Okay, thank you. >> Good evening. 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 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's 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 a deferral is made and the committee grants such a request, the applicant or authorized agent must contact the secretary treasurer to schedule a new hearing date. In order to conduct an effective and 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 your screen below the liveream at oakville.ca. Staff will be standing by to take your call. When you call in, staff will ask your name and 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 polls for interested parties, press star six to unmute yourself. The applicant or agent will be 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 each presentation. We'll be asked to state their 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 5 minutes will be provided to make presentation. All remarks and questions are to be directed to the chair and any submissions beyond the five minutes again will be at the discretion of the committee. The applicant or agent will then be provided a further 5 minutes to respond to comments made by interested parties and answer any questions from committee members. If the applicant or agent has concerns found particularly in staff report to do with conditions proposed, this will be the opportunity to advise us. The matter then will be taken into committee for a decision and this will mark the end of all discussions. Any person desiring a notice of the decision for an application must provide a written request preferably through email to the secretary treasurer. Written notice of the committee's decision will be mailed no later than 10 days for minor variance and 15 for consent to the applicant agent or 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 decision of the committee to the Ontario Land Tribunal. In November of 2022, Bill 23 legislation, the more homes built faster act, amended the planning act to remove all 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's electronic hearing is being video recorded and available for future viewing at opal.ca. Thank you. We have no regrets this evening. Have any declarations of peer interests? I see none. Madam Secretary Treasur, do we have any requests for deferral or withdrawal of applications? And if anyone is in the audience and seeks the deferral or withdrawal of an application, please raise your hand. >> Madam chair, I see no hands up at this time. >> Very well. Okay, we'll proceed with the first application on our agenda this evening. And that's application 88 of 2026, deferred from June the 24th at 262 Trobridge Place. Again, that's application 88 of 2026. Deferred from June the 24th at 262 Trobridge Place. I have Mr. Igor Lupac as the agent. >> Good. and I will >> Yes, good afternoon. Um, just give me a moment. Um, I I I just want to note that because of the new bylaw uh going into effect, there is a change to one of the variances that uh are before us. Um and I'm going to read uh variance number two which is to permit the maximum residential floor area ratio of 58.5% whereas a maximum residential floor area ratio um is now 55 uh permitted versus 43 previously. Go ahead Mr. Luc. >> Thank you very much madame chair and uh committee members. I really appreciate it. Uh this is Igor Lukatch from Kingswood Engineers. On behalf of the homeowners for 262 Trobridge Place, um we are requesting two minor variances. One for an interior sideyard setback. Uh whereas 1.8 m is required from the new bylaws. We're requesting 1.2 2 m and a gross uh floor area of 58.5 whereas the new bylaw is 55%. Um I can walk you guys through the presentation but essentially uh we're doing a side and rear edition on an existing single family dwelling home. And the last page I believe lets you kind of visualize the difference just so you know that it's not overly grotesque in size and stature. So the first two are the existing state and the lower is what we're proposing and I welcome any questions. >> Thank you Mr. Um, any questions, items of uh, concerns? Mr. Talowski, go ahead. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, Mr. Luki, the the zoning bylaw has obviously changed since you started this process, >> but uh, this is a very large addition. looks like it's larger than the existing house, but yet you don't seem to have even attempted to try to comply with the new zoning sideyard setback requirements. Can you explain why? >> Yeah, for sure. Um, so again, the plan was set with the old um zoning bylaws. So, all of the design work, the layout planning, space planning. Um, and we did take a lot of care. Um and then kind of right as we were uh heading towards minor variance uh this process happened and so the decision was made that I think it would be more appropriate to try with make adjustments rather than going back to all of the space planning and rework to incur all of those costs for the client. That was the main reason. >> Thank you madam chair. question for staff as well. >> Go ahead. >> Thank you. Um, Miss Mcnite, please help me with the staff analysis here. Um, the ink's not dry in the new bylaw and the very first application this committee hears with the new sideyard setback requirements, we're being asked to approve a 1.2 meter setback when 1.8's required for a 15 meter long twotory wall. Um the the only analysis I see in the staff report is really that it's consistent with this surrounding neighborhood. But is that an appropriate analysis anymore given that council just made a decision that they no longer want 1.2 