanced proportions. Overall, the proposal represents a thoughtful and compatible expansion of the existing dwelling. The additions maintain of an appropriate scale and massing, reinforce the neighborhood's character, and create a cohesive design that enhances the property and surrounding streetscape without adversely affecting the adjacent properties. The deci additions were designed to complement the home's existing architectural form and I reviewed the town comments and planning staff fully supported the proposed development and we agreed with the planning staff that the design meets the forecast of the planning act and lastly the owners consulted their immediate neighbors and they had raised no concerns. So thank you for your time. I would be pleased to answer any questions from the committee. Thank you to see any questions items of clarification. Mr. Dicki, go ahead. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I I just want to confirm the you're you're just building this addition based relative to the existing sideyard setbacks. You're not uh changing them or making them any error. Is that correct? That is correct. um say for however because we are um changing the cladding uh from the existing to the um shingle siding the wall assembly uh needs to be slightly wider and I think in one side it was about 4 in or two and a half inches and the other one was um 3/4 of an inch and that's where you get those numbers 1.18 eight. And I think if I recall the other one is 1 uh let me see yeah 1.18 on the um westerly side left side and 1.17 on the east side. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions? Okay, I see none. Is anyone called with interest for this application? Madam Secretary, Treasurer. >> Madam Chair, we've received no calls and no one has their hand up. >> Okay, thank you. We'll take the matter into committee. Who would like to move a motion? >> Go ahead, Mr. Dicki. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um based upon review of the owner's application, the site plans and building elevation by site visit together with the owner's um consultants report presentation and the planning staff's report. It is my opinion that the variances are minor in nature and conform with four tests on the planning act. I also note that this is just a In addition, following the existing sideyard setbacks which uh which uh which were with me in the original house, I put forth a motion that the application is applied for be approved subject to the condition that um the dwelling be constructed in general in accordance with the submitted site plan elevation drawings dated July. May 9th, 2026, and that approval expires two years from the date of the decision of a building permit is not being issued for the proposed construction. >> Okay, there was a bit of an echo, Mr. Dicki. Did you say July 9th? >> Yes, July 9th. >> Okay, thank you. I was just double checking to make sure. All right. Is there discussion on this recommendation? See none. All those in support. Okay. The application has been approved. None opposed. >> Good evening. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Okay. So, moving on to application 118 of 2026 at 277 Queen Mary Drive. Again, that's application 118 2026 at 277 Queen Mary Drive. I have Mr. Joseph Dome here as the listed agent. I will note that we have four letters of opposition, Miss Anarie Nadell, Roger Van, and Poppy Malloy, Kristen Ravi, and Julian Al Shborn. I also have them requesting to attend and it is noted. Go ahead, Mr. Dome. >> Um, yes, thank you. Uh, Joe Dome, 133 Torres Avenue, agent for the owner. Um, the owner would like to construct a new two-story detached dwelling uh with four variances requested. Um, a floor area of 54% uh coverage of 34.7% and sideyards of 1.4 4 and 1.21 uh meters. We have gone through the pre-conultation process with staff and have um completed the full uh site alteration review through development engineering uh which was approved including the uh the sideyards. staff have uh no concerns with the application and uh there has been significant care provided um in the articulation of the building. Uh which we feel uh does help to mitigate impact and we do understand that committee does carefully look um at applications requesting variances under the new bylaw and that prior standards um aren't necessarily relevant. But in this case, we do hope uh committee will consider the massing um of the proposal uh being broken into different building elements uh with recessed um um upper and lower walls uh varying roof lines and one-story portions. Um and the sideyards are intended to provide um adequate separation uh manage building scale and support drainage. Um to further break this down, the north sideyard is proposed for 1.4 4 meters. And this applies to a 12.34 meter uh portion of the main floor side main wall to accommodate the garage and mudroom after which the setback widens to 3.54 m for the remainder of the first floor. Uh the second story north uh setback is divided into an 8 m portion and a 4.67 meter portion with a uh 2.67 meter uh recess in between. Uh the second story also um incorporates uh stepbacks at the front of the dwelling including a 1.54 and by 1.84 m indent at the northwest corner. The proposed south sideyard setback is 1.21 mters and and this is mitigated by the fact that it's adjacent to the neighboring uh driveway and in fact there would be uh there would maintain a 5.57 meter separation between the closest point of the dwelling to the neighboring uh dwelling. And I'll note that the southside first floor main wall is also broken up into two sections of 4.41 mters and 5.59 uh meters with a recess of 4.41 m in between. And uh the second floor on this side um is broken up into a uh 4.41 m section before widening further to a for a 4.61 m length. And beyond this point, there's a a large step back uh with a sloped roof line uh to the first floor. And um staff in the review have specifically identified the uh the seconds story uh stepbacks as reducing impacts along the shared property lines. Um the proposed dwelling also meets the bylaw for height uh front and rear yard uh setbacks as well as soft landscaping. The proposed height is 9.1 mters against a permitted 10. approximately uh half the lot will be soft landscaping uh exceeding the required um 35% and that the uh front yard soft landscaping is approximately 