Good evening. Tonight's Committee of Adjustment hearing is being held by video conference on live streaming video on the town's live stream webpage at oakville.ca. This is a hearing to consider applications for minor variance and consents held under the authority of the Planning Act. Please keep in mind 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, organizations. If a request for deferral is made and the committee grants such a request, the applicant authorized agent must contact the Secretary-Treasurer 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 you wish to speak to an item on the agenda, please call 905-815-6095. Again, the number is 905-815-6095. The phone number will also be posted on the live stream page at oakville.ca. Staff will be standing by to take your call. When you do call in, staff will ask for your name, item number that you wish to address, and your telephone number. Further instructions will be provided for you to call back to join the video conference. When the chair of the committee calls for interested parties, you'll have to press star six to unmute yourself. The applicant agent will be then given an opportunity to briefly explain to the committee the basis of their application and answer any questions that may arise. A maximum of five minutes will be provided for a presentation. You'll need to state your full name and address for the record. Any submissions beyond the five minutes will be at the discretion of the committee. All delegations must also state their name and address for the record. Any submissions beyond the five minutes will be at the discretion of the committee. All remarks are to be directed to the chair. The applicant or agent will then be provided with a further 5 minutes to respond to any comments made by interested parties, answer any questions from the committee, and if the applicant or agent has any concerns found in staff report, particularly within 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 discussion. Any person desiring a notice of decision for any 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 a written request for such notice. The last day to appeal the decision to 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. Then the secretary treasurer will 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 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 viewing at oakville.ca. Thank you. Okay. We have no regrets this evening. Are there any declarations of pecuniary interests? I see none. Thank you. Uh, Madam secretary treasurer, members of the audience, if there's anyone who wishes to defer or withdraw an application, this will be the opportunity to advise us. >> Madam Chair, I do not see any hands up from those in attendance. >> Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Tolansky. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, unfortunately, when I visited 1321 Duncan A096, there was no sign displayed. Uh I suspect it was probably posted on the uh fence that had fallen down, but uh I've no way of knowing when that fence came down, but um clearly the the sign was not visible for the required period. >> Okay, thank you, Mr. Tolansky. Uh do we have Mr. Dominic Monardo uh on hand in the meeting? >> We do, Madam Chair. I can move him in one moment, please. >> Hello. Good evening. >> Good evening, Mr. Monardo. Um given the fact that there's uh hasn't been insufficient notice because the sign was not up for the proper 10 days that is required, um we will have to defer your application to the next possible meeting. So, you'll have to see the secretary treasurer, and she'll let you know when you will uh be put in. >> The sign was posted even before the date I was told it was put on the fence. It's been there for quite a while. >> And I'm I'm I'm sure you did put it up and and I'm I'm sure it was there. However, because it was not there for the entire duration, we will have to defer your application to the next meeting. >> Okay, do we know when that meeting is? >> You'll have to see the secretary treasure. I'm sure she'll get you in as soon as she can. >> Okay. >> All right, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else, Madam Secretary Treasurer? Mr. Dickey. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I inspected the property at Iroquois Shore, 350 Iroquois Shore, uh yesterday afternoon. Um one sign was up on Iroquois Shore, one sign was down on Trafalgar Road, and one sign was down on um I think it's called Oakville Place Road or whatever. I'm not quite sure. Um so, basically, two signs were down, and only the Iroquois Shore Road sign was up. Apparently, I think someone else reported there was a sign further around on Oakville Place Road. I did not go down there. I didn't really know if that was really a public uh street. Um but, anyhow, from from three signs that I saw, two of them were down. >> Um Madam Secretary Treasurer, uh with respect to uh a corner lot with several uh streets, and what is the requirement for the signage? For it to meet. >> Madam Chair, there should be signage on each facing each public roadway. Around the subject property. >> Okay. Do we have the agent for this property on hand? >> We do. I can move him into the meeting. One moment, please. >> Good evening, committee members. >> Good evening. Mr. Sarantopoulos, am I pronouncing that correctly? >> Correct enough, yes. >> Okay. >> It's a long one. >> Okay. So, um because your property is larger and it is facing several public roadways, the sign has to be up on all four side and you're nodding your head. You know this. So, so just then in all fairness and transparency for everybody, we we do have to defer your application as well and we'll see you at the next available meeting. >> Totally understood. Okay, thank you so much. >> Okay, thank you. >> Okay. So, we'll proceed with the next matter on our agenda and that is application 007 of 2026 deferred from January the 21st at 540 Sandbrook Road. And we have Mr. David Stickney as the agent. >> Madam Chair, I'm just trying to move him into the meeting. One second here. Okay, Madam Chair, in now, Mr. Stickney. >> Okay, go