Good evening everyone. Tonight's committee of adjustment hearing is being held by video conference and live streaming video on the town's live stream web page at oakall.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, 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 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 page on oakville.ca and you wish to speak to an item on the agenda, please call 905-8156095. Again, the number is 91958156095. The phone number is also posted below the live stream page at oakville.ca. Staff will be standing by to take your call. And when you do call in, staff will ask for your name, item number that you wish to address, and your telephone number. And then 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. The applicant or agent will be given the opportunity to briefly explain to the committee the basis of their application, answer any questions that may arise. A maximum of five minutes will be provided for each presentation. You'll need to state your full name and address for the record and any submissions beyond five minutes will be at the discretion of the committee. All delegations must also state their full name and address for the record and any and a maximum of five minutes will be provided for each presentation. All remarks and questions are to be directed to the chair. Any submissions beyond the five 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 the committee members may have. And if the applicant or agent has any concerns particularly found in staff report to do with conditions, this will be the opportunity to advise us. The matter will then be taken into committee for a decision and it will mark the end of all discussion. Any person desiring a notice of the decision for an application must provide a written request preferably through email for 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 consent to the applicant agent and any other person who 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. In October 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. The secretary treasurer will then notify the applicant and anyone who 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 electronic hearing is being video recorded and available for future viewing at oakville. Thank you. We have one regret for this evening and that's Mr. Towski. Um there's one securing interest at the end of the session. We have uh three deferrals that uh have uh already been processed and this is just to announce them to the public so that if anyone is attend in attendance with interest for these application uh please note that you will be notified when these applications are put back on the agenda and the deferred applications are application 101 of 2026 at 253 Margaret Drive. Application 104 of 2026 at 2032 Rebecca Street and application 105 of 2026 at 604 Maplehurst Avenue. Please note, you will be notified about these applications being put back on the agenda once they have submitted. Okay, we have no consent applications and the first application on our agenda is application 99 of 2026 at 210 Balsam Drive. Again, that's application 099 of 2026 at 2110 Balsam Drive. I have Lucas Coamello as the agent. One minute, Madam Chair. We're having some technical difficulties. >> We're No problem. Good evening uh madam chair and committee members. >> Good evening. >> May I start? >> Yes. Go ahead. >> Thank you. My name is uh Lucas Cooko uh from Sherope. I am uh address is 340 Church Street Trade Oakville. We are representing the owners of the uh subject application on 210 Balsson Drive. Uh we are here proposing a new twotory dwelling. Um we're asking for four variances, two sideear setbacks, one coverage uh one coverage variance and a floor area ratio um a variance. uh based on uh based on what we have provided uh the initial design concept was initially drafted based on the 2014 uh zoning bylaw but as you're aware the the 2026 amended bylaw was recently passed in June. So based on how the variances are read they're read in more of a restrictive uh manner. Uh so the variances are reviewed on under the 2024 under the 2014 bylaw but uh the variances are posed under the 2026 by as shown. Now uh based on what we have put together uh for the new twotory dwelling uh we had we had reviewed uh essentially the immediate context within the neighborhood and uh in terms of if we're looking at just sire setbacks uh they they run similarly in line with for one the existing house uh the existing dwelling that's currently on the lot and uh the adjacent homes within the area as well. Um there the bylaw notes they were allowed 4.2 2 m, but we're asking for 1.52 and I think the other uh variance is 2.42. Um, again, they run in line with the previous approvals and within the the immediate uh context of of the area. Uh, when it comes to the the law coverage, again, we're numerically based on what's shown, it looks like it's a lot higher uh based on the 2014 bylaw, but it runs better. uh it's reviewed uh in a manner where under the 2026 bylaw the variance isn't as much. They're only asking for about 3 point three 3% in change, right? Uh and the same thing applies with floor area ratio as well. Um based on uh this information, we feel that the application is minor in nature and uh if you guys have any comments or concerns, please let me know and I'll do my best to answer them. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh any questions of Mr. Cooko at this time? >> Go ahead, Mr. Dicki. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um you may have mentioned this, but I I might have missed it. Um what is the sideyard setbacks required by the new zoning by bylaw? >> New zoning bylaw permits 4.2 m. So that part stayed the same between the 2020 between the 2014 bylaw and the 2026 bylaw. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else? >> Okay, we do have uh one letter of opposition on hand from a Mr. and Mrs. Smith. May >> sorry, may I address it? >> You you may I'm going to invite them to speak. So if you'd like to address it beforehand, go ahead. >> Yeah, absolutely. So I read over the letter. Uh they brought up uh some points that they read their reasonable points. Uh they essentially they don't want additional drainage to get uh it'll need a lot of drainage to impose onto onto their property. You know, that's that's uh I agree with that on their end. Um, in terms of the the permit process, um, we're required to, uh, submit a site alteration permit that addresses, uh, lock creating concerns when it comes to drainage. And since a good chunk of Oakville has uh kind of undersized uh uh like sewers and and all that, uh we're going to likely be required to install infiltration galleries to retain a lot of the water within the immediate property uh and not have, you know, drainage issues that will go in or into the neighbors properties. Again, we're not allowed to do that, but we fully intend on making sure all the water stays within either the subject property or drains uh correctly towards the city uh towards city side. >> Okay. Thank you for your clarification. >> Thank you. >> Um is there anyone in the audience who has raised their hand to speak to this matter? Madam Secretary Treasurer, >> we've had no calls and we have no hands showing. Okay. Very well. If there's no further questions of Mr. Coamela and there's no one waiting to address the committee, we'll take the matter into committee who would like to start the discussion. Thank you, Mr. Hardcastle. Go ahead. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Having undertaken my site visit and having reviewed the materials including the written staff report um and having heard the presentation uh which addressed uh the the the comments raised by in the letter to the committee I am satisfied that uh the requested variance is conformed to the test of the act uh and I will put forward a motion of approval accordingly. That motion of approval will be subject to two conditions. Those being that uh the dwelling be constructed in general courts with the submitted site plan and elevation drawings dated July 2026 and that the approval will expire within two years of the the date of the decision if a building permit has not been issued for the proposed construction. >> Very well. Is there discussion on this uh recommendation? I see none. All those in support. Okay. The application has been approved. None opposed. >> Mhm. Thank you. Have a good evening. >> Good you, too. >> Okay. Application 100 of 2026 at 335 Maple Avenue. Again, that's application 100 of 2026 at 335 Maple Avenue. I have a letter of objection from Mr. Jeffrey Chow. And the agent is Mr. Joris Kieran. >> Good evening. >> Go ahead, Mr. Karen. Good evening. >> And members of the committee. My name is Joris Kieran. I'm the agent for this application. Um I will start with a brief presentation and I'll also address the letter that uh the neighbor submitted. Um slide one which you're seeing now uh shows the variances. This was prep prepared before we received the letter from the neighbor. So I'm just going to speak to it. It's not really included in this slide, but uh variance one is where the reduced sideyard setback is. Um which is immediately next to and abuing uh the neighbor's property. Um the lot coverage is uh variance number two and that's just shown in the site statistic table. Um couple of points I just want to raise uh to address the concerns the neighbor has. One is you know the the setback is reduced but I want to make sure that everybody understands that it's only for the portion of the dwelling where the garage is um which is less than half of it. If you go further back on that same wall we are we are complying. So it's only where the garage is. We are going to be at 1.25 25 meters. Coincidentally, that is what their current house is also set back at. So, it's very similar. Um, the other point they raised was um I'm not sure where their living room is, but they they mentioned their living room and that it would be too close to their living room. I think the living room is on the corner closest to the proposed dwelling. From what I can see on the photos that we have of that house, it's a forward- facing window, so it faces the street. Uh our house is actually set back about 2 feet from their house. So further back. So they won't see um the dwelling um at all uh from that window as far as I can tell. Um and then uh yeah, I guess we can go to slide two now. So the the box on the first floor plan is just roughly identifying the area where the increase is occurring. We're basically taking the garage and widening it widening it a little bit to make a twocar garage. It's still not a very big twocar garage, but it's it qualifies just as a twocar garage. So, we're we're not certainly not introducing a large two-car garage here, but just sort of the bare minimum and then also a mudroom. So, that's more or less what makes up the added uh the overage on the on the lot coverage. And it also is what's pushing the house a little bit further to the left, which is reducing that sideyard setback a little bit. Um and uh lastly what I'll say is uh as as the committee members are probably aware planning staff have have reviewed this and are uh and state that it is minor in nature uh in keeping and in general intent and purpose of the official plan and zoning bylaw and is desirable and appropriate development of the land. So that's that's the uh the opinion of of staff on this uh on this application. I'm happy to answer any questions if there are any. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Karen. Any questions of Mr. Kieran at this time regarding the application? >> Okay. Has anyone raised their hand with respect to speaking to this application? Madam Secretary, Treasurer? >> Yes, we do have a call that's come through. We're just waiting for them to join the meeting. >> Okay. Thank you. Madame Chair, would you mind repeating the number to call in, please? >> Sure. It's 9058156095. Again, 9058156095. Did we lose him? >> Thank you. Or >> Yeah. Um, it it hasn't rung back to us yet. >> Okay. I believe she's here now. It's Kim Granfield. >> Okay. >> Can you hear me? >> Yes. Go ahead. >> Awesome. Um I just would like to understand what uh tree protection is going in place. My property is to the north and west of the um development that's going to be going in. Um we have extremely large mature trees that are close to the fence uh both my property which is 330 and the property to the east of me as well. And [clears throat] um I have seen trees been protected and then during the process of dem demolishing the house and rebuilding they are damaged and or um taken down. And I just would like to understand how what there is going to be protected and what if any replacement is being done for those that are coming down. >> Okay. Thank you for your question. We'll uh have Mr. Kieran answer that. Anything else before I turn it over to him? >> No. Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Kieran. >> Yeah. Okay. Sure. I'm I'm just looking at the uh the topographical survey now. Um so there are um several mature trees on this property. There the two main ones I would say are right in the front. So they're town trees and they're both being preserved. Obviously we have no choice. But the house has been designed and the driveway has been designed around those trees. um then there there will be one tree removed uh on their on their property. It's fully on their property. It's a smaller tree, but it's located uh near the front of the proposed house. Uh and then there are two mature trees in the rear yard which will also be preserved. So in this in this case I don't see too many boundary trees which I think this caller was referring to which um would be along the you know the side lot lines that that that's not there's a hedge there but there's no mature trees. The mature trees are essentially occurring in the front yard and the backyard and those are uh the intention is for those to be preserved. Um and as uh the committee is aware, we will have to get a full site alilration permit uh along with a tree permit through forestry where all this will get um dealt with. So that's what we plan to do. >> And will the garage be coming down? >> Yes, it will be. That detached garage is coming down. Yes. >> And are there not boundary trees really close to that garage? There's one in behind that garage. Yeah. Yeah. But that that garage is a like it's a slab on grade construction. So the removal of that garage won't really disturb the roots. You don't have to dig down like uh really deep at all. >> Okay. So the two fronts will be preserved, one is coming down and all the others will be protected. >> That is the the intention right now. Yeah. Okay, thank you. Um, and like Mr. Kieran mentioned, this will all be dealt with through the site alteration and forestry department. Any other callers? Madam Secretary Treasurer, >> we haven't had any other calls and there's no hands up in the audience. >> Okay. Thank you very much. All right. We'll take the matter into committee. who would like to Thank you, Miss Price. Go ahead. >> Um, you're muted again. >> There we go. Taking into account my site visit, the report submitted by the agent staff and metro links as well as one letter of opposition which was addressed by the agent, I find the variances to be minor in nature and are in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the official plan and zoning bylaw and are desirable for the appropriate development of the land. The lower roof lines and main wall setbacks help to break up the massing and scale of the dwelling and maintain the character of the existing neighborhood. As mentioned by staff, the reduction in the minimum interior yard setback is required for the garage, but the rest of the dwelling complies. In conclusion, I am satisfied with the four tests of the 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 submitted site plan and elevation drawings delayed dated July 15, 2026 and that the approval expires 2 years from the date of the decision if a building permit has not been issued for the proposed construction. >> Okay. Thank you, Miss Price. Is