58% against uh the uh bylaw uh minimum of 45%. And the proposed floor area increase is approximately 34 square meters and the additional coverage is approximately 32 square meters. We recognize that uh the increased area and reduced sideyards have to be assessed together. Um and the combination of uh upper story and main floor recesses, lower building elements, uh compliant height and rear yard um and substantial landscape space uh are relevant. And uh we have uh read the neighbors concerns and uh to specifically speak to drainage. As the staff report has mentioned, a scope site plan uh has been reviewed and suitable drainage can be achieved with the proposed setbacks. Um and it it must satisfy all the requirements through the applicable uh approvals uh through the permit phase. Um and overall we feel the application uh in context is desirable and the uh four variances are are minor in their combined effects. I'd be happy to answer any uh questions you may have. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Bill. Any questions, items of clarification? Mr. Taski, go ahead. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. D 3D rendering speaks a thousand words. We have one in the package that I think um significantly puts into context your proposal. Is that part of your presentation that you can put up given the amount of opposition you have from your neighbors and try to explain the variances with um that rendering as opposed to just the site plan that was on the screen? >> Yes. >> Thank you. Um yes and I I can go over in more um in the detail that I had um outlined regarding the um the breakdown of the uh the massing um specifically as it relates to the the setback. Yeah, if you would that require >> I'm gonna ask you to repeat yourself unfortunately, but I think um I was following your explanation but a lot easier to follow with this rendering on. >> Yeah. So, so the the side main wall that um that's visible um in the rendering um so that would be the south side. Um so that would be the 1.21 meters. Um and that one is adjacent to the uh the driveway of the the um uh neighboring lot. Um and so that but there is a significant separation between um the proposed uh side main wall and the uh the neighboring dwelling I believe over 5 mters. Um and um as can be seen here there's a a small section of the uh twostory um massing that is at the 1.21 21 uh uh meter setback. It does widen further um for another section that's um um one moment here. 5.5 um 5.59 m. Um and so that's set back further than the 1.21 as well. And the the rear section that's at the 1.21 is a is a smaller one-story element as can be seen um at the rear. Um, and above that, the second floor is is set back considerably um with a sloped roof that goes down to the uh uh first floor. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Any other uh questions? >> Um Mr. Dicki, is that your hand up? Yes. Go ahead. Thank you, Madam Chair. >> There's a bit of an echo in your in your is there is there another line that's open? >> Um, not that I'm aware, but just >> Okay. So, maybe just uh go back a little bit so that the echo subside. >> Um, okay. Sorry. >> Yeah. Okay. Go ahead. gone. Oh. >> Um, I'm concerned about the side effect setbacks. I look up and down the street and I acknowledge that you've got a a lot of houses that are dating from the maybe the 1950s or 1960s, one and a half stories with attached garages uh with lots of room between them. But I also went across the road and look at some of the houses that had been built more recently. Number two, set number 270, number 250, number 242, and 238. They're all recent houses, two-story houses, and they have wide setbacks because they have rear yard garages. So, those houses have maintained the character of the neighborhood by building in the same form in the in in in a sense of having the houses spaced out and not being crowded on the lots. and you seem not to have done that and and that's fine, but but then you're turning around and saying, "Well, instead of uh adhering to the new bylaw, which requires a 1.8 meter setback setback, you're cutting it back to 1.4 meters and 1.21 meters in a neighborhood that has much wider setbacks. Now I know what you you talked about the house in whichever direction the house in the the south uh uh you know has a big setback but it's not that owner's responsibility to provide the buffer from your house. It's your responsibility to provide the buffer on your land. So I'm I I would say no to your recite your plain simple. So I I off open open to your comments. Um so the only thing I can point to um uh in response to that is is that the the breakdowns that I that I mentioned along with uh development engineering um taking a a close look at those sideyard setbacks and for part of the the intent of uh of the bylaw is to uh ensure adequate separation um and uh drainage. And so uh we feel that in this case that is um is achieved even though um even though yes there is the the 1.8 meter uh standard. Now um and it is one of those situations we did go um we did begin the process um during the the prior uh regulations. Um so that is an element to this as well and and that was uh during the time when uh development engineering um had been reviewing uh the application and uh so we we feel that yes the the setback itself um uh on paper is uh 1.2 too. Um, but because it does apply to um to a broken up section of the the main wall, it does uh go back further um for a significant portion um um of the dwelling uh the recess in between is 4.41 m as well. Um so that widens further and then the second story um um is significantly uh stepped back uh toward toward the rear on that side where the uh sideyard setback that's requested is 1.2. So um we feel that on specifically on that side that's a good indication um of the uh the mitigation of impact. >> Correct me if I'm wrong. standing at the street looking at your proposed house. It's going to be 1.4 m on the one side, 1.21 m on the other side. Standing at the street looking at that's the that's >> I apologize the the last uh part got cut out. I'm not sure if that happened for anyone else. >> Yeah. Mr. Dicki got cut off in the last few sentences. >> I think maybe you need to pull back a little because the echo on the on the computer and >> Okay. Okay. Um Okay, that's it. Thank you very much. >> Hey, Mr. Dome, do