ahead, Mr. Stickney. Your presentation is up. Mr. Stickney, are you with us? >> I I can I can hear you. I don't know if you can hear me. I'm sorry. >> Okay, no, now we can hear you and see you. Go ahead. >> Thank you. Um Madam Chair, members of the committee, proposal is for a two-story new dwelling on the property. Uh we originally um came to the committee in January 21st, and it and it was deferred uh with respect to a meeting with planning and urban design. Uh there was one variance at that time. Um we made several changes related uh both to the bylaw at the time and specifically to the guidelines infill guidelines for the for the design guidelines for the neighborhood. Um and of course, the committee's aware that the bylaw has changed when we came back with something that uh was satisfactory uh to the planning and urban design at the time uh the new bylaw amendment um uh caused uh three variances. So, the variances are are uh side yard setback of of 1.2 m instead of the 1.8 required by the new bylaw, 30.2 uh percent coverage as opposed to 30 as required by the bylaw, and uh residential floor area of uh 54.86 over the 49 required by the new bylaw. Uh I would [clears throat] I would argue that the um conditions that we arrived at through through design guidelines uh which related to increasing setbacks, making the dwelling smaller, um maintaining the front yard setback, that um we arrived at something that was was uh satisfactory uh in those discussions with more horizontal lines, sloping roofs to the side, increased setbacks to the side. Um I think that um I would refer to to sort of report from planning in that uh they seem to have no no well, they they they have no problem with these the setback and the coverage. Or sorry, on the um and the coverage, but the residential floor area, the definition uh in the new bylaw has changed, and even though the house is smaller um than the original house proposed, the um calculation of floor area involves um just deducting stairs um and and not the void that surrounds the stairs. So, that what what actually happened is that our our floor area appears to be larger. My argument is that it's actually smaller, and that um we submitted photographs of the of the neighborhood because the guidelines, I believe, are clearly related to um making a product or a building that that fits the context. So, what we've showed was um nine houses that are new in the neighborhood. And so, our argument is that that certainly the floor area and the profile of the building is consistent, if not better than in in relation to the guidelines, then than the ones in the immediate block surrounding. I would say that the the increase in floor area is is is 35 square meters. It's less than than 6% variance, and um we would argue that that is based upon all the criteria of the guidelines and and the bylaws is actually a minor variance. >> Is that the end of your presentation? >> I'm sorry, yes, ma'am. Madam Chair. >> Okay. Are there any questions or items of concern directed to Mr. Signey? Okay, I see none. Has anyone called interest for this application, Madam Secretary Treasurer? >> Madam Chair, there have been no calls and no one in attendance has their hand up. >> Okay. Thank you. We'll take a motion then. Go ahead, Ms. Price. >> Taking into account my site visit, the revised report provided by the agent, staff's comments, and there being no letters or emails of opposition, I find the revised variant to be minor in nature. The decreased dwelling size and the new improvements have helped to mitigate any negative massing and impacts on the abutting one-story dwellings. Based on the information provided, I believe the four tests of planning act have been met and I recommend the application be approved subject to the following conditions. The dwelling be constructed in general accordance with the submitted site plan, revision number four, dated June 2026. Front elevation drawing, revision number three, dated April 2026. North and south side elevation drawings, revision number two, dated April 2026, and rear elevation drawing, revision number one, dated March 26. 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. >> Thank you, Ms. Price. Is there a discussion on this recommendation? I see none. All those in support. The application has been approved, none opposed. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Those of the committee. Thank you. >> Have a good evening. Application 093 of 2026 deferred from July the 22nd at 361 McDonald Road. I have Mr. Azman who's here. as the agent. >> Hello, Madam Chair. Members of the committee, my name is Azmin Khosravi. Our office is located in Oakville. Number 27, unit 27603 Argus Road in Oakville. >> Go ahead, Mr. Khosravi. >> I have a little bit of a presentation. I put maybe bring it back to the first page of the presentation. Okay. We're asking for a small addition in the rear back of the the property known as Miller House, number 361 McDonald Road. That is located on a corner lot. The the It's been um Since 2024, it's been part of the heritage property, the designated heritage property. It's a typical of uh uh a bungalow style basically with a large front porch which contributes quite a bit to the lot coverage which is the variance that you're looking after. And what we're proposing is a small rear addition to this building. Um Um page number two, please. Okay, that's the view of the house from the Allan Street if you wish. The on the corner left of the picture, you see garage and a small addition. So, what we're proposing is to build on top of the small addition in the back. And trying to corner square the corner that is existing in the back of the house. So, the visibility or impact of the visual impact on the McDonald road is zero and the Allen Street is a little bit obvious. Next page, please. Okay, so this is the rear back of the house where you see the two chairs by the small one-story addition is where we trying to square off. As you can see the the slope of the roof does not permit us to have a functional layout of the second floor of the home. Intent was trying to add to the