All right, good morning everyone. Just hit uh 10:00 a.m. So, we'll get this uh meeting started. This meeting, the committee of adjustment is being called to hear applications under the planning act for minor variance and or consent. This is a statutory public meeting. Anyone having interest in any of these applications may make oral or written submission for the committee's consideration. The committee will render a verbal decision this date and the agent or applicant will receive a copy of the committee's decision in writing via email 10 days after the meeting. Meeting procedure. Please note each application will be addressed in the following manner. The planning coordinator will introduce the application and staff recommendation outlining the report which was posted on the city of commissioner website the pri the Friday prior to today's meeting. The chair will remind the committee of late written submissions circulated prior to the meeting that should be taken into consideration. The chair will confirm with the applicant/ agent if they reviewed the staff report and whether in support of the staff recommendation. The chair will invite parties in opposition to make an oral submission. Parties providing oral submission should endeavor to keep their comments succinct and avoid repeating comments already said by other parties. The committee members may ask questions of the parties in opposition if any and the chair will invite the agent/applicant to make comments if any uh in regards to the opposition. The agent/applicant can ask questions regarding the staff recommendation and the committee members may ask questions uh of the agent/applicant. The committee members may ask questions of city staff. Afterwards, the committee will pass a motion to either approve, reject, or defer the application. All right, minutes. Can I ask someone to move a recommendation to approve the minutes from our last meeting? Member Bob. Motion to approve, seconded by member Amanda. So that the regular minutes of the committee adjustment meeting held on June 16, 2026 as circl members be accepted. So member Bob made that motion to approve. Member Amanda seconded. All those in favor to approve the minutes. One, two, three, four. Uh that is uh carried. All in favor? Uh moving along. Uh disclosure of pecuniary interest and the general nature thereof. So any with any conflicts on this agenda? Member Amanda. Uh, I'd like to declare a conflict for matter 610 on the agenda. That's 47 and 51 Belleview Avenue. Conflicts related to my employment. >> Excellent. Thank you. And I have a conflict on agenda number 6.6. That's 9 Westgate Walk. I live in the neighborhood and also a member at that uh club Westmount. So I have a conflict there. So member Bobby will step in there uh during that agenda item. So those are the conflicts of uh interest on the agenda. Moving along, we go to our unfinished business. So uh 5.1, that's uh B2025-032 uh 7076 Rockway Drive. And uh you know prior to getting to that and just a reminder that we did have uh a long list of written submissions uh in opposition application we had 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 different uh letters that we all have received and all have read. Um if I can invite the agent/applicant to come forward to the microphone please. Uh my right uh your left uh over there. And while you're grabbing your seat, if I can kindly ask the planning coordinator to juice the application and staff recommendation, please. Thank you. >> Yes. Thank you, chair. This application was originally before you in in December 2025. It was um deferred to allow an opportunity uh for the region of Waterlue to investigate water capacity concerns in the subject area. It was deferred to the February 17th, 2026 meeting where those um water capacity concerns had not been resolved. Uh the motion was to defer to the August 18th meeting or sooner. Um since that February meeting, Kitchener has been working very closely with the region and stakeholders to find a path forward to address the water capacity issue. At the June 29th, 2026 uh Kitchener City Council approved amendments to the city's zoning bylaw and adopted the city's new water allocation policy which establishes a transparent framework for water allocation. Conse consequently, as a result of the new water allocation policy, staff are able to bring forward the deferred consent application for the committee's approval uh as per the recommendation of the report. And you will note there is a new condition that has been added to the recommended uh conditions and it is number one and it is uh satisfaction of the um water allocation policy. So providing confirmation that they have received their confirmation letter in accordance with the zoning bylaw and can move forward. They would have two years to satisfy this condition. So staff have reviewed the consent application in light of all the policies provincial, regional and city uh finds that they meet all of these. now with the new water allocation uh condition and is recommending approval. >> Uh thank you for that. If I can confirm uh the agent applicant if you introduce yourself please if you can confirm you've reviewed the staff report and whether you're in support of the staff recommendation. Thank you. Thank you chair. My name is Ryan Mounzy. I'm CEO and planner on file for the application. I'm with Urban Insights Incorporated and I presented to you previously the application about the water capacity constraint where we just missed the cutoff date and uh happy to provide an overview and some thoughts if uh you're willing to entertain those. Thank you very much. Uh is there anyone here in the gallery that'd like to make u an oral submission in opposition to this application? So seeing a few we have a microphone there to uh my left would be your right. And again just a reminder that just try to keep your comments succinct and not repeat anything that was already written. We have read it like for instance there was something regarding the fiber optic hub box uh in a letter uh that is um a condition in this application. So just looking to keep things succinct and moving along but we do want to hear you. So um the microphone is yours and just please introduce yourself uh before speaking. Thank you. >> Hi good morning. My name is Tracy Livingstone and I reside at 800 Rockway Drive. I just want to address the unfinished business from the staff report recommendations to be approved subject to the following conditions. Item number 11 that indicates that the fiber optic hub box be relocated to the satisfaction of the director of engineering services. I'm not sure if any of you have had fiber optics brought to your neighborhood yet, and I'm not sure you understand the magnitude of this task. This fiber optic hub box that was installed at 776 Rockway is a junction box that now serves the entire street. It was permanently placed within municipal right ofway on city property. All of our homes on the same side of the street of 776 Rockway now have active lines that are connected to our homes that run underground that are joined to the fiber optic hub box at 776 Rockway. This is a permanent junction point for all of our homes on the same side of the street. A primary infrastructure contractor called Leadcore were hired on behalf of Fiber Connect who came to Rockway Drive and performed all the utility locating and mapping underground. They did all the trenching and boring, deployed horizontal directional drilling machines and excavators to tunnel very large orange underground conduits under our lawns and driveways. All of our homes on Rockway Drive are now connected underground through these large orange conduits that are permanently placed at 776 Rockway. You don't have to be an engineer to realize that you can't just dig this up and move it. This box can't be moved without major consequences to all of our homes that are now connected to fiber optics running underneath our lawns and driveways. I would like to mention that all of us received a letter in our mailboxes several months ago notifying us of the magnitude of work that was going to be completed on our street. If the new owner of 776 Rockway would check his mailbox on a regular basis instead of letting his mailbox overflow, he would have gotten this letter and perhaps avoided all of this. This hub box now measures a total of 7.2 square ft. Worstcase scenario for this neighborhood that this fiber optic hub box does get moved and is relocated, which would cause a major disruption to all of our homes. Please ensure that the total green space for this property is re-evaluated and meets all the guidelines as this fiber optic hub box is now taking up a total of 7.2 square ft which is not reflected in the drawings. In closing, I would like to request that the owner of 776 Rockway take better care of this home while it sits empty. Notices all over the door, mailboxes overflowing, newspapers and flyers everywhere, vines growing up the front door. all wonderful features that are attracting a homeless population. I'm asking the committee for the third time to please deny this application. >> Thank you, Tracy. We have someone else here looking to speak on this uh agenda item. Thank you. If you just introduce yourself first, please. Thank you. >> Yes, my name is Elaine Couch and I live at 786 Rockway Drive. I have a question for the for the developer. In the past, we've discussed the garbage situation potential multiple times. It's in all the letters. Everybody knows about it. My question is, if the tenants are going to be sharing the garbage bins, which one of them will be responsible for taking the bins to the curb, and what happens if, or more likely, when that doesn't happen? Are you going to be showing every two up every two weeks to take the garbage to the landfill? For the members of the committee, imagine yourself in this scenario. You share a tandem parking spot with a neighbor who is parked behind you who does not respond when you need to get out. How long do you think this arrangement would work amicably? And as I drive around the city, I see a lot of high-rise apartment buildings going up, and they're all one or two-bedroom units. Not everyone who will need housing in the future is single or a couple. Some of them will actually be be families who will need a three or fourbedroom home. What is being done to provide housing for this demographic? 