you have anything further to add further to Mr. Dicki's comment? Um I mean essentially um um I I believe I I went over the uh um all the elements here that um do help to mitigate uh impact in our view. Um and believe that this design tries to um really tries to achieve the right balance given the um uh the prior regulations and the the new regulations. Okay. Um I know we've had several of the um neighbors request to attend. Um have they raised their hand, Madam Secretary Treasurer, to speak to the committee? >> Yes, Madam Chair. We have two hands up right now. >> Okay. Uh please invite them one at a time. >> Sure. I'll invite the first one. Uh the name is Kristen Pennington. Okay. Go ahead, Miss Pennington. >> Thanks so much. Thank you for having us and thanks for the opportunity to speak with you tonight. My name is Kristen and this is my husband Raj who's here with me. Uh we live at 9 Highland Road, so around the corner from the property. Um, but our backyard abutts 277 Queen Mary and we share a fence with the backyard of that property or with our backyard. So, as some of the neighbors who are most immediately affected by the application, uh, we are respectfully urging the committee to refuse it. In our view, the cumulative effects of the requested variances are not minor. Uh our understanding is that the applicant is seeking more floor area, more lot coverage, and narrower setbacks on both sides of the property simultaneously. And so, while we acknowledge that the staff report indicates that there are certain proposed design elements that may reduce the perception of massing, in our view, perception and reality are two different things. The reality is that the proposed construction is being maximized in virtually every direction at once. And in particular, we do note that staff indicated there were setbacks provided at the second story. Um, in our view, this doesn't address the full height massing that will be experienced at the ground level where the surrounding houses and our yards will be most directly affected by the uh dwelling including due to shadowing, smaller sideyards that have been discussed tonight, and overall less space between the new house and the neighboring houses and a corresponding loss of privacy. And our understanding is that the bylaw um exists and it includes these reasonable limits in part to protect against precisely precisely this kind of impact um on neighbors. And as evidenced by a number of the new builds in the neighborhood, including the examples that were cited by Mr. Dicki earlier, in our view, it's it's very possible to design and to build a beautiful modern home within the parameters that are set out by the bylaw and in a way that's consistent with the livable Oakville plan and that doesn't unduly encroach on the privacy and and enjoyment of nearby neighbors. The second issue that we wanted to raise and that I'm disappointed wasn't addressed in greater detail by the presentation tonight is that we view storm water and drainage to be very serious and un unresolved concerns in the neighborhood generally and we're very concerned that granting the requested variances would only exacerbate this issue. We did note that the staff made a statement on drainage um indicating that the applicant has demonstrated that suitable drainage can be achieved. However, we did also see that there was a caution that these comments pertained only to zoning and weren't to be construed as a review or approval of a proposal for the site itself. And to our knowledge, no storm water impact assessment has been placed before the committee, although please do correct us if I'm mistaken. and it certainly hasn't been shared with um any of the neighboring property owners, including ourselves. And in our view, this is significant. This matters in the broader context of Oakville's storm water challenges. Our understanding is that the town is currently developing a storm water master plan specifically to protect residents like us from flooding and that that plan acknowledges that the town's existing infrastructure is already under pressure and that uh extreme weather events are increasing giving given the impacts of climate change and draining issues and flooding in the immediate area of 277 Queen Mary. They're not a hypothetical risk. We understand that neighbors in the um immediate vicinity have experienced repeated flooding of their basement, particularly following the construction of a very large new house abudding their own property. And we can speak from experience that our sump pump already runs for days following rainfall and also during the thawing of snow. Several lots in the area, including uh 277 Queen Mary itself, experience pooling in their yards following significant rainfall. So, in our view, it's very important to not compound what is an existing issue in the neighborhood by further reducing uh surfaces that can absorb this water. And we're certainly not engineers, but our understanding is that the proposed lot coverage and this larger than permitted building footprint would really increase the amount of surface area that's impervious and generate more runoff than a compliant development would. This is also not in alignment with the livable Oakville plan which spec specifically requires uh development to maintain existing groundwater recharge rates and also encourages permeable surfaces and soft landscape. So as we understand it, permitting excess lot coverage as requested would work directly against those objectives. So to conclude, we're very appreciative of you hearing our uh perspective tonight, which is that the request hasn't been demonstrated to be compatible um either with the livable Oakville plans requirement for stable residential neighborhoods like West River. Um but also it would have a very significant negative impact on neighbors like us and we are very concerned about the increased risk of flooding um given what's already happening in the neighborhood and the challenges that have been identified by the town. In the alternative, if the committee is inclined to approve the request, um we respectfully ask that to the extent possible, a storm water or drainage impact assessment be conducted um by a qualified engineer to give us some additional comfort and that this be shared with a budding property owners like ourselves before a building permit is issued so that we