there a discussion on this recommendation? >> I see none. All those in support. Okay, the application has been approved. None opposed. >> Thank you very much. >> Have a good evening. >> Have a good night. >> Application 102 of 2026 at 324 Spruce Street. Again, that's application 102 2026 at 324 Spruce Street. I have Isabella Yon as the agent and we do have a letter of opposition from Mr. Adam Schuler. >> Hello. >> Yes. Hi. >> Uh good evening madam chair and members of committee of adjustment. My name is Isabella Lagen. I'm a planner at Arcadus and our office address is 360 James Street North in the city of Hamilton. I am representing the owners of 324 Spruce Street. Next slide, please. Thank you. Our site is located in a lowdensity residential area. Uh currently on the site is a 1.5tory single detached dwelling. Uh the site is designated lowdensity residential and zoned residential low three with the minus0 overlay and is also subject to special provision number 10. Next slide, please. The owner would like to demolish the existing 1.5story dwelling and construct a newer two-story single detached dwelling. Um, next slide, please. Thank you. We identified the following variances related to the maximum lot coverage and residential core area. Uh, we also review the town initiated zoning bylaw and note that our requested maximums remain the same. Um, the requirements are actually closer to our requested maximum. Uh we believe that our variances need to for test. I understand that from the public comments there was a concern with the massing. Uh we feel that the development is consistent with the evolving neighborhood character. As you know, there have been additions, alterations, and newer two-story dwellings. Our development includes a pitched roof and covered front porch to break down the massing. Although we are increasing the massing, uh we maintain the general rhythm of the streetscape by complying to the minimum required front yard setback. We review the staff comments and do not have any concerns with them. Based on these reasons, we respectfully request committee to approve these applications and I am open to any questions that they may have. Thank you. >> Thank you. Are there any questions of Missagen? Okay, I see none. Has anyone called with interest for this application? Madam Secretary Treasure, >> we've had no calls and no hands up in the audience. >> Okay, thank you. >> In that case, we'll take the matter into committee. Who would like to move this. Go ahead, Mr. Dicki. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. >> Based upon my re review of the owner's applications, the site plans, the building elevations, my site visit together with the presentation by the owner's consultant and the stand planning staff's report. Uh I am satisfied that the variances are minor in nature and conform to the four tests under the planning act and I put forth a motion that the application as applied for be approved subject to the conditions that sorry um the conditions that the dwelling be constructed in general accordance with the submitted site plan and elevation drawings dated July 22nd, 2026 and that the approval expires two years from the date of the decision of the building per permit if uh the date of if the building permit has not been issued for the proposed construction. >> Okay, thank you Mr. Dicki. Any discussion on this recommendation? I see none. All those in support. Okay. The application has been approved. None opposed. >> Thank you. Have a good evening. >> You're welcome. Have a good evening. I have application 103 of 2026 at 11:05 Bronty Road. Again, that's application 103 of 2026 at 11:05 Bronty Road. I have Tristan Crawford as the agent. Hello. >> Hello. Good evening. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, members, committee just um for hearing our application today. My name is Tristan Crawford. Um my Diamond Schmidt Architects, our office are located 384 Adelaide Street West in Toronto. Um we can go to the next slide, please. We're applying for a single minor variance on a site located 11:05 Bronty Road at the intersection of Bronty Road and North Service Road West consisting of two continuous vacant parcels. Um, next slide please. The project itself is paramedic services headquarters for Halton Region Paramedic Services as well as hosting the regional emergency operations center. It's a large piece of civic infrastructure um on on a large site prominent location um servicing the southern southern Halton region and and facilitating the growth of the paramedic service. Next slide please. The variance in question uh is to do with the maximum flankage yard set back on a corner lot um wherein it's required for the first 33% of that m that the maximum set back be 10 m um and and the remainder may be up to seven a maximum of 17 m. Um we are proposing uh a 15.12 meter setback. um for the full extent of the flankage yard for a series of operational considerations uh as well as a benefit to the public room surrounding the site. Next slide please. There are this is a vehicle heavy facility. island. So there are uh several vehicle routes through and across the site and then critical operational redundancies to ensure that service continuity can be maintained for this piece of infrastructure. Uh for this reason we it's critical that um a continuous uh lane be provided uh running parallel to the north south