776 Rockway and other lots like it would be a great location for one semi- detached structure with three or four bedrooms on each side. This type of housing would fit in our neighborhood much better than the monstrosity proposed. As mentioned, you have received multiple submissions opposed to this application. I ask that you consider our objections and think how you would feel if this was your neighborhood. This de development would permanently degrade our little community as outlined in the letters sent in. This must not be approved as oppo as proposed. >> Uh thank you Elaine. Uh members of the committee, do you have any questions for those in opposition here? >> Yeah, thank you for those that spoke and for those that submitted letters. There was a big package of them here and they were all read. So, thank you so much. Um, does the applicant like to respond to those members at or those people are in opposition? Excuse me. >> Thank you, Chair Santos. Uh, happy to respond to questions and will I have time to talk about the application itself afterwards? >> Sure thing. Great. Thank you. Um, intensification is hard and what I would start at the very beginning is to say the city of Kitchener has taken a very progressive and strong role to provide housing for all options. This type of missing middle housing provides a very niche type of housing that is in demand. This is not a high-rise development. This is not a single detached home. It is an infilled development which is planned and complies with the zoning bylaw just like the other surrounding properties that can change over time. The neighbors raise very important questions that are all under review. And what I would suggest is is that the garbage issue first complies with the regional garbage pick pickup collection policy. We are working on a plan to make sure that there's an orderly system for the tenants to bring out the garbage in a structured way. I have a call in with the region to see if they can look at the location of the bins in a certain manner that will reduce the length of the uh the bins on the road. And so this is an ongoing discussion that will have to be worked out over the course of construction and occupancy and with the tenants. So right now the the garbage collection complies. It works like other projects. And on the issue of tandem parking, this is a tenant matter that will be addressed through the lease agreements. There will be a system in place like all other tandem uh parking in the city that allows tenants to communicate with each other and to ask them to relocate their cars when needed. There may be an option where there may be no tenants that have a need for parking. And so we don't know until the tenant makeup is there and parking will look after itself on the property. And so while this may not be helpful in terms of providing the type of answers that the neighbors are looking for, the project complies, it is going to be reviewed as a property management item to discuss with the future tenants and we will work to be good neighbors on the issue of the property being vacant. This is the whole point of the water allocation impact is that the property's been vacant because it cannot get a permit. The property has a zoning occupancy certificate. it is ready to go. And unfortunately, you can't just put new tenants in because there's all sorts of rules that kick in. The property will be looked after when it's rebuilt brand new and managed under new rental agreement controls. So, the issue of property maintenance will be looked after the property. It will hopefully accelerate through the approvals process so it can be built and managed. And on the last issue of the uh Bell utility fiber optic cable, uh we're following up with that fiber optic uh system and we'll come back to the city with solutions on that if needed, but we have an approved zoning occupancy certificate. Uh we're working through the process and we're in consultation to figure out what changes, if necessary, are needed. If there's any zoning triggers that happen, we'll be happy to come back on that, but I don't foresee that being the issue. So, those are my answers back to the neighbors and all I can say and share is that there will be better property management once the property is under construction and operating. So, that's my response back to there and I'd be happy to provide some commentary on the seance applications itself. >> Thank you so much, uh, Ryan. Members of the committee, any questions for uh the agent? >> Amanda, >> maybe just a question for the city. What's going on? I don't really understand what's going on with the junction box, like what happened there. >> Yes. Uh good question. Um so, uh city engineering services has been uh coordinating with Leor, who's the contractor for the Telus fiber optic. Um, Leor was unaware of the keen sun application of the proposal for the semi- detached dwelling. Uh, our engineering services staff have been in contact with Leor and there is a plan to relocate the box. Uh, however, we have uh imposed a condition just to ensure that happens prior to lot creation. >> If I can follow up from that, do they know where that junction box will be? It will be sale on that same property. >> Yes, it'll be roughly uh in the same location. Uh there are plans right now to look at the best location but I have an email from uh our engineering services staff who have assured me that LC core is looking at relocating the box. >> Any more questions members for the agent or for city staff? If seeing no more questions we'll just need to uh have a motion here. Amanda, >> excuse me, chair. Sorry. Uh, could I have a few minutes to talk about the application before the motion? Sure thing. Go ahead. >> Okay. I just want to make sure when I introduce that that I had a chance. >> Um, this is a consent application and the the core tests when you look at the consent application is does it meet the provincial planning policy and I would suggest that it's making optimization of infrastructure. It is providing residential intensification and it is meeting the core aspects of the PPS 2024 to support intensification across the city. The project is within walking distance to transit and that's another factor that will help with this application and is supported by the PPS. Another condition and criteria is the usability of the property. the property either complies or exceeds the zoning bylaw requirements and meets the land use functions and performance standards of this site. That is a critical aspect because most applications revolve and involve minor variances. This one does not. You don't see that too often. And in terms of moving the application forward about missing middle housing, as I've talked about, this is the creation of two lots from an existing lot. And so this is a residential intensification as prescribed and supported by the city's ARU bylaw. This is the accessory residential unit bylaw that allows three ancillary units. These units are incillary. They're intended to complement the main primary semi- detached use. And so the whole purpose of this application is to get housing to market which complies with the bylaw and meets the ARU bylaw requirements. And in reviewing all these aspects, there is no minor variances in four tests. But I can say that the the development meets the intent of the official plan. That's a very important distinction because it's permitted. It complies with all the tests. Does the application meet the intent of the zoning bylaw? The answer is yes. It went through a zoning occupancy certificate process that shows that it functionally works, which is really important about functionality. And then is it appropriate and is it minor? Well, there is no issue of minor because it complies, but is it appropriate? And we would suggest that the property is vacant right now. It's been planned since November of last year to be developed, and it's been sitting for almost eight months now. This is about getting housing moving as quickly as possible. We will fill out the proper paperwork this week to advance the water allocation policy and to get this application moving because the property is vacant and it needs to be active. So, with those comments, I would just politely ask that we support the application and on behalf of the property owner, we look forward to working with the city and the committee and moving this project through. Thank you. >> Uh, thank you, Ryan. Um, yeah, just looking for that motion. Member Amanda, you about to make one? >> Sure. Um, I'll make a motion to approve in accordance and including the conditions set out in the staff report. Excellent. >> Member Amanda made that motion. Looking for a seconder. Member Maria, we've got a first and a second. Uh floor is open for