can better understand uh and have some comfort around the potential impact on our property. Thank you again very much for your time and we really appreciate you considering our perspective. >> Great. Thank you. Um is there anyone else that would like to address the committee before I turn it over to Mr. Dome? Madam Secretary Treasurer. >> Madam Chair, we have one more hand up. Uh Ann Marie Mell, would you like me to move her in? >> Yes. Go ahead. >> Okay, she's coming in now. Oh, good evening. Took a while there. >> Go ahead, Miss Mel. >> Thank you. Thanks so much, uh, Madame Chair and committee for, uh, giving us the opportunity to, uh, present. Uh, there I am. Sorry. Sorry about that. Um, and thank you Kristen and Raj for your comments. Uh, my comments are very similar. So, I'm Anmarine Middle. I'm at 281 Queen Mary Drive, which is immediately to the north of the proposed new build and uh very much uh would be impacted by uh this new building. So I really appreciate the opportunity to share my perspective. um which is very similar to Kristen and Raj's um the variances um labeled as minor I I see as as pretty significant and cumulatively would have um a detrimental impact to the enjoyment of my home which I have been here for uh almost 20 years and expect to uh stay here as my forever home. The neighborhood is uh special as Mr. Dicki pointed out, we're surrounded by modest um homes. I um our block of five homes facing Queen Mary are all in similar size and scale. And the beauty of the neighborhood has always been the large lots, the mature trees, the sense of privacy and openness that we enjoy. Um, if the proposed bill goes forward as as it is, um, I inevitably will feel a significant deterioration in my enjoyment of my backyard in particular. um feeling encroached going from one window uh at my neighbor's house facing my there's a small basement window that uh to I think uh nine windows facing down onto my property that um uh combined with just the encroachment of the large um build um blocking out views, sunshine, trees um will certainly have uh a negative impact. act on what I believe is the special character and nature of our neighborhood. Um so certainly not a minor uh impact on on me personally. Um I also have great concern, I've not heard and I don't know if this is the right forum, but there is a row of maple trees that uh goes down the fence line on 277 side. I don't know the process, but I would like I would hope that um the health and well-being of those trees is uh clearly addressed in any proposed bill. Um should they be harmed or even planned to be removed and I'm not sure with the amount of setback that they could continue to exist. Um they provide um an abundance of shade and privacy that uh if they were removed on top of having the tall uh large building next door that would just uh completely change the experience of my property. Um so I I don't know where that's addressed but I just want to raise that as a significant concern that I have. Um, so basically the the uh request for variances in pretty much every direction. Um, I think the end result is there's a bigger home going next door than needs to be. Um, and it's not in keeping with the nature, the character, and quality of this neighborhood. Um, and so we're here to to express that. uh the impact on my privacy would be uh significant and um combined I just think that that uh these changes these uh this proposal uh doesn't need to to uh go as far as it does to achieve a new build a new home next door. Um, Kristen, you brought up the issue of the storm water assessment. It just reminds me, and I'll add here, that my backyard adjacent to 277 in particular floods every spring. It never gets too close to my house, but um there is definitely a water issue that um I can attest to. Um and my sump pump also is going non-stop on rainy days. So I would agree that that is an important issue to be addressed. Um anyway, I submitted my letter. Those are the things that I wanted to highlight. I appreciate the opportunity to be heard and um I sense that uh the committee is um also concerned with the the scale of the house in this property and I appreciate uh that you're taking this into consideration. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Milo. Anyone else? Madam Secretary, Treasurer. >> Madame Chair, there are no more hands up in the audience. >> Okay, I will turn it over to Mr. Dome to address some of these issues. Mr. do you've uh you did make mention of a scoped site plan with development engineering comment with respect to grading and uh if you could also comment on um the issue of the trees and um correct me if I'm wrong did you say that the overall increase in square footage was uh around 34 square meters so about 340 square feet overall is that is that right >> yeah I believe about uh about 34 square meters Okay. Okay. I'll leave you to comment to the neighbors concerns and then we'll take the matter into committee. >> Um yes, thank you. And and to speak to the neighbors concerns um specifically first uh in regards to number nine. Um I will note the design of the dwelling um as it relates to the backyard of number nine um is mitigated by the fact that a small portion of the main wall um that to which the setback variance um applies um is adjacent to the property. So that applies to a small portion with um and again the the large second story step back at the rear um southeast corner um that would um limit impact and the fact that there's um uh the uh no rear yard setback uh or encroachment um is requested um on that end and the um the soft landscaping provided um does exceed the minimum uh bylaw. Um and regarding the uh the drainage concerns, um I will again note that the the full scope site plan process was undertaken uh with uh development engineering um and approved and uh so the drainage has been um addressed during that process. Uh and regarding the the trees, an arburist report uh was prepared and and while there um there are uh helical piles uh incorporated um in the design along the um the rear of the north side um to limit impact. Um and the town requires uh protection uh hoarding uh removal permits and uh consent for the identified boundary trees. And those requirements uh continue to apply. Um uh and really we feel that the those documents are not uh typically uh presented at committee of adjustment and are