meter sideyard setbacks? They want greater separation between the buildings. I'm struggling with how I can find that this application meets the intent of the zoning bylaw when council has just said we don't want this anymore. And in my view, it's exasperated by the fact that it's 15 m long, two stories, no relief in the design whatsoever. >> You madam chair. Um yes I understand the concern in staff's review of the application our uh we did give recognition to the existing neighborhood as you mentioned and I think the uh the review undertaken did determine that this is a minor um minor proposal. So although it is exceeding the uh new direction passed by council, it has been determined to be minor in the context of the existing neighborhood at the end of the day. >> I appreciate that. But wouldn't that go more to the test of whether it's desirable as opposed to whether it complies with the intent of the zoning bylaw? I I'm I haven't heard how this complies with the intent of the bylaw, which was clearly to increase the setback from 1.2 to 1.8. >> For you, Madam Chair, I um I do recognize that concern as well. I think the separation distance with the abuing property to that uh to that sideyard. Um there is some space on the other side of the property as well. I know that that's not speaking to the property directly of um 262 Trobridge, but the separation distance between the two properties was sign found to be significant enough that concern was not raised. And I would note that there weren't um any concerns raised by engineering or fire on that matter either. And so um typically if there were concerns raised by other departments to that degree outside of looking at the neighborhood character as a whole then uh we would have some hesitation but in this context we did not. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions? >> Okay. Has anyone called with 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. In that case, we'll take the matter into committee. Who would like to move a motion? Go ahead, Mr. Tasks. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think you know where this is going, but I'll make the motion to see if there's any discussion with my colleagues. Um, I I cannot accept the evidence put forth by planning staff or the applicant as how this application meets the intent of the new zoning bylaw. the uh applicant uh opted to proceed on the basis of where they started as opposed to make adjustments to an evolving zoning bylaw and different requirements. Uh the variance here is as I said earlier it's exasperated by the fact there's been zero attempt to set back part of the building the second floor it's a imposing wall um I cannot accept staff's um evidence that this complies with the zoning bylaw intent of the zoning by the intent is clear it's just changed. We want narrower buildings, more separation between them. I cannot find, madam chair, this application meets the intent of zoning bylaw and as such I have to recommend it be denied. >> Thank you Mr. To ask is there a discussion on this >> recommendation? Okay, I see none. All those in support. Okay, all those opposed. Okay, the application has been denied. Okay. Have a good evening. uh application 96 of 2026 deferred from August the 5th of 2026 at 1321 Duncan Road and I have Dominic Monardo as the agent and that's application 96 of 2026 at 1321 Duncan Road. I have a letter of opposition from Mr. Arthur Lang and the two variants that are before us do have both have amendments. The first being to permit a maximum residential floor area ratio of 45.31 whereas a maximum residential floor area ratio of 41 is permitted versus previously 37. and to permit a maximum lot coverage of 30.23% whereas a maximum lot coverage of 25% is permitted for a dwelling greater than 7 m in height. Okay, Mr. Monardo, are you with us? >> Yes, I am. Good evening. How are you? >> Go. Good evening. Go ahead. So we are here again with this uh same property. We did go through this uh in 2025. Um it was a different design. Um we tried to stay within the uh RFA that we asked for and the lock coverage that we asked for last year. The main difference for the lock coverage would be the walk out uh basement adding to that. But the main in structural with RFA and the rest of the lock coverage is very similar to what has passed in June of 2025. Um the new design is uh stepping back in quite a few areas. We have the whole main floor office stepping back uh almost halfway down the house. The second floor stepping back very low pitch roof. um tried to even further behind that front porch. We reassessed that back as well. Our side setbacks are all intact. We didn't uh uh go p beyond them. We're actually greater on the one side. Um we left the 2.4 on the right side obviously because they want to go back and forth down the garage. Our front setbacks are all within zoning requirements as well as the rear. Um, our building height is well below um, understanding that our new bylaw, I believe we're allowed to go 10 or 10.5 m and we're still at 9 m. So, we reduced we kept that down on purpose and we're also included the flat roofs on top of the garage on top of the offices. Lower that so that peak on there is not actually impacting the front view as well. We just left the peaks on the top which is a very low pitch. It's a 512. So, I do believe this is uh looking at the uh Oakville livable plan. And uh I hope you guys do as well. Okay. Are there any questions of Mr. Monardo after dealing with mother nature? We got that sign back up. We dealt with it again tonight. So I just drove by just in case it's still there. >> Yeah, it