second floor base level floor space available to us. So the best intent obviously was to square the square off the back of the house, build on top of the one-story addition and change the roofline where it is not visible from the street in order to make a functional second floor space. Next, please. On the site plan you can see where marked as a square is a small addition that we proposing, the red area. It's roughly about 70 square feet. That contributes to about maybe 0.8% additional to the current lot coverage that we have. And speaking of the lot coverage, there was a variance granted to the to this property back in 2013 to the maximum I believe it was 26.3% from the gap. So what we adding is 70 square feet to that lot coverage. However, the special the special provision of the zoning bylaw only allows you to have 19%. So our the request that is being asked is 27.3% of lot coverage versus granted 19%. However, we had a previous committee of adjustment decision in granting us to uh 26.3% previously back in 2015. Next uh slide, please. Um this being a heritage property, obviously our client has been in close contact with the committee uh from with the heritage committee. We took their recommendation, obviously, into account in our design, um making changes, obviously, to to keep the architectural character of the time intact. And um there was a dormer that it was added, roofline were adjusted in order to meet that architectural character that is required by the heritage committee. Um a permit was issued from the um heritage committee back in March of this year. Next uh slide, please. So, this is the visible part that you can actually see in the comparison. The the picture at on top is what is existing. The picture at the bottom is the the presentation of what we're adding. A couple of dormers added, roofline extended, if you wish, and the building on top of a one-story rear addition at the corner of the house that is existing. Next slide, please. Um our client has been very transparent about this um application that canvassed the area of the neighborhood uh in order to make sure the public is aware of what they're doing. So, as a result, we received a a number of supporting letters. Uh I believe eight, seven, or eight supporting letters have been received so far. Uh we also have recommendations and uh comments from the staff, which is in support of the application. And I believe uh our presentation, our um our proposed addition meets the four criteria of the four zoning planning act for the uh as a minor variance. Um that ends my presentation. Um, I have one more request actually if I may. Um, if you notice our um, application was deferred. If I also I'm actually I don't know if I have any time left for for my presentation. >> Go ahead, Mr. Khosravi. >> Sure. Um, our our our application was deferred last time in July 22nd. Um, and due to the fact that uh, the signs uh, the which were posted on two two streets. Um, they were not uh, placed in the right location if you wish. They were visible from the road obviously, but they were not um, in a sufficient distance from the sidewalk. So, um, we didn't ask for the deferral obviously. One of the members obviously uh, um, brought that off that uh, I don't know. They visited the site they couldn't see the sign visible. Um, my client had every intent obviously to to make sure that the public is aware of the application. Um, many people actually scanned the QR code and that's how they became aware and they came in support of the application. In addition, as I mentioned, my client has countless area to ensure that being very transparent towards the neighborhood and everyone is aware of what they're doing. So, what happened last time it was very unfortunate, but if I may, I would like to um, request a deferral. Uh, sorry. Um, to waive the deferral fee if you wish that it was unfortunately uh, uh, imposed. And um, um, I would appreciate if you could obviously uh, waive that deferral fee. Uh, as I said, if my client had known this uh for signage wasn't or not or not posted in the right spot, she would have rectified it immediately. But, we were not aware of it till the meeting actually took place. And that was That's how we found out. Thanks so much, um >> Um This This is a It's strange. We've never actually had a request to waive a deferral fee after the fact. So, um let's deal with the application first. And uh and then we'll get some information on the deferral fee. But, typically what I what I will say first off is that it is the responsibility of the applicant. You're given all the instructions prior to when you are in receipt of the um of the signs, and you're told exactly how they are, and you're supposed to take pictures to provide them to the um the staff. So, really it is on you, and um we don't usually waive those deferral fees because it is a responsibility of the applicant. Having said that, I'm going to taper that to the side, and let's finish the application first, and then we'll we'll see where we go with that. Um the And additionally, I was not here last meeting. So, I will I will not be the one to be able to speak on that as well. Um So, the matter at hand. Are there any questions or items of concern for uh Mr. Khosravi from the committee members? Okay, I see none, and we recognize that you do have the seven letters of support. We have the the names on hand. Um Has anyone called with interest for this application, Madam Secretary Treasurer? >> No, Madam Chair, there have been no calls and no one has their hand up. >> Okay. Um in that case, let's take a motion. Okay, go ahead, Mr. Hardcastle. >> Uh thank you, Madam Chair. Um having undertaken my site visit, having reviewed the materials, including the written staff report and having heard the presentation of the applicant, um I'm satisfied that the requested uh variance is uh is minor in nature and is in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the official plan and zoning bylaw. Accordingly, I will put forward a motion of approval. That motion would be subject to two conditions, those being that the addition be constructed in general