segment of north service road west uh drawing right or in this case east. Um uh and so this allows for movement of vehicles uh through an exit uh station as well as a holding area um and safe protection of pedestrians as well as landscaping area to maintain the quality of the public realm in the site um and manage storm water. Next site next slide please. Um efforts were made to uh convey this to uh the neighborhood through residential properties as well as uh u facilities owned and operated by Appleton region um to to make the residents aware of this application. Next slide please. And then just a two section of a rendering to demonstrate the final intended condition for this. We'll stop there. Um, and would welcome any questions or comments from the committee. >> Very well. Uh, are there any questions, Mr. Crawford, at this time? >> Yeah, I see none. Is anyone called with interest for this application? Madam Secretary Treasurer, >> we've had no calls and no hands up. >> Very well. And we'll take the matter into committee. Go ahead, Miss Price. >> Taking into account my site visit, the reports submitted by the agent and staff, as well as there being no 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. I recommend the application be approved subject to the following conditions. building be constructed in accordance with the final approval site plan and elevation drawings SP530.019/01 to the satisfaction of the director of planning and development and that the approval expires 2 years from the date of the decision if the building permit has not been issued with the proposed construction. >> Thank you, Miss Price. Is there discussion on this recommendation? See none. All those in support. None opposed. Okay. And the application has been approved. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Thank um all right. So the next application I have declared a conflict for. I'll happily give the chair to Mr. Hart Castle and I'll wait. And thank you. Um I see that uh Chair Mccale has been removed from the meeting. So I will call the next item up which is CAVA106 of 2026. It's property located at uh sorry 3515 through 3545 Rebecca Street. Um do we have the applicant here? >> Uh yes, Mr. Chair. Alex Avenue from Bosefields. I'm uh I'm here. >> Would you be kind enough to provide your business address for the record, please? >> Uh yes. 3 Church Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5E1M2. >> Thank you. Uh, would you be kind enough to run us through a presentation of this matter? >> Um, yes. So, uh, good evening, Mr. Chair, committee members. As I said, my name is Alex Avenue. I'm a planner and a senior associate with Bowfields, an agent for the application. We submitted a planning rationale outlining how the application meets the four tests in the planning act. Uh we also work with planning and urban design staff prior to making the application. I understand in the staff report that there are no issues. We also have no objections to the proposed conditions. Uh I further understand that there are no neighbor opposition letters. Uh I also have Craig Bonham here from CMV Architects the project architect simply to answer any questions but I'll be taking care of the presentation. If we can go to the next slide please. So the site is located at the northeast corner of Rebecca and Burllo. It's also known as the Burllo marketplace. As you can see in the image to the left, it's developed with three commercial buildings uh barking and a fenced off grass area along that eastern boundary which you can also see uh on the image to the right that uh is known as the future development area. And I'll expand on this in a moment. The buildings on these site were approved through a sightsp specific official plan amendment and reszoning in 2011. Uh that bylaw that was approved in 2011 permits a development with a maximum of 7600 square meters for retail and service commercial uses including a minimum of 1,393 m for office uses and provisions that require office space be provided as the site is developed. Next slide please. And that brings us to the variance. So the purpose of this application, excuse me, is to change the timing mechanism in the bylaw regarding the provision of office space on the site. So the variance is to permit no more than 80% of the maximum floor area permitted for retail and service commercial uses which I said is 7600 m to be constructed prior to the construction of 929 m of floor area for office uses and currently um that 80% number is 5050% and what this variance is going to allow us to do is change that 50 to an 80 which will allow the construction of additional uh retail and service commercial uses on the site which we'll look at on the next slide please. So this is the site plan. Uh in my opinion the application meets the general intent of the official plan and zoning bylaw. Uh to prove this intent, uh town staff actually requested that the site plan show the feasibility of an office building on the site which can accommodate that 1,393 m of office um that I mentioned is a requirement through the site specific bylaw. That uh conceptual building is shown on the screen within the future development area on the eastern boundary of the site as that conceptual building G. And that building again we we have designed that conceptually to to display that it can accommodate that minimum of 1,393 m um of office. Uh with