is coming down. >> Yeah, I was there. >> If there are no questions for Mr. Monardo, I'll see if there are any interest from the audience. Um, Madame Secretary, Treasure, has anyone raised their hand up for this application or requested to speak? >> Madam Chair, there are no hands up and no one has called in. Okay. Very well. Uh, who would like to move a motion? Go ahead, Miss Price. >> Taking into account my previous site visit, the drawings provided by the agent, staff's comments, and there being one letter of object of objection, I find the variance to be minor in nature. As stated by staff, the proposed application maintains and protects the character of existing neighborhood and does not present unacceptable adverse impacts. Based on the information provided, I find the application meets the poor test of the planning act and I therefore put forth a mo motion to approve the application subject to the following conditions. the dwelling be constructed in general accordance with the submitted site plan dated June 23, 2026 and elevation drawings dated May 28th, 2026 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. >> Very well. Thank you, Miss Price. Is there a discussion on this recommendation? I see none. All those in support. Okay. And the application has been approved. None opposed. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you very much, committee. Have a good night. >> Good night. application application 98 of 2026 deferred from August the 5th at 350 Airqua Road. Again, that's application 98 deferred from August the 5th at 350 Airqua Road. And Mr. Vilei as the agent. >> Uh good evening madam chair and members of the committee. Uh hopefully everyone can hear me here. Um so yes my name is Vasili Sanopoulos uh representing IGP Realy Advisors and I'm appearing on behalf of the client uh Suncorp Petro Canada. My address is 30 Herren Hill Way in North York Ontario. um here today in support of the two minor variances for 350 Quad Shore Road, the redevelopment of existing gas bar site um and to add the convenience store and uh A&W restaurant. Um I can kind of if we want to switch to the next slide. Um as shown on the site plan, the property sits at the southeast corner of Irqua Shore Road and Trafaloger Road. um an established low-rise commercial area with plazas to the north, the office building to the east, Oakfield Place to I guess technically would be in the south. Um it currently operates as a Petro Canada gas bar with convenience store and car wash. Um we aim to keep the the redevelopment of the property, keeps the same commercial function and then modernizing it as an existing use, not introducing a new one. Um I if you want to go to the next slide, I'll outline the variances that we are going through. Uh so variance number one, the first variance is under section 10.5 of the zoning bylaw which requires 35% of the main wall to main wall length to sit within the flankage yard. Uh we're requesting relief to 1.4% and I know the gap looks large on paper so I do want to address it directly. Um it's not mainly a design choice. It is a safety constraint. The TSSA liquid fuels handling code requires uh the self-s serve attendant to remain within 50 m of fuel dispensers. Um, and the building's current position maintains that distance. Moving it closer to the flankage line would break that requirement and relocating the canopy as well isn't feasible given conflicts with the fire route and site circulation. Um, despite the numeric variance, the building does sit close to Trafoger Road. Um, and it does still continue to address the public realm by way of the the bylaw intents. Um so the underlying planning objective is met where uh the specific number is not. Um want to go to the next slide. Second variance is under table 10.2. It's footnote 5 which caps restaurant and convenience uses at a combined 20% of the net floor area. For the record um I know on the presentation it does state the convenience store figure on this slide should read uh 56.6% not 58.6% 6% uh just a typo. Um so that gives the 43.4% to the A&W restaurant um and 56.6% to the convenience store equaling to the 100% combined. Um and yeah, if we want to go into the four tests, um I can happily do so. The rest of the slides are just more so for for visual information to give a little bit more context as to what this actually looks like. Um in turning to the four tests uh the variances are minor uh introducing no new land use, no impact beyond what's uh already anticipated for the site. Uh they are desirable supporting of the redevelopment of the existing commercial site um with a safe and functional layout. They maintain the intent of the zoning bylaw since both uses remain permitted and the relief response to the the sight specific operational constraints. They also maintain the intent of the official plan supporting business commercial designation and the site's ongoing commercial function. Um on that basis, we respectfully request the committee's approval of both variances. Thank you so much for your time and happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you Mr. >> Five minutes. >> No well done. Uh Miss Price, you have a question. >> Yes. I was just wondering were there any traffic studies done on this for this property? they were and we are going through the site plan application process and I believe that that has been since cleared and approved um as of today we are into our third submission on this file um I believe it should have been included in the package but if it wasn't I'm happy to provide it >> it's just that that's a very busy intersection >> so we have actually gone back so we we in actually in the beginning so this project started our initial site plan application began back in 20 early 2024 2024 where we did actually have more to the site. We've dialed it back uh significantly um and have worked with staff intensely to uh to make sure that we're meeting the requirements and and their their needs. >> Okay, thank you. >> Okay, any other questions? I see none. Has anyone called with interest for this application? Madam Secretary Treasurer, >> Madam Chair, there have been no calls and no one has their hand up. >> Very well. And we'll take the matter into committee. Who would like to move a motion? Go ahead, Mr. Dicki. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Based upon my review of the owner's application, the site plan, building elevations, my site visit, the presentation by the owner's consultant and the planning staff's report. I am satisfied that the variances are minor in nature and conform to the four tests under the planning act. And I put forth a motion that the application as applied for be approved subject to the conditions that the building be constructed in accordance with the final approved site plan and elevation drawings SP512 042/1 to the satisfaction of the director of planning and development 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 discussion on this recommendation? >> I see none. All those on support. Okay. Uh the application has been approved. None opposed. >> Thank you very much. Have a good evening. Wonderful evening. Okay. Application 108 of 2026 at 3113 Card Ross Court. Again, that's application 108 of 2026 at 3113 Card Ros. Um, I have the owner representing themselves as Miss Mr. Deanova. Good evening, Madame Chair and committee members. I'm the owner of 3113 Cardress Court. Uh, Andre De Geneva. Um, and I'm here before you today to apply for minor variance regarding um, flankage setbacks for a hot tub. Uh, as you can see by the, uh, site plan on screen, it's kind of an odd shaped lot, and I've been struggling with placement and not obstructing the rear egress and existing gas facilities while still making the accessory usable, um, close enough to the door, especially during winter. Um, and I'm requesting, um, a 1.5 meter relief from the 3 and a half meters required under the zoning bylaw 2014-014. um going over the uh town's report. Um fire has expressed a concern about the hedges um and accessibility along the side of the house. Um I intend to mitigate that in the short term by just trimming them back a bit. I should be able to get uh greater than one meter fairly easily. In the long term, as noted on the cover letter, there is a fence variance in flight um to redo the fencing that will be replacing the hedge and raw iron that currently exists and um it's well covered uh from the street um with the existing solution. Um the higher fence and opaque fence will enhance this um screening um further such that it won't impact the neighborhood um in any way. Um, ideally the neighborhood won't even know it's there. Um, and one other thing I wanted to mention from the staff report is, um, under the recommended conditions, the the typical, um, 2 years from when a building permit is issued. Um, I'm concerned that might be difficult here. Um, the deck requires a building permit since it's being attached to the house, but my understanding for the hot tub itself is no municipal issued building permit uh applies. The concrete slab is um the specs are too small to demand one. Um the uh pool uh enclosure bylaw is being satisfied by substantial cover, locking cover permanently attached to the tub. Um, so there will be no uh engineering uh permit there. Um, there will be an ESA permit for electrical hookup. I'm not sure if that will fulfill that requirement if um if uh that requirement is issued with the variance, but um uh that's pretty much it. Other than that, the uh staff comments are uh supportive of of granting the variance and um open to any questions you may have. >> Okay. Thank you. Any questions of Mr. Dejeneova? >> I see none. Has anyone called with interest for this application? Madam Secretary Treasurer, >> Madam Chair, there have been no calls and no one has their hand up. Okay. Very well. Um, who would like to move a motion? >> Go ahead, Mr. Hart Castle. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Although, um, before I put forward a motion, I I would like to seek some clarification uh from staff on a matter. >> Go ahead. >> I I I'm sorry I I failed to respond to your your your query earlier. Um, I just wanted to clarify that that in fact that the ESA the the the electrical permit would be satisfactory to address this building permit requirement as the homeowner highlighted. I just like to understand that from uh from staff >> uh to you madame chair to committee member. Um I'm not certain about the permits process to be honest and how that would be satisfied but I can um just quickly double check if you just give me a moment Um sorry through you madam chair again to committee member. Um the the electrical works would be addressed with the building permit phase. >> So that would be a satisfactory trigger to address that condition. Number two um leaving this with being a fulfillable condition then. Thank you very much Steph. Um uh on the on the basis of that uh madam chair I would be prepared to put forward a motion. Um that motion would be for approval of the application uh finding that the requested variances conform to the four tests of the act. The um the proposed hot tub and the reduction in the sideyard are are u minor