debate and discussion. Any debate or discussion? Mayor Bob. Uh just a small comment. Um I'm glad the city region and all those involved have finally solved this water allocation uh concerns that have been delaying uh construction for well quite some time now. So other than that, I just to comment that I'm glad that the city and the region and all those others involved have finally solved that. So, um other than that, that's all I have to say. >> Cool. Thank you, member Bob. Yeah, I uh understand those that are in opposition here, those who wrote letters and those that uh spoke. Uh I appreciate genuine concerns and like personally, do I like this or not? I don't like the project personally, but I have to be here under uh a different hat and different mandate. uh you know, does it meet the uh four tests and is it allowed? Yes. And you know, that's what we're here to do and what we're required. Like I appreciate the uh the opposition, but we can't be pushed or swayed in in that way because it's not uh enough here to slow this down uh in your case, unfortunately though. So, um yeah, it's just really tough in these situations. you have so many people in opposition, but our hands are a bit tied in that regard in terms of um yeah, this being allowed and encouraged and meets those four tests. And you know, that's what we're here and required to do. So, um if no one else has anything else to say on this matter, uh we will call for the vote. And the vote is all those in favor. Uh one, two, three. So, we have three members uh in favor, all those opposed. We have uh one. Do you need to record uh madam secretary who votes or just uh the number of votes? Just number. Okay. So that's a three to one. Uh pass carried. Good luck. Thank you very much. Moving along in our unfinished business. We have item number 5.2. It's B 20225-033 104 Brentwood Avenue. If I can invite the agent applicant to come forward to the microphone. Um, and while that's happening, if the planning coordinator can please introduce the application and staff recommendation, please. >> Yes. Thank you, chair. This is another deferred consent application from the December and then February agendas. Again, uh, deferred to investigate the water capacity concerns in the subject area. Um I won't go into the details as in the previous application but as a result of the new water allocation policy staff are able to bring forward this deferred consent application as per the recommendation in the report which includes a new condition number one to deal with the water allocation issue a water capacity issue rather. Uh staff have reviewed the application in light of provincial regional and city policies finds that it meets all of those and is recommending approval subject to a number of conditions. Thank you so much. I know you just introduced yourself, but just for the record, if you can introduce yourself again, please. If you're at the staff report and if you're in support of it. Thanks, Ryan. Thank you, Chair Santos and committee. Yes, I've reviewed the report. My name is Ryan Mounzy, CEO of Urban Insights. I am a planner and I've uh reviewed the application and uh happy to provide some comments on this uh pending your direction. >> Thank you so much. First, uh anyone here in opposition to this uh application? Uh, seeing no one in opposition, uh, if you all want to make those comments now, you're invited to do so. Thank you very much, Chair Santos. Um, I don't like to mix applications, but what I'll do is maybe uh, leverage the comments that I already talked about and just to be a little bit more concise to the point about what this application means and uh, look forward to your decision. Um, this application is very similar to the previous one. It's the same house design, very similar lot sizes, and in terms of meeting the provincial planning statement, uh we fully agree with the city's planning opinion and support and are grateful for that and believe that this application represents a good form of residential intensification as a missing middle home. Uh we further uh talk about the different tests for lot severance and subdivision of land and simply say that it is consistent with the PPS. It meets the intent of the official plan, meets the intent of the zoning bylaw, it is appropriate, and there are no variances required in terms of uh is it minor or not. Um I'd simply just conclude uh to say that this is a valued part of the housing spectrum and that this type of housing provides options to the neighborhood that aren't currently there. The neighborhood is planned for residential intensification and will evolve over time. and this project provides the type of housing that has been supported through the zoning occupancy certificate. So with those comments and basis that build on the previous application, I hope to uh hear back your comments and questions. Thank you very much. >> Uh thank you Ryan. Uh members of the committee, do you have any questions for the agent or for city staff? I'm seeing no questions. We'll just need a motion. Memoria. >> I move a motion to approve per staff recommendation including all conditions. >> Thank you. So member Maria made that motion. Uh seconded by member Amanda who got a first and a second. Uh floor is open for debate or discussion. Seeing no debate or discussion in this matter, I will then call for the vote. Uh all those in favor to approve. One, two, three, four. We have four in favor for approval. It's uh carried. Good luck. >> Thank you very much on behalf of the property owners. We look forward to uh seeing this move through the process and thank you city staff. >> Thanks a bunch. Uh moving along. Item number 5.3. That's A2026-004 uh 37 Heman Street. If I can invite the agent/applicant to be seated. And just reminder to the committee members that we did receive a remittance submission on this uh application. I hope I don't butcher his name. Uh Lori um and if I can invite the plan to introduce the uh application, please. Thank you. >> Yes, thank you chair. This was a minor variance application that was first considered at the January 20th, 20 26 agenda. It was deferred uh for two purposes. uh to allow the applicant to prepare a scoped environmental impact study and tree management plan to the satisfactory of the director of development and housing approvals and also to satisfy the conditions of the Grand River Conservation Authority as noted in their comments dated December 31st, 2025. The applicant has been in contact with city staff and said they were having um additional needed additional time to prepare those studies um to support the IS and it's taken a little longer than they had hoped for. They're requesting a further deferral this morning. Um staff have suggested uh six months uh February 2027 um or sooner. So this would allow the applicant to come back sooner should those studies be um done a little sooner. Um I just don't want the applicant to have to pay for another deferral fee. So if we uh give them another six months, hopefully that is enough time. Uh and again the motion says or sooner so they could come back if those studies are done. Excellent. Thank you. In fact, I'm going to ask the agent applicant just to uh introduce yourself please. Whether you've read the staff report and if you are in favor of the recommendation which is the deferral. Thank you. >> Can you just speak in the microphone please? Thank you. >> Uh hi my name is Droj. I'm the representative for the investor and the architect. Um yes we requested for a six month duration for dero if it's possible. Architect is still trying to get it to happen faster. So, there's a couple of studies left. Hopefully, we can do it earlier than 6 months. >> Excellent. Thank you. Anyone here in opposition to this application? Uh, seeing none, if there's uh any questions on, I imagine not. >> Okay, go ahead. Sorry. >> This is a question for the applicant. I just want to confirm if the environmental impact study has been started already. >> Yes, it has already been started. there is some roadblock regarding the tree protection and the water drainage. >> Okay, thank you. I just wanted to make sure that that timeline worked because you need almost the whole year or at least all of the seasons. So I just wanted to make sure that >> yes the problem was the season till May we were we were not able to do anything um and only after that it started. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. If there's no other questions, we'll need a motion. Member Bob. >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that this uh be deferred for 6 months or or sooner or shorter. If >> I just get some clarity there. So, we'll just say February. >> So, motion's for February or sooner. Correct. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, member Bob made that motion. Uh, seconded by member Amanda. So, first and second, February or sooner. Floor is open for debate or discussion. Seeing none, so we'll call for the vote, which is the deferral to February 20, 2027 or sooner. All those in favor? One, two, three, four. Uh, carried. Good luck. See you in February or sooner. >> Thank. >> So, that completes our unfinished business. We now move to new business. Uh first 6.1 A2026-045 181 Crane Street North and we did have uh written submissions on this one as well. Uh from House and Dela Plank hopefully I said that right. My apologies if I didn't. If I can invite the agent applicant to come forward to the microphone please. And while that's happening if I can kindly ask the planning coordinator to introduce the application and staff recommendation please. >> Yes. Thank you chair. This is a minor variance application for 181 Queen Street North. It has a minor variance to permit a rear yard setback of 2.2 m instead of the minimum required 7.5 m. Uh it's for a portion of the building at the rear of the property. Um so the building will be L-shaped in the rear, so only affect a portion of the the rear yard. Um the proposal is to construct a two-story addition. Uh the first floor would be for ground sorry for garage space. So to have an attached garage and the second floor of the addition would be to uh create an additional dwelling unit um to convert the triplex now into a forplex. Staff have reviewed the variance in light of the four tests of the planning act find that they meet all four and is recommending approval subject to the conditions noted in the staff report. >> Okay, thank you so much. Uh if I can uh ask the agent uh or owner introduce yourself, please whether you've read the staff report and if you're in support of it. Thank you. >> Hi everybody. Uh my name is Corbett Ball. I am an [clears throat] agent of the owner and I'll be building the the addition. Um I am in support of the application and I'm sorry. Did you need to hear anything else from me? >> That's all. Thank you. All right. Uh, anyone here in opposition to this uh, application would like to speak? Uh, seeing none. Any questions for the agent? Any questions for city staff? I've got one regarding like ADUs and height because it's going to be on top of a garage. Is that like an exception as far as how detached edus work as far as they're allowed height? Just out of curiosity. >> Yeah. So, it the uh addition is actually going to be attached to the dwelling. So, it'll be um the garage and uh it's attached to the dwelling rather than a detached. But if it were detached, yes, you could have a dwelling unit above a detached garage. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh any other questions for the agent or for city staff? None. We'll see a motion. Member Bob. Yes, Mr. Chair. This looks fairly straightforward. So, uh uh I will move that this be approved as per the staff report. member. Sorry, thank you. Sorry. Member Bob made that motion to uh approve. Uh seconded by member Amanda. Uh any discussion or debate? Uh seeing none. So we'll call for the vote. Uh all those in favor for approval. One, two, three, four. All four are in favor. So carried. Good luck. >> Thanks everybody. Cheers. Uh agenda item 6.2. That's a 20226-04645 Crestwood Avenue. If I can invite the uh agent to come forward to the microphone, please. And if I can kindly ask the planning coordinator to introduce the application and staff recommendation, please. >> Yes. Thank you, Chair. Amarian's application for 45 Crestwood Avenue. They're requesting to permit a front yard setback of 4.5 m instead of the minimum minimum required 5.8 m. This is to facilitate the replacement of an existing front porch on a detached dwelling with a new mudroom and a front porch. New front porch. Uh staff have reviewed the variance in light of the four tests of the planning act. Find that they meet all four and is recommending approval. >> Tax. Thank you. If I can ask the agent to introduce yourself, please whether you've read the staff report and if you are in support of it. Thank you. >> Good morning. I'm uh [clears throat] Matthew Rhodess, part owner of BM Craftsman, an agent on behalf of the homeowner. We will be building the addition. I have reviewed the report and I am in support of it. Thank you so much. Uh anyone here in opposition to this application that like to speak? Seeing none, uh any questions for the agent that's here or for city staff and committee members? Seeing none, then I'll just wait for a motion, please. Member Bob. >> Uh yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is very straightforward. the uh I consider the variances to be minor truly minor. So in that case I move that this be approved as per the staff report. >> Thank you. So member Bob made that motion for approval. Uh seconded by member Manda. Uh floor is open for debate discussion. Seeing none. We see a lot of these front porches come uh to our uh our committee here for approval though too. It's funny how it always works out. Just little minor variances I guess though too. That's why we're here. Um, so we'll call for the vote. All those in favor of approval. One, two, three, four. All four are in favor. Uh, carried. Good luck. >> Thanks for your time. >> Moving along, we have agenda item 6.3. That's A2026-047. That's 121 Water Street South. If I can uh ask the agent or owner to come forward to the microphone, please. And um if I can please ask the planning coordinator to introduce the application and staff recommendation, please. >> Thank you, chair. This is a minor variance application for 121 Water Street South. They're requesting two minor variances before you this morning. A rear yard setback of 1.2 m instead of the required 7.5 m and to permit an architectural feature to project 0.9 m rather than uh 0.6. The applicant had requested 0.81. staff have just rounded that to 0.9. Uh we only go to one decimal place in the zoning bylaw just to account for any um errors in measurement. Staff have reviewed the variances in light of the four tests of the planning act find that they meet all four and is recommending approval. Um I didn't know that the u variances are to facilitate the construction of a new addition at the rear of the property and and it's really just to replace an addition that's already there but it's a little larger. >> Thank you so much. if I can uh ask the agent or the owner to introduce yourself, please, whether you've read the staff report and if you are in support of it. Thank you. >> Good morning. Uh my name is Benjamin Perfus. I am the owner of uh 121 Water Street and I am in support of the staff report. >> Thank you, Ben. Anyone here in the gallery in opposition to this uh application? Uh, seeing none. Uh, committee members, you have questions for the owner that's here or for city staff? None. Motion, please. Me Maria. >> I move a motion to approve per staff recommendation. >> Thank you so much. Member Maria made that motion for approval. Seconded by member Amanda. Uh, step floor is open debate on this one. Any discussion or debate? Yeah, this one seems kind of extreme. We go from uh 7.5 to 1.2, but it's one of those situations where it's a a funny unique corner lot, which makes it seem a bit more extreme than it actually is, but works out well. Um, yeah. So, we'll call for the vote. All those in favor of approval. One, two, three, four. All four are approval. Carried. Good luck. >> Thank you. Okay, we just did that was 6.3 6.4 now uh A2026 048 that's 60 West Heights uh Drive. If I can ask the agent, you're already in your way. Perfect. Uh if I can please ask the planning coordinator to introduce the application and staff recommendation, please. >> Yes, thank you chair. This is a minor variance application for 60 West Heights Drive. Uh two variances before you this morning. To permit a parking requirement of 28 parking spaces rather than the minimum required 252 and to permit a building height of 54 meters instead of the maximum permitted 14 m. This is to facilitate the redevelopment of the property for a 14story 384 bed residential care facility. in accordance with the site plan that staff are currently reviewing have issued conditional approval. Staff have reviewed the variances in light of the four Tesla planning act find that they meet all four and is recommending approval. I would note that the advertisement for the parking variance um had suggested there was 226 parking spaces but there actual fact 208. It was just a typo on the site plan uh drawing. it remains unchanged and staff feel that there no no further notice is required um that the intent of the variance has not changed. >> Thank you so much. If I can ask the agent or the owner to introduce themselves please whether you've read the staff report and if you were in support of it. Thank you. >> Good morning Mr. Chair. My name is Matt Campbell. I'm a partner with Zelinka Prio. I'm here on behalf of Southbridge Healthcare. Uh Alex Dosta is here with me. Uh we have reviewed the report and certainly uh I do want to take this opportunity to thank staff. Uh we're certainly in support of the staff recommendation. I do want to note that uh this is a little bit of a a complicated development. Uh there's been quite a lot of reporting both from the staff side and from our side as well as well as a robust suite of submission materials. Here I had prepared a presentation to uh lead the committee through this. Um given that there is already a robust suite of materials, I'll defer to the committee if you require any additional information uh from us. >> Thank you so much. Uh Matt, uh anyone here in opposition to this application? >> Uh seeing none. Uh committee members, you have opportunity to ask uh the agent or the owner questions or if you're looking more information there. Our agenda package is pretty big. over a thousand pages. So, there's lots of info there, but uh certainly if you have any questions, uh they're here. Uh seeing no questions. Any questions for city staff? No questions. Mayor Bob, so can I make a motion? Thank you. Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. Um it's nice to see there's more um [clears throat] residential care facilities going in. as I get older, I'm going to need one at some point. Don't consider this an application. Uh, yeah, I think this is a great idea. Uh, too bad there's a confusion on the number of parking. Parking is always going to be a problem, but other than that, that I move that this be approved as per the staff report. >> Thank you so much. Member Bob made that motion for approval, seconded by member Maria. That's a first and a second. Any discussion or debate on this uh agenda item? Seeing none, ready to vote. We'll call for the vote then. All those in favor? One, two, three, four. Uh, all four in favor? Passed, carried. Good luck. Thank you so much, committee. Cheers. Next up, uh, agenda item 6.5. It's a B226-012, uh, 452nd Avenue. If I can invite the uh agent to come to the microphone please and if the planning coordinator can please introduce the application and staff recommendation please. >> Thank you chair. This is uh a new consent application for 452nd Avenue. Um the application was submitted a few months back and we've kept it on hold until we could have a water allocation policy bylaw and zoning amendments before we could bring it forward to you this morning. So, we're happy to be able to bring this application finally forward. Um, it is a application to demolish the existing dwelling and construct a semi- detached dwelling in its place. Um, staff are recommending approval of the application subject to a number of conditions. One of them being the number one water allocation policy condition and uh staff have reviewed this consent in light of provincial regional city policies and finds that it meets all of those. Is recommending approval again subject to a number of conditions. Thank you so much. Uh if you can please introduce yourself uh please and if you can uh say if you read the staff report and if you're in support of it. Thank you. >> Good morning. My [clears throat] name is Banana. I'm the owner of Bobby Con Limited. I'm the agent of the on behalf of the owner of the property. Uh we have read the staff report. We are in support of it. I do have only one comment that I wanted to point out here and it's regarding um condition number eight regarding uh three preservation plan. Um during this process, we had to apply for the curb cutting uh permit which has been approve uh approved and obtained and uh during that process there uh we pointed out that there are two city trees. One of them has to be removed and the other one has to be protected during the whole duration of the construction. Uh my client has already paid the fees for the removal of one city tree. So I was going to ask you if it would be possible to reward this uh condition number eight that uh trees protected and as uh as per a curb cutting permit just so that we avoid getting the tree preservation plan which would take a lot of time and a lot of money if possible because that's essentially the same thing. Okay, thank you for that. First I'll uh see if there's anyone in opposition to this application in the gallery. Uh seeing none, uh if I can ask NC city staff regarding that question from the agent regarding the tree preservation plan if you can comment on that please. >> Yes, the um the requirement for the the condition came from our environmental planning staff rather than our parks and forestry staff staff which look after the street te. So I'm assuming there are some trees just looking at the aerial photo some trees on the property maybe some shared or boundary trees and the requirement for the condition. Um, I would suggest that the condition be uh retained uh as it was not a condition of our parks and forestry staff and um it may be possible to scope or quickly clear that condition with our environmental planning staff. >> Thank you for that clarification. Uh committee members, you have any questions for the agent or for city staff? >> No. Seeing none, that was need a motion. Mayor Bob. >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, despite what the applicant may say, I am in support of the, um, treat preservation plan. It probably isn't going to be terribly ownorous. So, in that case, I move that this application be approved as per the staff report. >> Okay. Thank you. So, member Bod made the motion to approve as per the staff report. Seconded by >> Sure. Just a question for the applicant like would you prefer this to be deferred so you can sort of sus that out with the city or do you want to put it through with the condition and then work it out on the back end? >> Uh we are fine. Uh we can stick it stick to the original plan just I I thought it was essentially the same thing the three preservation plan and uh what the curb cutting permit states. So, I was just thinking that it would be reasonable to ask for this condition to be dropped, but if you guys are in um if you guys really want to keep it, then we are fine with that. >> Okay, [clears throat] >> good question. So, we have a motion to approve as per the staff report. We need a seconder. Amanda seconds that. Uh any questions or pardon me, any debate or discussion? Uh seeing none. So, we'll call for the vote. All those in favor? One, two, three, four. Uh, pass, carried. Good luck. Thank you. Uh, moving along. Agenda. Oh, nine Westgate walk. So, I have a conflict on this one, so I will have to uh step out. Okay. The next application is um B [clears throat] 2026 13-139 Westgate Walk. Um and the chair has left and left me to chair. So in that case um I'll just ask um I see the applicant or owner is already here. So in the meantime I'll ask staff to introduce the application. >> Yes. Thank you chair. Um this is a consent application for 9 Westgate walk. Um the purpose of the consent application is to establish a servicing easement to provide a sanitary service connection from 50 Iranous Drive or the West Mount Golf Course to the municipal sanitary service system on Westgate Walk. Um staff feel the easement is appropriate uh to facilitate sanitary servicing for the golf course, represents orderly development, and is recommending approval of the uh consent application to create the easement subject to conditions. Uh thank you. I see the applicant is here. So could you please introduce yourself and uh confirm that you have read the staff report and your opinions thereon. >> Hi, my name is Kate Wills. I'm a associate at MHBC planning. I'm here representing the applicant at 9 Westgate Walk um and also uh West Mount Golf and Country Club. Um, our team at MHBC has been retained to uh process the site plan application that is currently conditionally approved. We're working through the conditions. Um, and one of the conditions is to uh obtain an easement to allow for the sanitary connection to Westgate Walk. It's simply a 2 meter wide easement that crosses the edge of the property into the culde-sac uh for the sanitary service. I'm here to answer any questions that uh the committee or any members of the public may have and uh I'm speaking in support of the application. So, thank you very much. >> Thank you for that. Do any [clears throat] members of the committee have any questions for the applicant or staff? Seeing none, uh is there a motion regarding this application? I move a motion to approve per staff recommendation. >> Uh seconder. Okay, we have a seconder. Okay. Um any questions or comments debate on this? Seeing none, I'll just make the comment that I think it's fairly straightforward. And um on that note, I'll guess we'll call for the vote. All those in favor of the motion on the floor. >> Uh, seeing three, that's all of us. So, uh, that's carried. Good luck. >> Thank you for your time. Uh, thank you, member Bob. Moving along, we have uh agenda 6.7. It's B226-014 and B2026-015275 Fergus Avenue. I can invite the agent to come forward, please. And while that's happening, if the planning coordinator can please introduce the application and staff recommendation, please. >> Yes, thank you, chair. This the these are consent applications for 275 Fergus Avenue. Uh the applications will permit the demolition of the existing dwelling and the creation of uh three lots in total. Uh two of the lots will be for a semi- detached dwelling and the third lot will be for an exist to uh construct a new single detached dwelling. staff have reviewed the application in light of provincial, regional and city policies and find that they meet all of those and is recommending approval. Again, this one is uh contains uh condition number one uh related to the water allocation policy and will need to be satisfied within the two years to permit the construction. >> Excellent. Thank you. If I can ask you to please introduce yourself, whether you've read the staff report and if you're in support of it. Thank you. >> Good morning. Uh my name is Marius Ardolene. I'm the applicant. Uh we've uh reviewed the staff report and we're in agreement. Thank you so much. Uh is anyone here in opposition to this application? Seeing none, um any questions for the agent or for city staff committee members? Seeing none, I just wait for a motion, please. >> [clears throat] >> Yes, Mr. Chair. Thank you. I'll uh uh it's fairly straightforward. Um two consent applications, three lots each with a semi and some ADUs. Um I think this is fine. So, I'll move that this be approved. Thank you. >> Thank you. Mayor Bob made that motion to approve, seconded by member Amanda. Any discussion or debate? No discussion or debate. I will call for the vote. All those in favor. One, two, three, four. All four are in favor. It's carried. Good luck. >> Thank you. >> Uh, moving along. Agenda item 6.8. That's at B2026-016 and B22626-017 180 Aaron Street West. If I can invite the agent applicant to be seated, please. and I can invite the planning coordinator to produce the application