accordance with the site plan dated June 15th, 2026 and the elevation drawings dated April 20th, 2026 and that the approval will expire within 2 years of the date of the decision if a permit has not been issued. I would note again that there were I think it was seven letters of support um provided. Yeah, seven letters of support submitted in um support of the application. >> Okay, thank you, Mr. Hardcastle. Is there a discussion on this recommendation? I see none. All those in support. Okay. Application has been approved. None opposed. Okay. Um with respect to the uh waving of the deferral uh fees, um Mr. Telawsky, you were chair, correct? Last uh last meeting. I was not here for the discussion, so I will relinquish the chair and if you'd like to have this discussion, by all means. >> Certainly, Madam Chair. Um Yes, so I I chaired and advised that the um application had to be deferred because the signage was improperly placed. Um I witnessed that myself. Uh I personally can't support uh waving the deferral fee cuz um I I don't know where the committee draws the line. Uh the the instructions are clear. Um Don't quote me, but it basically requires the signs to be posted near the municipal right-of-way so that it can be read from public property. These signs couldn't be. Uh they were placed not in accordance with the rules. Um if we start waving deferral fees, frankly, I would have more sympathy for the earlier application that got deferred cuz that sign was posted properly and unfortunately a storm blew the fence down that the sign was posted on. So then I would have to say then let's um wave that its deferral fees, so um it's not something I can support having um moved and advised the applicant and chairing that meeting that the sign was improperly placed and I I don't know how you can have different degrees of compliance. We either have compliance or we don't. >> Go ahead, Mr. Harcastle. >> Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I would I would just like to add um that uh this committee did render um did did pass a resolution or or or or and advance this without consideration of that matter and and this considering this at this current meeting would have the end effect of re-litigating re hearing a decision that was made by the committee already. So, I I I would suggest that that that not only should we not support it. I think we should discourage this this this kind of a resolution or or or action in the future where we're we're in essence hearing the same matter again at a that was that that was dealt with at a previous hearing. >> Okay. Thank you. I I was not here so I was not privy to the discussion. So, I I do recognize that. I just wanted Mr. Khosravi to hear it from from you cuz we typically don't take requests for waving fees after the fact. So, if I wasn't sure if that discussion had happened or not and thank you for clarifying that, Mr. Hardcastle. Okay, Mr. Khosravi, you have it. You've heard the comments. We're going to move on to the next item now, okay? Thank you. And actually, you might as well stay put cuz I think you are next because we did defer the following application as 1321 Duncan. And I see that you are the agent for 293 Callahan, correct? >> That is correct. >> Okay. So, just give me a moment to read into record. This is application 097 of 2026 at 293 Callahan Crescent. And um this has five letters of support. Again, this is application 097 of 2026 at 293 Callahan Crescent. Okay, go ahead, Mr. Khosravi. >> Sure. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. What we're asking actually there is a there is a covered portion of the back of the property that we're removing and we're adding new sunroom addition to the to the back of the property. It's one story in height. It It does contribute about a few percent additional lot coverage to what we have. Addition as I said is small, it's minor in nature. The deviation and the setback towards the back of the property also is the second variant that we're asking for. Where the bylaw is asking for 7.5 m, what we have with this new proposal it would be 6.7 m. So, about maybe 30 in of um impediment impeding to the to the rear rear yard setback. Um it's There's not much really to uh to present here in this case. Very straightforward over as far as the thing being minor in nature. And if I have if you have any question if there's any Oh, by the way, sorry. We have received a number of the letter of supports from the neighborhood which as my client has canvassed the neighborhood. So, I think I believe five of letter of supports in the adjacent neighbors. So, I believe they have the support of the staff as well. The coordination between minor in nature as far as the area. Um thank you so much. >> Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions or items of clarification for Mr. Khosravi for this application. Okay, if I see none, thank you. Has anyone called with interest for this any for this application, Madam Secretary Treasurer? >> Madam Chair, there have been no calls and no one has their hand up. >> Okay, thank you. Then we'll entertain a motion. Okay, go ahead, Mr. Telawsky. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll move that this application be approved as applied for, finding that it meets the tests of the Planning Act. I don't see any impacts from this variance. I would note that that opinion would be shared by the neighborhood as we have five letters of support. And I would make that approval conditional on the sunroom addition being constructed in general accordance with the site plan and elevation dated May 14th, 2026, and that the approval expires within 2 years of the decision if a building permit is not been issued. >> Okay, thank you, Mr. Telawsky. Is there a discussion on this recommendation? I see none. All those in support. Okay, none opposed. Sorry, your application has been approved, none opposed. Thank you. Have a good evening. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. >> Okay, we have minutes for July the 22nd to confirm. Miss Price, thank you. And motion to adjourn. Mr. Hardcastle, thank you. We are adjourned at 7:39.