and desirable desirable for the appropriate development of the land. Um the motion would be subject to two conditions. those being that the hot tub be constructed in general accordance with the submitted sketch. Uh submitted sketch reference plan 20R 16783 dated September 18th, 2025 and uh that the approval will expire within two years of the date of the decision if a permit has not been issued for the proposed construction. >> Thank you Mr. Hardcast. Was there discussion on this recommendation? See none. All those in support. Okay. The application has been approved. None opposed. >> Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members. >> Thank you. Have a good evening. >> Okay. Um, application 109 of 2026 at 448 third uh third line. Again, that's application 109 of 2026 at 448 third line. And again, there is an amendment to the to the bylaw amendments that have taken place. Um the variance uh number six, which reads to permit a maximum residential floor area ratio of 53.6% whereas a maximum residential floor area ratio of 49 is permitted. previously 41. >> I have Alex Overhalt as the agent. >> Good evening, Madam Chair and fellow panel members. Alexander Overhalt from Contempo Studio uh speaking on behalf of Miss Minor Barance application today. >> Go ahead, Mr. Overhold. >> Thank you. Um attached on our screen, we have a lovely short presentation that I will do my best to expedite through. I know I on the last of today's agenda. So we're aware um we are pursuing the five the six variances. You did note madam chair. Thank you for doing so. Um there are four more variances than we had initially um was pursuing. A little background on this application. If you do go to the next page, please um brief description. I'll skim through it. Oh sorry. This is our proposed massing. Um you can see here we've done a fair job working with the planning department to ensure that our massing is modulated set back in both height and on our mass in the left right and front especially in the rear as well where we have reduced our twotory volume to one and a half story volume and ensured differentiating roof lines as well to ensure that our proposed building height variance is not necessarily contained in the entirety of the structure. Now, if you pursue to the next slide, please. It's a brief description. I'm not going to read all of this. It's a lot of information, but so you're aware that we started our correspondence with the planning department back in the beginning of January where we're pursuing two variances under bylaw 2014-014. That was for a RFA variance and a rear sard setback variant. Now we work with planning for over five months to revise our design which you saw in the previous slide which resulted in all the different setbacks and modulation etc. Right? We're here today now because of the new bylaw has introduced four additional variances. The sideyard setback variances the lot coverage variance as well as the building height variance. Next slide please. Uh on the left here you see a image of our site plan. If you look carefully, there are lines in blue and lines in red. Lines in blue indicated the original setbacks that were imposed on this property. The red is the new massing regulations imposed the new bylaw. Right. As you mentioned, Madam Chair, we're proposing a uh northernly sidear setback of 1.70 meters and a southernly side step back of 1.22 meters. Now, if you go to the next slide, you'll see an enlarged image of our site. Excellent. Thank you. Now on the left you'll see a uh enlarged site plan with two areas highlighted in yellow. I've also circled them in red for you. These are the areas of our sideyard setback encroachments into the new bylaw bylaw regulations. The rest of our dwelling is actually complied with the sideyard setback requirement. Additionally in the front of the structure and the right of the structure very faint I do apologize but you see an orange line. That orange line actually uh is reference to our second story outline. So further to our first story, our second floor is actually uh pulled back inward in the front and the right as well. Further decreasing the impact our mass has to the street and the joining neighbors. Next slide please. Now this uh slide is dedicated to the explanation of our rear yard setback. So that yellow area highlighted in the diagram to the left is the portion of our mass that is encroaching into the rear yard setback. As you mentioned, Madam Chair, the required minimum yard setback is 7.50 meters. We're proposing 6.01. It's important to note that our rear yard setbacks actually measured to the extent of the rear porch. It is one story volume and is covered with a flat roof. Now important to note that if we were to take our setback to actually the furthest extent of our main wall attached to our structure our setback measured to the dwelling is actually 9.62 m which is 2.12 m greater than the allowed 7.5. We worked with planning heavily in this in the beginning and after they understood how our setback to the main dwelling is actually much greater than the allowed they were happy of course with this level of encroachment. Next slide please. Here um we have a visual diagram of our front elevation. Right. Another wonderful description of how um you'll see in blue um the original extents of what we were pursued and regulated under are for bylaw 2014-014. The items in red are the increased uh restrictions which I do understand as to why they're imposed. Now we are pursuing a building height variance of 8.97 meters where 8.0 meters is allowed. We were under the impression when we first