that being said, it is my opinion that the general intent of the official plan is for a development that provides uses to serve the surrounding area and the general public. And the proposal does this from a bylaw perspective. Uh the general intent of the um reszoning is to implement the OP by providing specific regulations. Uh the proposal complies with all of the components of the bylaw other than this one timing provision. Um again the intent of that provision is to phase in office uses as the site develops over time. Um, however, the owners have marketed portions of the buildings on the site to prospective office tenants since 2022 and have encountered significant challenges with securing tenants. Uh in particular, I know at the top left portion of the screen, uh the second level of unit A where you see that daycare, the the large A in the top left hand portion of the screen, um has been vacant since construction was completed in 2025. The owners have marketed this space to office tenants since 2023 and have not secured a tenant. Uh at the bottom left hand portion of the screen, uh is building D. And the reason why building D has not been constructed is because in order to meet the office phasing provision that we're proposing to vary today, that building would have to be entirely office use. The owners have marketed this space to potential office tenants since 2023 and have not secured a tenant. The owners have also marketed buildings E and F at the bottom right hand portion of the page to um office tenants since 2022 and have only secured one that is a dental office which occupies approximately 180 square meters of space. So what this means is that by increasing the percentage of floor area permitted for retail and service commercial uses to 80% donors can do three things. One is lease the second level of unit A which is currently vacant. Two, construct building D and occupy it by a financial institution which the owner is currently actively engaged with. And three, have the flexibility to provide retail and commercial uses in the other existing buildings subject to market demand. In closing, from from just a practical planning perspective, it's my opinion that the site better meets the intent of the official plan and zoning bylaw by having units and buildings that are occupied by tenants that serve the needs of the surrounding community rather than vacant storefronts and undeveloped portions of the site. Um, in closing, again, staff support this. There are no letters of objections from the neighbors. Uh, I have no issues with the proposed conditions and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. >> Thank you. Do I have any questions from our committee members at this point? I I have I perhaps you could provide some clarity for for myself and perhaps for for the record just in terms of um you have um provided us with a um um schedule uh that shows a conceptual future building that could accommodate the the uh 1,393 m. That was the number that you used of office space, right? Um, >> correct. >> If if I'm reading that drawing correctly, it's showing 804 square meters. >> Yeah, you're right. The the 804 square meters is just it's a twostory conceptual building. So 804 is just is just one. Yeah. Just just grounded. 804 times two is actually slightly more than the 1393. Yeah. Right. Um my question for for you with that being clarified is is uh this is this is about timing versus reduction of the amount of office space that's allowed. Um so these changes that are being proposed will not have the end effect by creating gross floor area on the site or by creating parking that it would have the end effect of eliminating or frustrating the ability of the office to occur. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any additional questions from the committee before I go out uh and see if there's any members of the public uh present with respect to this? Seeing none, uh madam ch uh sorry uh madam secretary treasure or is there uh anybody um with their hand up uh looking to speak to this matter? >> We have no hands up and we've received no calls. >> Thank you. Uh then with that being said, I will go to uh the committee for a motion or for discussion I should say or motion. >> I I saw Miss Price first. Thank you. Taking into account my site visit, the reports submitted by the agent and staff and there being no letters of no letters of objection, 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. I am satisfied the four tests of the planning act have been met and recommend the application be approved subject to the following conditions. The building D be constructed in accordance with the final approved site plan and elevation drawings. Note note to file application SP1635.025/01 025/01 to the satisfaction of the director of planning and development and that the approved approval expires two years from the date of the the decision if the building permit has not been issued for the proposed construction. >> Thank you. And um all those in support of the motion >> um that was a unanimous decision. Your application has been approved. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Madam Chair, it's back with you at this point for closing. >> Okay. [laughter] Okay. Thank you. Uh All right. So, confirmation of minutes for August the 5th. Thank you, Miss Price. And motion for adjournment. Thank you, Mr. Horcastle. And we