rather addressed um during the building permit stage and and as I mentioned uh um this was um addressed during the pre-conultation phase um uh prior to submission to committee. Madam Chair, you're on mute. >> Thank you. Sorry about that. Um, like I was saying, um, thank you, Mr. Dome. Are there any questions of Mr. Dome at this time from committee members? Go ahead, Mr. Towski. Thank you, Madam Chair. A few points of clarification. So, you say the site plan drainage has been approved already. Did uh that require any rear lock catch basins to address any drainage issues? >> Um I'm uh not aware of um of the details on that. Um but I can certainly um um ask the client We have some comments from development engineering here, but they don't show whether they've been addressed or not. Specifically, show the area drain on the dry well with elevation. So, have these been addressed? Sorry, Mr. Towski, I'm hijacking your question. I just thought I had something to add. I'll leave it with you. Uh to me that sounds like the town is requiring a drain in the property which would answer my question. Um secondly the the helical piles that's to have just periodic piles in under the tree canopy adjacent to the house as opposed to digging out a full foundation. Is that correct? >> That's correct. and your your coverage variance is that um driven purely by the porches or is it the dwelling as well? Um there is a the the covered porch um in the rear is um uh covered by a portion of the second floor as well, but um essentially it is uh primarily the the dwelling with a a small amount of the um uh the covered porch um included in the uh design that's not the uh second floor of the dwelling. the cover porches are contributing to the uh coverage variance, but they're not the sole reason for the cover the coverage variance. Is that correct? >> Yes, that's correct. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, I'm I'm going to piggyback on Mr. Towski's question. Looking at your application here, we can see the scoped uh site plan comment tracking that was submitted with your why have you not demonstrated that these comments have been addressed in your meeting here? You know very well that the issues that the neighbors have that they are going to come and share them with the committee. I just don't understand why they haven't been addressed throughout this meeting. >> Apologies. the the uh the scope site plan uh process the specific comments. >> Yes. So there is uh with your application it has scope site plan comment tracking and it has comments for grading and it has comments for tree removal. So I'm reading them but I I don't see whether they have you say it's been approved. So, I see MC Miss Mcnite's hand up. Maybe I'll have her comment first >> through you, Madam Chair. Yes. Um, I was able to speak with development engineering prior to our meeting this afternoon, and I did receive confirmation that there were not concerns with the variances brought forward tonight. Um, they had completed a thorough review of the first submission and did not raise any significant concerns in relation to the variances brought up. Um, however, there has not been formal approval issued quite yet. >> Okay. So, that's I guess that's where my confusion was because Mr. Dome said that his site specific scope plan was approved. >> Sorry, I believe that's uh yeah, that's a um I misspoke in that case. Um it was just that they have no concerns um with the uh proposal. They may not have concerns with the proposal, but given these comments, you still have to adhere and mitigate them. Correct. >> Uh, yes. >> Okay. And and that's my point is if if those were they're part of your application. If those were addressed here, they would put your neighbors minds at rest. Anyways, that was my comment. I just wanted to make sure there was valid um steps that were taken to actually address these comments that are here that are part of your application. >> Mr. Towski, go ahead. >> Thanks, Madam Chair. Just further to that issue um to Miss Mcnite, just I I don't want to be that implied that the applicant's done something wrong here. Is it It's not normal that the site plan gets addressed be the development engineering site plan approval and the details get addressed prior to coming to committee is it? >> Yes, madame chair um as noted previously we did have a pre-conultation meeting in December of 2025. Um at that time staff didn't raise significant concerns with the proposal provided development engineering had the opportunity to undertake a more detailed review through the scope site plan process particularly as it relates to that storm water management and drainage part. Um typically where a scope site plan application is required staff recommend that an applicant complete at least one full submission and receive initial round comments before proceeding to the committee. This just allows development engineering really to um review the proposed rating and drainage while also providing urban forestry staff with the opportunity to review the uh arburist report and assess whether any potential impacts whether there are any potential impacts to the existing trees or neighboring dwellings or um properties with respect to that grading and drainage piece. Um and so the intent of that is really to identify any significant concerns or necessary design changes before the variances are considered by the committee. So the applicant has um done as recommended in submitting that scope site plan and having that initial review underway to really understand that there are no significant concerns with relation to variances and all comments provided by development engineering and uh urban forestry do have to be addressed before proceeding forward to a building permit. So, I can assure you that those comments will be um addressed through the process, but they did not raise any concerns with the application brought forward tonight. >> Okay. >> Thank you for that clarification. >> Thank you, Mai. Okay. Um any further questions or comments? Hey, I see none. All right. Uh we'll take the matter into committee. uh who would like to make a recommendation and start the discussion. Go ahead, Mr. Taski. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh Madam Chair, as you know, I've been questioning of late the town support for some of the sideyard setback variances we've been seeing. Um those are largely due to the fact that those applications were significant twostory no articulation walls that were creating barriers. Um hopefully not sounding inconsistent and I'm sure the neighbors will not agree with me on this point, but with respect to a new bill that doesn't comply with the bylaw, which is what this committee is here for to assess those variances, I'm not sure it gets any better than this design. This is a welldesigned well articulated house that from an Oakville and even number of new builds in the area standard is not overly large. And um I believe the care taken in the design, the setbacks, the articulation within the building mitigate any impacts of those variances and I think the applicant has addressed a number of the issues that have been raised. Drainage is being dealt with. They have comments. staff have indicated that they followed the recommended process of the town. They will have to address those any comments which I fully suspect um is going to include very lot cash basins. We're seeing them on a regular basis now throughout the town for new builds to address any drainage. Um that the drainage is not part of the variance itself. Um, while coverage can contribute to additional hard areas, um, removal of a roof on a porch that doesn't mitigate the fact that you still got a hard surface patio or porch underneath it. I'm not, you know, convinced that the coverage variance is a significant issue. And while I I've heard the comments from the neighbors, I believe the assessment this committee has to make is the variances to what is permitted by the bylaw, not variances to what exists today. a significantly larger twostory house is permitted on the property. And I'm not sure, Madame Chair, that the issues number of the issues that the neighbors are raising is going are being caused by the variances. You're still going to have a twostory house. you're still going to have windows on the side of that house. Whether it's 1.4 meters or 1.8 meters from the property line, that issue still exists. The variance isn't causing the issue of the side windows on the house. So, I I'm not sure that a house complying to the bylaw would satisfy any of the concerns that have been raised by the residents. I I'd note as well that the the tree issue has been raised and in my view they've addressed it by instead of pouring excavating and pouring a 9 foot deep uh foundation adjacent to those maple trees where they're adjacent to the rear side of the one corner of the dwelling. They've uh come up with helical piles which are you know I'm going to call them uh massive corkcrews that are just piled into the ground so not to rip up the root structure in order to save the trees. And again I believe the massing's been very well addressed by the design of this dwelling. Um, I think I'll leave it at that. Um, but when I look at this house in relation to what could be built as of right, the care that's been taken to try to mitigate the impacts, Madam Chair, I do believe that this um proposal meets the intent of the official plan bylaw is minor in nature and is going to be a desirable addition to the neighborhood. I'd make that approval if my committee members agree or maybe just one more comment. Um I think at one point there was an issue raised about other houses having rear garages. Madam Chair, I'm not convinced that a rear yard garage 6 meters from property lines would be less impactful than the proposed house and the variances there. I think it to try to maintain the setback and put a rear lock rear corner garage in the backyard I think would be more impactful. Okay. >> So, Madam Chair, again, I'm going to recommend approval of this application. Long- winded explanation. I apologize subject to the dwelling being constructed in general accordance with these site plan and elevation drawings dated August 24th, 2026. and that the approval expires in two years if the bill increment's not been issued. >> Thank you, Mr. Towski. Is there discussion on this recommendation? >> Mr. Dicki, go ahead. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I am concerned about the site setbacks. As I said, I think uh the the houses in the neighborhood are spaced uh are very open and spaced uh far enough from each other. And as I said about the examples of of recently built houses or certainly not the uh 40, 50, 60 year old houses there and there I realize that that's something that will change. But I feel that uh to give the uh owner an exception to reduce the the sideyard setbacks in this instant is not desirable and I do not think that the I think the impact will will be significant or at least it won't be minor and I do I feel that it does not comply with the intent of the official plan to comply with the openness of open character of the day. therefore I'll be voting against approval. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Dicki. Any further comments? I see none. Okay. The um the recommendation is to approve this application. All those in support. Okay. All those opposed. Okay. The application has been approved. One opposed. >> Thank you very much. Okay. Uh, application 119 of 2026 at 396 Sandalwood Road. And that's again, application 119 of 2026 at 396 Sandalwood Road. Mr. T Steve Johnston is the agent on record. >> Hello. Uh my name is Steve Johnston. I'm with Hickory Dickory Decks. I'm here with a colleague of mine, Brad Arnold. And uh we're here to discuss a screen room at 396 Sandalwood Road. Uh this image shows the rear of the house. Um on the very right side of the image, it shows a screen door. There's three screen patio doors across the back. And we're looking to have the screen room encompass all three of those exit points of the house. If you go to the next slide that shows the um rough location of the screen room. If you can go to the next slide please. I'll just discuss the the variance issues. Um we're looking to um have a side lot of 1.5 meters which is consistent with the building that is on the property currently. We are looking to increase the residential floor area to 54% from the permitted 49%. And the maximum lot coverage um to just over just under 41% from the allotted uh 30%. Uh so that image shows the uh three three rear screen doors in relation to the sun room. And basically the next images are to show the property, the lot layout. And then also the remaining images