started this journey we would be regulated under 2014-014. It wasn't until we made our minor variance application in June when we found out that this new ZBA. Next slide please. Now with the changes in the zoning bylaw um the new bylaw my apologies not only are there changes to the restrictions but new definitions were imposed as well. And that includes of course introduction of three different types of roof structures. the flat roof, the semi flat roof and the slope roof. Now, our flat roof area encapsulates the entirety of our flat roof and the parapits as well, right? And that creates a flat roof area of 69.9% which regulates our roof as a flat roof. A semiflat roof which is allowed to have 9 meters in height is has a flat roof area between 35 and 65%. We're 4.9% greater than that, of course, right? So we are right at just at that threshold of being considered a semi flat roof which would negate the requirement of pursuing a building height variant. Next slide please. Again a refresher of our massing as well. You can see that there are different types of roof heights here as well. A combination of parapets and eaves heights as well which helps modulate our massing in a way that in some extent reduces our impact to the surrounding area. Next slide please. residential floor area. Now, this is the confusing one that uh us and the planning department were trying to wrap our heads around. Hence, Madame Chair's explanation in the beginning how our change is now 49% required. Right. We are pursuing a 53.60% RFA um where 49% is allowed. Um we were working with the planning department earlier um and as per the under the original bylaw we were actually 43.27% or 41% that's 2.27% increase. Now we worked with planning in the beginning um and they indicated that anything over 3% increase is typically a no no and we wanted to respect that as well right so we studied the surrounding area found a few other examples to see the next page that showcased RFA variances that approved back in the day that remained at 3% or slightly lower next slide please these are some examples in the various surrounding area increase higher than 3% lower than 3% as well now important to note that before we began our minor variance application. When we found out about the Zoning bylaw amendment, we actually re-engaged with planning again. We wanted to make sure, hey, we're introducing all these new variances. We want to get your approval um in writing, of course, and then you understand the new impacts associated with the bylaw, which of course actually triggers some changes to our softscape, but that's neither here nor there. Next slide, please. Our max lot coverage, we are requesting 35% or 30% is allowed. Of course, under the merits of the initial bylaw, 35% was the uh maximum allowed. I want to make it very clear that um our coverage calculation for the dwelling itself is actually measured at 29.97% of the lot coverage. The remaining uh percentage that accounts to the variance actually is constituted towards a front and rear porches. Furthermore, um even with our lot coverage variance um being presented here today, we are not pursuing any landscaping variants associated with our project. Um and that's it. I welcome any questions. Of course, I did speak very fast. Um so I just want to make sure if anyone has any questions. I'm here to answer them. >> Hey, Mr. Overhalt, I'm going to put you on the hot seat today. >> Sure. with with everything that you you've said today, it just seems that you just plowed right ahead with your plans versus re checking and reassessing what the impact of the new bylaws are to your building project. I'm in I find myself in the same position as Mr. Towski with our for with our first application. I don't see how this in any way, shape or form aligns with the intent of the bylaw. And you spoke about breaking down the massing of your the home. I can see that on the side and the back elevations, but I'm looking at a straight wall in front in the first in the in the front facade. >> Right. I I I see where you're coming from, Madam Chair. And I just want to make it very clear that before we actually pursued with our minor variance when we were found out with the ZBA we re-engage planning discussed our variances associated with it. Um so we wanted to understand severity of it before actually coming to today's application today's hearing right and they did speak to the merits of our of our of our variances and did assess that it was minor in nature. Now um I want to make it clear that regarding our front facade from a 2D perspective yes it is an imposing wall but that second floor is stepped back more than six feet from the front first floor right so our impact of the massing is reduced from a streetscape perspective right there the merits the presentation I did present even though it did touch on how we initially uh pursued our variances under the merits of the old bylaw the visuals we presented today specifically with the sideyard setbacks rear yard setbacks and the building height Phil touched upon the the notions and the regulations of the new body, right? A portion of our building only encroaches into the sidear setbacks on the north and south, but the majority of our structure still complies with most of the sidear setbacks. Our dwelling, the main wall of our dwelling is located greater than 7.5s in the rear. Our building height, yes, is numerically 0.97 meters greater than what's allowed in the new bylaw. But if our flat roof was 4.9% less than the calculation shows, we would have a building height that's allowed to be 9 m here. Additionally, I I