and staff recommendation, please. >> Yes, thank you, chair. Uh, these are consent applications for 1880 Eron Street West. Um, the committee may remember this property. Um, it's been before the committee two times in the past year and a half. Uh, the first iteration of development plans came to the committee in February 2025. Uh, where a minor variance to consent application were presented. Uh the minor variance application requested a reduced front yard for a new parcel planned for a single detached dwelling and then a new single detached dwelling on the retained parcel. Um this proposal was abandoned and the current owners brought bought the uh property uh proposed a new redevelopment proposal consisting of three street town home dwell townhouse dwellings. As this was a departure from the previous approved plans, new applications were uh went before the committee in September uh 2025 and uh there were reductions for the front yard, the exterior sideyard and interior sideyard and rear yard. Um the committee refused the applications and they were subsequently appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal where these minor variances were approved. Um the applicant had actually provi uh requested further relief at the Ontario land tribunal for a rear yard setback that was a little less than what was considered at the committee in September. Um the applicant is uh proposing to uh develop each of the townhouse units with four dwelling units. Uh this requires a severance. Uh this is what is before you this morning. So the applications are to uh create three dwellings separate lots for each of the street townhouse dwellings and also an easement that's required for access for the middle unit. Staff have reviewed the applications in light of provincial, regional and city policies and finds that it meet all of those. Um these applications are also subject to the water allocation uh condition number one. >> Excellent. Thank you. If I can ask the Asian introduce yourself please with the red staff report and if you are in support of it. Thank you. >> Yep. My name is Dominic Wuowski. I'm one of the owners of the property. Um before we begin may I just ask the committee um we've retained Ryan Mounzy from Urban Insights to help us with planning stuff if we could just ask him to join us for this. >> Sure. Absolutely. >> Perfect. Thank you. Um but yeah, after reviewing the report, um just like last year when the staff was in full support, we also supported it. And this time around, we appreciate the staff once again supporting the application and we are in full support of it as well. Thank you so much. Uh anyone here in the gallery in opposition to this uh application? Uh seeing none. Oh, we have someone. Sorry, my apologies. If you can introduce yourself, please that would be wonderful. >> Sure. Uh my name is Gretchen uh Sullivan. I am a neighbor in the neighborhood. Uh and I do apologize. I'm not as prepared as I was last time I was here. I was in transit until yesterday uh from a vacation. Uh I did have a question about the permit that I was not able to see in the plans that the city had forwarded me while on vacation. What is the total number of units that will be in each of the town houses? Is it nine total units that we're referring to or three? You want to answer that? >> I I can answer that. Um so the um there'll be three street town homes with four dwelling four dwelling units in each. So there'll be 12 units in total uh but four dwelling units on each lot which is permitted in the zoning bylaw. So, so I suppose my opposition and that of the neighbors I've spoken to is that we're now going from um a lot uh with three with three parking spots basically to a lot that will have 12 families or individual homes. I don't understand where those 12 cars are going to park. In the plans provided, there are only three parking spots. This particular neighborhood does not offer um street parking for most of the year because it is very narrow streets. And my concern is that it's already very difficult to get in and out of our yards at times because of street parking. And we're now talking about moving to 12 units. So, that is the the concern that I know I share as well as some of my neighbors. We were not consulted um about this uh prior to you know to today's meeting and I learned about it while on vacation. >> Uh thank you Gresian. Um the owner have or their agent have any comments like to make uh regarding that? Thank you chair Santos. I can speak on behalf of the owners. Um this application um is introducing a missing middle form of housing. It's been through a very complex series of approvals including zoning occupancy certificates, Ontario land tribunal approvals, and on the issues of development, the city's ARU bylaw specifically allows up to three ARUS for street townhouse units. And so this is an example of a central neighborhood development that will have one parking space for each of the units. The building designs have been architecturally enhanced to make a very attractive infill housing project within this neighborhood under the height limits. And in terms of the parking, this is a central neighborhood location that is located within walking distance to LRT. The market is going to have to absorb households. And I use the word households. We don't know if it's one person or two person within each of the units that will be within walking distance to transit. This is what the planning approvals are set up for. Just like the apartment building nearby, there will be less parking per unit. And so, while this will introduce a higher level of density, it is planned. There are three driveways that are in each lot, one driveway per lot. So, it's no different than a single detached home that way. and it complies with all the zoning rules that are in place right now. So while this is an intensification of land and the project has evolved, this project is providing housing options that are not fully found in the full neighborhood, but it is evolving. And so this is a great neighborhood for residential intensification and the property will be managed as a rental project and that will be secured through lease agreements in terms of who owns a car and who does not. So with those key attributes to answer the neighbors questions um the plans do evolve and hopefully we can continue to continue the conversations if there are any emerging issues. I know the development group and ownership group will be open to talk it through, but we do not see any problems. >> Thank you. >> I think there's one other followup here with Katon. >> Oh, sure. Go ahead. >> If I may. Uh my name is Katon. Um I'm part owner of the property as well. Um I just want to add on and Ryan, thank you for your comment that uh we have a total of eight parking spots for the 12 units and these units are smaller units. They consist of one bed and two bed uh units. So, there's going to be very minimal people living in the building. There's very, very unlikely chance that there's 12 full families. Um, with that, we are also giving two affordable units. So, those won't come with parking. So, we really only have two parking spots um that we have to arrange throughout the tenant lease agreement contract period. >> So, so sorry, just to confirm, there will be eight parking places. >> That's correct. Yes. Yeah, >> that's all. Thank you. Thank you for that clarification. Uh any questions for me or my apologies. Any questions for Gretchen who's in opposition here? >> No, eight uh seems more reasonable for 12 units in my personal opinion. >> Thank you. Good question and good answer. Uh any questions for the agent owners here? Any questions for city staff? No. So, let's just wait for uh a motion. Member Amanda. >> I'll make a motion to approve in accordance with the staff report. >> Non. Thank you. So that motion is made by member Amanda, seconded by member Maria. Uh floor is open for debate or discussion. >> Yeah, it's another change is hard. Going from one unit to 12 is is challenging, but yeah, it's allowed under the rules and hopefully be a a better product there than it is uh there right now afterwards. So, wishing you guys the best as you had these more units in the housing crisis here. And call for the vote. All those in favor? One, two, three, four. All four are in favor. Uh, as passed, carried. Good luck. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh, next up, number 6.9. Uh, B 20226-018 B 20226-019 B 20226-20 B2026-049 157 Schweitzer Street If I can ask the uh agent to be seated please. And if I can please ask the planning coordinator to deduce the application and staff recommendation please. >> Yes, thank you chair. These are consent applications for 157 Schweitzer Street. Um the intent of the applications is to create three new dwelling lots on Lark Street. Uh in 2025, the property was subject to a zoning bylaw amendment application uh which reszone the property from R3 in zoning bylaw 851 to res 4 in new zoning bylaw 2019-051. Um primarily the zoning purpose of the zoning bylaw amendment was to facilitate the future consent of the property. Um there were two zoning provisions that were added. Unfortunately, there was not a zoning provision to uh recognize the existing deck on 157 Schweitzer Street. So that's the first application before you this morning is a minor variance uh to permit a a deck on the existing single detached dwelling on the retain lot um to be that's 1.1 mters in height above ground to be located in this interior now functioning interior sideyard. Staff have reviewed this variance in light of the four tests of the planning act find that they meet all four and is recommending approval. Staff is also recommending approval of the consent applications to create the three uh new lots. Um staff have reviewed these consent applications in light of provincial, regional and city policies and is recommending approval subject to conditions and uh there is a condition that does relate to the water allocation policy in each of the recommended um recommendations for consent. >> Thank you so much. If I can ask you please introduce yourself, whether you've read the staff report and if you are in support of it. >> Good morning. My name is Michael Barton, MB1 Development Consulting. I am the uh applicant. Yes, I've reviewed the staff report in agreement with it. I apprec appreciate the comments uh beforehand. I'm happy to provide any commentary. Um but yes, this is an application really meant to facilitate creation of the lots that were intended through the the zoning amendment and that the deck uh relates to existing condition encroachment due to the height uh and then a reorientation of the existing of the retained lot towards Lark Street. So I think it was effectively captured in the staff report. >> Thank you so much. Anyone here in opposition to this application? Not seeing none. Uh yeah. Any questions for the applicant or for city staff? >> No. Motion, please. >> Member Amanda. Thank you. >> Um I'll put forward a motion to approve in accordance with the staff report. Thank you. Member Amanda made that motion. Seconded by me Maria first and second. Uh any debate or um discussion? No. Seeing none. Certainly a unique funny strange one, but sometimes that's the way it happens here. Uh I will then call for the vote. All those uh in favor? One, two, three, four. All four in favor. Uh carried. Good luck. Uh, next up, uh, agenda item 6.10, which I believe, uh, member, you have a conflict on, so I'll ask you to step out before introducing this. Uh, thank you so much. So, member man has stepped out. Uh, we have B2026-21, B226-22, A2026-50, and A2026-51. So that's 47 and 51 Bellevu Avenue. If I can ask the uh agent or the owner to come forward to the microphone, please. And while that's happening, if I can please ask the planning coordinator to introduce the application and the staff recommendation, please. >> Yes. Thank you, chair. There are four uh committee decision uh sorry, four committee applications before you this morning. Uh two monitor variance uh applications. The first one is for a severed lot, a proposed severed lot that would be addressed 51 Belleview Avenue. The minor variance is requesting a reduction of the minimum lot width from 13.7 m to 12.9 m. Uh there's a similar minor variance application for a proposed retained lot uh similar sorry the same minor variance uh to permit a lot width of 12.9 meters rather than the minimum required 13.7. These uh minor variances will facilitate the severance of the property into two lots. Um the consent applications would facilitate that lot creation as well as uh creating or facilitating an easement between the two lots. They are proposing to share a driveway um to access their parking or garages at the rear of the property. Staff have reviewed the two variances in light of the four tests the planning act. they we find that they meet all four tests and we are recommending approval of the variances. Uh we have reviewed the applications for consent. We find that they meet uh regional, provincial, city policies and we are recommending approval subject to a number of conditions and accordingly um the consent applications contain the condition related to the water allocation policy. >> Thank you very much. if I can ask the uh agent or the owner to introduce themselves, please whether you read the staff report and if you're in support of it. Thank you. [snorts] >> Thank you. Uh my name is Nick Bogart. I'm an associate with MHPC Planning uh agent for the applicant. We've reviewed the staff report and recommendations and are in agreement with the recommendations and at the appropriate time I can speak to some of the public comments that have also been submitted if the chair chooses. >> Thank you so much. Uh before inviting uh if there's anyone here in the gallery in opposition to this application, we did see a pretty big uh stack of letters um more than 13 I believe and they were all read. Oh, perfect. There's someone here then too. Um if you can just get to the microphone please just uh and then introduce yourself or uh >> Yeah, James Jowski. I'm a resident at Belleview. >> Perfect. Go ahead, James. Um, my biggest concern uh for this build was um I'm I could be wrong um but down the street at 9 191 Belleview um there's a property that was built there recently and I just took a look at it this morning and I couldn't turn around it when I pulled in. I had to reverse. So apparently from my understanding is this type of build will be be on this um lot that we're talking about today, but there will be two with a shared driveway. So that raises concerns uh about safety and space and all that stuff. Um my understanding is that because the lot will be severed, it will act as four units instead of eight. However, because of the shared driveway, you're servicing eight units, not four. So, um, for that reason, I'm hoping we can have a condition of adding, uh, one guest parking. >> Sorry, you said a guest parking. >> Yes, correct. >> Okay. >> To my understanding, again, I'm I'm green on this new album. Um, but when I did some research, I was told that uh it's like 0.1 parking per units. And because this is a shared driveway, it uh is now servicing eight units. So that would be 08 parking spaces available for guest parking. Now, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but that's what I looked at. All right. Thank you, James. Um, members of you have any questions for James who's in opposition this application? Seeing none, can I ask city staff regarding James' question regarding parking? >> Yes, for multiple dwellings. Um, so five dwelling units or more on one lot, uh, we do require a visitor parking requirement of 01 0.1 parking spaces per dwelling unit. As this is not a multiple dwelling in in terms of the zoning bylaw, um, there'll be four dwelling units on each lot. Um the visitor parking requirement is not required. >> Okay. I was just wondering if um you could make an exemption or minor variance on this to provide the parking for residents and respect the codes that are in place. >> Uh in terms of uh a minor var, no, we can't make it a minor variance uh because that zoning provision in the bylaw doesn't apply to the property. Um, I don't know if the applicant would speak to providing some additional parking or if there is an opportunity to provide surplus parking on the property. I know it's pretty tight. Um, but if I think that would be up to the applicant as to whether they wanted to provide surplus parking to the required parking. >> Thank you. Good segue. Um, floor is yours, Nick. >> Thank you. Um, I could speak to the parking and the the driveway access as well. Uh so the way the site is intended to function is each unit has their own garage and the garages are oversized so there's uh space for uh garbage and bicycle parking and such. So uh we don't foresee that there'll be an issue providing uh adequate parking on site. Um the way the driveway it's intended to function to is that uh when units or when people pull into the units they can back out of the garage onto the driveway and then they can pull out of the of the the property. So there's no backing out onto the street. So there is room for people to um to go in and make a turn and come out. Uh we did look at that through the zoning occupancy uh certificate uh process to make sure that all fit. Uh so we have that planned for. And in terms of uh of parking, uh we do have more parking that's required. Um the bylaw requires uh three parking spaces when you have a 4-unit ADU. So we have surplus parking in that regard. And um the garage is allow for additional space as I mentioned. And then the intent would be that any visitor parking would be accommodated on street uh which does provide street parking in this area. >> Thank you very much. Any questions for Nick [snorts] or for city staff? >> Uh I got one. I guess there was a lot of questions regarding just not having a a sidewalk. Does that play a factor at all just in terms of letters in opposition? Maybe we can just address that for those that might be watching online now or later. >> So whether the lot has a sidewalk or not is not a um planning consideration in terms of provincial regional city policies as it relates to lot creation. Um this lot would function the same as any other lot on the street without a sidewalk. >> Just wondering if I could add something. >> Go ahead, James. Um, I I respect builders and all you guys for making the right decisions. You guys are professionals. You do this every day. I understand you guys are going to follow code. But in regards to the guest parking that we're trying to push for, um, the reasoning for that is, yes, you have dedicated doubles garage for the owners, but what about the guests in the deliveries? Like, how will they turn around? they'll have to be reversing because they can't just pull into the garage and that could uh raise some safety concerns. >> Any comments regarding no visitor parking unit? >> Um I can speak to the turning around aspect. Um there is a bit of a hammerhead at the end of the the uh the paired driveway and that would allow for some vehicle movement space there. Uh but