are just to show the property. This one here shows it uh on the rear property is Glattis Spears Public School. Um and then if you go to the next slide, it just zooms in a little bit. The patio that's shown in this image is not current. Uh the patio essentially goes out that far but is consistent across the whole width of the home and the proposed screen room does not go out that far. The screen room does meet all the rear yard setbacks as well. The next images just show the rear elevation of the screen room. Its height is minor in nature in that it's just a single story on the current concrete patio. And then the next two images just show views of the yard for those I know some members did have an opportunity to go out and meet with the homeowners um to see the property. So this is the views looking back towards the rear pump school property and then also these two are looking to the side on each each um each angle. The structure that's there right now will be removed. Sure. >> Any questions? Okay, thank you. Any questions or items of clarification from Mr. Johnson and his colleague? >> Okay, I see none. Has anyone called with interest for this application? Madam Secretary, Treasurer. >> Madam Chair, no calls have been received and no one has their hand up. >> Very well. We'll take the matter into committee who would like to move a motion. Miss Price, go ahead. You're muted. >> Sorry. Taking into account the reports provided by the agent and staff and there being no emails or letters of opposition, I find the variance to be minor in nature and are in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the official plan and zoning bylaw are desirable for the appropriate for the appropriate development of the land. As mentioned by his staff, the singlestory addition will follow the interior sideyard setback of the existing home and will be located on an existing concrete patio. In conclusion, I find the four tests of the planning act have been met and I therefore recommend the application be approved subject to the following conditions. that the addition be constructed in general accordance with the site submitted site plan and elevation drawings dated September 1st, 2026 and that the approval expires 2 years from the date of the decision if the building permit has not been issued for the proposed construction. >> Okay. Thank you, Miss Price. Is there discussion on this recommendation? I see none. All those on support and the application has been approved. None opposed. Thank you. >> Thank you, Madam Chair and committee for your time. >> Very nice. >> Two Okay. Uh, application 120 of 2026 at 148 Olter Drive. Again, that's application 120 of 2026 at 148 Drive. Mr. Dome is with us again. >> Yes. Uh, Joe Dome. uh 133 Torsale Avenue, agent for the owner. Um this is a fairly straightforward application um with one proposed variance which relates to an existing condition of the garage uh projection and we feel the application is quite reasonable and minor in nature. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Dome. Any questions, items of clarification? Okay, I see none. Has anyone called with interest for this application? Madam Secretary Treasure, >> Madam Chair, no calls have been received and no one has their hand up. >> Okay, thank you. All right, we'll take the matter into committee. Who would like to move a motion? Go ahead, Mr. Dicki. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, based upon my review of the owner's application of the site plans, the building elevation, my site visit together with the presentation, well, brief presentation by the owners consultant and the planning uh staff's report. I am satisfied that the variance is minor in nature and conforms to the four tests of the planning act. And I put forth a motion that the application as applied for sorry the uh I'm sorry put forth a motion that the application is applied for be approved subject to the conditions that sorry I'm here we go that the building subject to conditions that the building be constructed in general accordance with the submitted site plan drawing uh dated July 23rd, 2026 and the elevation drawings dated August 17th, 2026 and that the approval expires two years from the date of the decision if a building permit has not been issued for the proposed construction. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Dicki. Is there a discussion on this recommendation? I see none. All those in support. Okay. The application has been approved. >> Thank you very much. >> Good night. >> Good night. The last item on our agenda is application 121 of 2026 at 3121 Victoria Street. Again, that's application 121 of 2026 at 3121 Victoria Street. I have the agent, Mr. Gasari, here. Uh yes. Um thank you madam chair and members of the committee. Uh good evening. Um my name is Amy Fatada and um I'm the designer and owners agent of uh 3121 uh Victoria Street. Um yeah, please go to the next slide. Uh yeah, the uh proposed change is a 16 uh ft addition on the back side of the house uh on the main and second floor and uh on the top of the uh garage u on the second floor and a small portion on uh in front of the main floor. Um so the dwelling is twotory building at the moment. Um um please go to the next slide. Um so uh we're looking for um a floor space index uh of 59% uh against the permitted maximum 51%. Uh while keeping uh the maximum lot coverage uh and rear yard setback within the acceptable limit. Uh next slide please. Um so this is u the lot is uh almost 600 square meter and uh it is uh four uh 40 uh meter deep. Uh with the addition we will still have 16.4 m of u rear setback. Um so you can imagine it is a pretty big lot and we are trying to utilize uh the um livable space. Um on the bottom left picture you can see uh on the right uh house is um the existing dwelling of 3121 Victoria and on the right side of uh the house is an existing house. Uh there was a commitive adjustment uh decision uh back in 2023 uh that was approved for uh this property for a maximum lot coverage. Um so um the homeowner is trying to grow their family and they are going to add some additional space to the existing house. Um so um next slide please. Um uh yeah it is uh um true that the the neighborhood was u developed in uh early 1970s. Um but a lot has changed, people needs changed and people lifestyle. Um so um this um people uh usually see