do understand that, you know, with a new bylaw, there is a need to make thinner, smaller houses, and with our sideyard setbacks, we we definitely tried to encourage that. We most certainly did. And um furthermore, I know we are pursuing that 35% lock coverage. And typically when you see lot coverage variances, you see grotesque enlargements of width, front yard setback variances, reard setback variances. Again, even though on paper we have sideyard and wristard effect variances, they are minor in nature and we're not incurring any landscaping variances here. >> Yeah. But there's a huge cumulative effect and I'm going to ask town staff to to comment on this because when you look at it all of it together, it's not just a oneoff. there is a cumulative effect of several variants that's put together that gives a huge impact. >> Yes, to you madam chair. Um so yeah so when the applicant first met with staff in January of this year um obviously as Mr. Over Holt had mentioned um there were only two variances that were being sought at that time which included floor area ratio and the rear yard setback variance. Um when the bylaw was approved by council um amending provisions within 2014-014 on uh June 15th of this year um there were the four additional variances that were required to implement the proposal. Um from an urban design perspective and from a development engineering perspective and from a planning perspective um the design of the dwelling in our opinion was was still uh mitigated sufficiently in order to um limit adverse undue impacts upon budding properties um and the streetscape as a whole. Uh numerically the variances are increased and there are um a some additional ones being sought. Um but the intent and purpose of the bylaw provision for sideyard setbacks is to ensure that there's adequately um an adequate space to provide for a graded swale and to provide from uh appropriate setback distances from adjacent dwellings which this um proposal has met and there were no concerns from our development engineering team when they completed their review. Um, one of the other new provisions that were included as part of this bylaw update were uh total soft landscaping on the property and then a separate variance for uh or provision, pardon me, for front yard soft landscaping in particular um as well as soft landscaping in sideyards. So there's uh three new provisions in total for soft landscaping requirements which have all been met. Um which is an important thing that's also been added as part of this review to ensure that there's adequate storm storm water runoff capture and uh areas for landscaping and for uh tree uh growth and placement. Um and then the other uh height variance being sought. Um so the intent again for the 8 mters, 9 meters and 10 meters is uh for differing roof peaks to have differing um heights uh and maximum height permissions. So um again based on the design of the dwelling from um the public right ofway and from adjacent properties um staff in staff's opinion it looks like a typical manser roof type of style um that a lot of dwellings that are recently constructed in the area um you know west of third line and uh east of third line south of bridge road um have very similar roof structures and heights as well. Um so that was um staff's analysis in terms of the overall height. Uh again for lot coverage um staff note that there um was a reduction in the two-story open to below area stepbacks included on the second floor of the dwelling and the overall footprint of the building has been articulated so as to pro provide for um interest along the uh side walls for example and some of the front walls as well just to again break up some of that massing. So in staff's opinion, there was no concern with the lot coverage variance. Um and then for floor area ratio and rear and setback again uh were variances that were previously sought when staff had met with Mr. Overhalt in January. So um in staff's opinion through um planning and development, urban design and development engineering um there were no concerns and in our opinions um the variances as presented are minor in nature um desirable for the appropriate development of land in keeping with the official plan and in keeping with the zoning bylaw um that was approved in June 25 or June 15th of 2026. And although recently approved by council um through our discussions with Mr. overhold and the work done and the um design of the dwelling to help mitigate some of the impacts and no concerns from again engineering fire or any other sort of um department that worries about um flooding or life and health and safety issues. Um there were no concerns from that. So staff understand that although numerically I in cumulatively it looks like there's a huge impact on the law, there are other dwellings in the neighborhood that are um built at the same scale, some at a larger scale. Um and it was staff's opinion that with that said, there was still u merit behind the proposal and warrants approval. >> Okay. Thank you both. Um anyone else have any questions? Go ahead, Mr. Powski. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I I do share your concerns with pumative impacts, but in particular the sideyard and height. Um, a question for Mr. O'Hare. Um, I I'm struggling with this staff report. Um, just like the first one with the comments you just made in response to the chair, the analysis that stated is it's consistent with recent builds in the neighborhood. Well, of course it will be because recent builds in the neighborhood were allowed to have 1.2 meter sideyard setbacks and 9 meter dwelling heights. council said enough. We want wider sidey yards, lower buildings, less coverage. And yet the analysis is well, it's consistent with what was built under a different bylaw which the town made a conscious decision to change. So uh similar um my question to Miss Mcnite, how please explain to me how you believe that the variance in particular in this case height because I do acknowledge it's not as significant as the previous one on the sideyard. Although it is concerning that where they chose to try to reduce the sideyard is putting the dwelling right up against the neighbor's backyard, not joining the houses side by side. But Mr. O'Hare, please explain to me how you believe that when the ink is not dry on the bylaw, and I know the applicants said, "Well, if we did this, we would only we could do this." But that's not what they did. How how can I find that this application meets the intent of the new zoning bylaw when it meets the intent of the former zoning bylaw that council chose to change? >> Yeah. Through you, Madam Chair, to member Tellesky's question. Um, one of the other things that we look at obviously, you know, as part of our analysis is, um, you know, existing neighborhood character and, um, you know, although the again council did just recently approve the bylaw in in June of this year, um, the existing character of the neighborhood and existing dwellings, you know, do form part of that character and we do compare what's being proposed to uh, again that existing character and um, you know, the the intent of the minor variance process although Um the 2026-088 bylaw is, you know, 2 1/2 months old. Um still allows for variances to be made even to the new uh provisions so long as there are no issues with grading, drainage, setbacks, privacy, overlook, shadowing, all of the usual mechanisms through which staff review the proposals. And so um staff are aware and cognizant that there was a lot of time and effort and um you know organization through by staff to prepare the new bylaw um that was appro again approved uh two and a bit months ago. Um but with that said, um you know, obviously, uh a member of the public has the right to come in and open themselves up to this public process to to go through the minor variance process. Um and you know, provide a a dwelling that best meets the intent again of uh the four tests under under the planning act. And um although again recently approved by council, there still presents an opportunity to um you know, come forward with a variance application. And we rely on uh our other departments and as well as our you know ourselves within planning to um review those four tests and to see if it does meet the intent of all four provisions under section 451 to put forward to yourselves. And um in this case with the again the design of the dwelling um the appropriate um distances for the side door setbacks that uh can be appropriately graded and accommodate swailes. Um again with the the height as proposed with the design of the dwelling and the mitigation efforts that Mr. Overhold undertook um from first meeting with us in January um staff are still of the opinion that um again although the the bylaw is still fairly new um in this case it does make sense and it represents good planning um to move forward with the application as is because all of the major concerns have been addressed from an engineering urban design and planning standpoint. Thank you. Madam chair, you're muted. >> I just realized that when I didn't get an answer to my question. I apologize. Um, anyone else have any comments or items of clarification? Okay, I see none. Has anyone called with interest for this application? Madam Secretary, Treasurer, >> Madam Chair, there have been no calls and no one has their hand up. >> Very well. Then we'll take the matter into committee. Who would like to move a motion? Go ahead, Mr. Tasks. Madam Chair, Madam Chair, I'm going to be consistent. I don't believe the cumulative impacts um are minor, but I also do not believe that the sideyard setback and height variances meet the intent of the new zoning bylaw. If we're going to judge houses going forward based on what was built under the old bylaw, I'm not sure why the town changed the zoning bylaw. >> And uh again, similar to the original one, the the applicant had an opportunity to try to make some changes to mitigate the impact of the variances under the new bylaw and chose not to. And uh as I said earlier, the applicant's absolutely right. If they had a different design, they'd have different standards. But that's not what the applicant brought in front of this committee. Madam Chair, I cannot find that this meets the four tests of the planning act. I do not believe it intent is going by law nor the cumitive impacts desirable. >> Thank you, Mr. Task. Is there discussion on this recommendation? Mr. toart Tessle. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I won't take up too much of the committee's time here. Um um I I I will simply echo the the comments of uh member Towski here. Um this the cumulative impacts of this application and the lack of regard for the new zoning bylaw are significant in my decision-making and I'll follow the recommendation on the floor. >> Thank you, Mr. Harass. Anyone else? Okay. The uh recommendation is to deny this application. Uh all those in support. Okay. The application has been denied. None opposed. >> Thank you. >> Have a good night. Okay, we have minutes uh to confirm for August the 19th. Thank you, Miss Price. And a motion to adjourn. We are adjourned. Thank you, Mr. Hart Castle. at 8:00 on the dot.