that this as like a positive development uh that's the reason we have uh two letter of support from the left and right uh uh neighbors. Um the other thing is uh the addition except the top of the uh first uh top of the garage is not um uh visible uh from the um from the uh street. Um we are also adding some architectural features uh like the front uh porch um and also the trees are all uh going to be protected. Um there is already tree protection plan in place. Um and uh yeah um this is the letter of support uh from the uh left neighbor and the next one will be the letter of support from the right neighbor. Um and yeah um so we have uh satisfied uh building permit requirement uh conservation hall requirement uh for the flood protection and uh yeah we are looking for uh relief on u floor space index um and yeah I really appreciate uh your uh feedback and I would be very happy to answer any questions. Mr. Amir, do you have any 3D renderings that you could share? >> Yes, sorry. Uh, not for this property, unfortunately. >> Okay. Thank you. Any questions or items of clarification, Mr. Towski? Thank you, Madam Chair. So, staff are not supporting your application uh given the massing the impact of the massing of the building. Is there a reason why you chose to proceed and not defer and work with staff to come up with agreeable solution? Uh yeah, we haven't discussed actually this one this but uh yeah um we didn't have like a pre-conultation for this case. Um but um we can have this conversation with the um staff maybe after this uh this hearing. >> Thank you. You're welcome. Any other questions? Is there is this the first time that you are before the committee? Uh actually yes this is the first uh project I'm working on in the Oakville >> in Oakville. Okay. So perhaps you may not be aware but once the committee decides on this application there is no opportunity for you to do further discussions with town unless you actually have another application >> through. So, in the chance that we deny it, it's done. Then you will have to file a new application and you'll have to get a pre-conultation if you choose to. And and that was Mr. Towski's question is were you aware of the fact that you could have a pre-conultation specifically if you didn't have staff supporting your application? You could have taken a deferral and then worked with staff and came back but you chose to continue with the application. So are you prepared to face a denial this evening then? Were you aware of all of that? Um yeah so I I saw that uh along with all the emails uh that came for the committee of adjustment and um we we would be willing to go with the uh preconultation but u we also like to fill out the form but uh yeah we never I don't know um we receive any um further email from the committee of adjustment that we have to go to that one. So what whatever we received was like the committee of adjustment application form actually. >> Okay. All right. Okay. I I we don't normally do this but for the sake of your application. I'm personally not going to support this application. Okay. All I could see is that this is a home that is a a a long rectangle similar perhaps to the one next door and maybe that's why you decided to go that direction. but it doesn't show me breakdowns. It doesn't show me anything. And I think that you would benefit from working with staff. Um if I don't want to presume to put comments in Mr. Talowski's question, but that he asked you whether you did a pre-conultation. So I'm going to offer you this um to take a deferral. There is a fee to defer this application. um and then have a sit down with staff and go from there because I I don't think you're aware of the process and the way you are speaking is you are assuming that if we don't approve that you have an opportunity to speak with staff afterwards. >> Um so can I ask a question madam chair? Um so if we have like the denial tonight um can we just uh do that like another time apply for the committee of adjustment and go through all the reconultation um or we can just defer that and avoid getting this uh I mean is that a negative point if it it is uh denied at this time and then we apply for another uh minor variance. >> Yeah, I'll put it in this perspective. If you are denied tonight, you will have to make a completely new application with a full with the full fees for this application, whatever you've paid right now. >> Okay. >> The deferral is a lesser fee and it keeps your application alive. So, >> I see. >> Um, my recommendation is to >> defer this. take the lifeline that I'm providing you >> and you know um pay the the smaller fee >> to have the deferral rather than kill your application on a denial >> and then perhaps this will be a learning opportunity for you for further applications within the town of Oakville. >> Yeah. Yeah. For sure. Yeah. Thank you very much Madam Chair for the advice. Yeah. We would we would be willing to defer this application. >> Thank you. So again, this is not my decision. I will have to put it to a vote before the committee, but that's my recommendation. >> Okay. >> Um so I'll leave it to my uh colleagues. Um the recommendation is to defer this application. Is there a discussion on this recommendation or how does everyone feel? >> Mr. Towelski. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. and inter given the um applicant's newness to the town process. I think your generosity here is well placed. Um he has the staff report. I completely agree with the staff report. Unlike my comments on Queen Mary, there was no attempt here to mitigate the massing of this um variance. And I think the applicant would be well served to meet with staff and come back with a revised application. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Taski. So, is there are no further comments to all those in support of a deferral? Okay. And your application is deferred. >> Thank you very much. >> Okay. So, you'll take the time uh to speak to your planner, Miss McFale. I'm sure you have her um contact in the emails that you've seen, and you'll take it from there. >> Okay. >> Thank you very much. Have a good evening. >> You too. >> All right. We have the matter of um meeting minutes for September the 16th. Um Miss Price, thank you for confirming those minutes. And uh motion to adjourn. Miss Price, once again, thank you. We are adjourned at 8:44.