yes, it would be if there's a large delivery truck or even a firet truck to access uh they would back out onto Belleview or in the case of a fire truck, there would be adequate space uh or sorry hose length to get from the street back to the units. So uh that would also be an option too. And similarly, I suppose for delivery trucks, uh there'd be uh street parking as well. >> Okay, thank you. Can can I add on that? Sorry. I don't want to disrespect your time. Just one more thing. Um, is uh that going to be looked at? Uh, like are you or is there going to be uh like I went to the lot today um that was built down the street and I couldn't turn around on that lot and now they're going to put two of these in a lot that's only 15 feet wider. So, I just want to make sure that it's no problems with safety turning around. >> Can I ask a city staff to answer that, please? >> Sure, you can. having somebody enter the lot and having to reverse out is no different in in any other these single detached people that reverse out of their driveways. It's very similar. The only difference is that the the the drive aisle itself is six meters wide and that's to accommodate the four uh garages on either side of the the drive aisle. So I I I don't see that being an issue. Or if there's a delivery that's coming, um they'll do what happens a lot of times. They'll park on the road, um, put their four-ways on and come in, make their delivery, and then they will leave. >> Okay. My My biggest concern was though with the high traffic of eight families living on this one shared driveway. >> I'm just looking at Belleview right now and um, >> it's not like a single home where you just reverse one vehicle. There's going to be eight families sharing that driveway. No, but are are you talking to are you talking now like the the amount of traffic on Belleview Avenue itself or are you talking just the traffic coming out of >> the traffic on the street will definitely increase no matter what um due to this build because there will be eight more families guests and stuff so they'll be parking there but I'm talking about the traffic in the shared driveway. >> I don't have any concerns with the shared driveway the way it's proposed. >> Okay, that's fine. >> Thank you. Thank you for that. Uh any more questions committee members? Seeing none, then we'll need a motion. >> Memoria. >> I move a motion to approve per staff recommendation. >> Memor made that motion to approve. U member Bob. Uh seconded that. Uh any debate or discussion? Just a couple of comments. Um seem parking is always going to be a problem and I don't think cars are getting any smaller. Not with the new trucks they have these days. Um, and people are still buying cars and still driving. So, this is going to be a complication moving forward. So, I don't know how we're going to deal with that in further uh applications to this the city or this committee. Uh, having said that, uh, I think that this is and you know that the fact that there's so many people opposed to it. Uh I've always had a feeling that when the whole well most of the neighborhood good percentage of the neighborhood is in agreement that there's a problem here. I think that there's a problem. Having said that, I have seconded the uh motion and I will support this application. Anyone else? Yeah, I have a real hard time with these ones always though, too, because I really appreciate all the members in opposition, especially you have so many speaking opposed an application. But unfortunately, we can't base our decisions just by on quantity of uh opposition. And this one's a little bit more unique though too in in that the orientation of the buildings and they're not facing the street and that you have that shared uh driveway. But again, I said this u before and I'll say it again, just change is just really hard, especially when it's uh you know, so much. go from, you know, two homes to uh now eight and then just the way the property's oriented becomes more challenging and the concerns with, you know, parking and visitors and having that many more people there and, you know, it's just it's hard. It really is. And personally, do I love these things? No. But does it fit in terms of what the city is trying to do in the official plan? It does. And those are the challenges I have here where I wear the the hat as a resident here and then the hat as you know a chair and someone that votes on these things. It's just really really difficult in that sense though too. So yeah, personally I don't love it but with um what's put in front of us though too and does it meet those four tests and does it work with what's intended and what's planned? Uh yes it uh yes it does. So as a result of that uh I think I need to vote in favor of it. Although like yeah I don't I don't love it. Uh I don't like it and I think it will pose some some challenges but um yeah is it allowed and is it a minor variance by the definition of what's planning and bylaw? Yes. So um yeah that's why it's always so difficult this uh this role here it's not not easy. >> Could could I just add one more? Is that okay or >> we kind of moved on from there? Is it just we're gonna >> I was just wondering what the push for all this housing is for. Um because my understanding we're in a housing crisis, but um I didn't think we were in like a severe shortage of rentals because I'm assuming this is going to be a rental. Um so is is that what the problem why we're pushing for these builds and jamming houses and properties? >> Yeah, like listen um we are in a housing crisis. there's a lack of homes out there, especially product like this where they consider to be missing middle where it's gentle density, not a big giant high-rise, which we're building a lot before. Um, so there's a demand and a push for this type of product both from federal government, provincial government, and then the city to add more units. And you go from, you know, two homes and to eight, you know, that pardon me, one home, pardon me. So, one home to eight. It uh it checks those um those boxes, right? So, yeah, I hear you because I live in the city as well and it it's hard and difficult to see. >> Um any more comments or uh or debate? >> Sorry, chair. Maybe I'll just add one one comment as it relates to you. So, the planning act requires municipalities to permit three dwelling units per lot. uh our council went a little bit further and and is permitting four dwelling units per lot. So that direction is coming from uh the province as well as council. >> Yeah, thanks for that clarification here. I just always just feel people because our hands are are tied in a lot of ways and what we what we can do. So it's not like uh you know being against uh you know you guys or our neighbors. It's just what's uh what's in front of us. So it uh it it pains me. I know that and other committee members. So if there's no more discussion or debate, uh we'll call for the vote, which is uh all those in favor, uh one, two, three. So all three are in favor, uh carried. Good luck. >> Thank you. I appreciate the committee support and also appreciate all the residents who uh took the time to wrote in about the application. Uh can say our client certainly takes pride in building a good development, so I look forward to contributing to the community. >> Thanks. >> Thank you, Nick. Sorry, I'm just getting organized here with all these papers. Uh, next up, what we have from member Amanda first. Sorry. Yeah. Next up, we have uh agenda item 6.11. That's B 20226-023 to 24 and A2026-052 to 55. That's 1333 Weaver Street East. If I can uh uh invite the agent to come forward, you have and if I can invite the planning coordinator to please introduce the uh application and the staff recommendation, please. >> Yes. Thank you, chair. Um this is probably one of the most uh comprehensive complex applications that staff have dealt with in a long time. Um the property uh in its entirety is subject to a draft plan of condominium application uh which was originally intended to establish a four-phase condominium corporation. Uh the draft plan of condominium included 623 residential dwelling units, 500 parking spaces, eight commercial units, common amenity area, um driveways, drive aisles, visitor parking lobby. Um the initial phase of the draft plan of condominium was registered in April 2026 which included tower A. So tower A is that first pl uh first phase of condominium. The purpose of these applications is to sever each of the three remaining towers uh proposed tower B, C and D so that each is on a separate conveyable lot to facilitate financing of each tower. And this is as part of a comprehensively planned uh multi multiple multi-residential development with ground flooror commercial along Weber. The four tower development was comprehensively planned together and was originally intended to be one standard condominium. Um as a result of market changes, the owner uh new owner intends to develop the remainder of the site in three additional phases and requires the ability to finance each phase separately. So that is really the purpose of the consent to minor variance applications. I would note that um the minor variance uh the recommendation for uh part C or for tower C minor variance application a 20226054. We have uh provided the secretary treasur and hopefully the committee with a revised recommendation of the variances uh that tower C requires and they were outlined in uh red font in that uh recommendation provided to you earlier. So in light of the revised recommendations for minor variance staff have reviewed them in light of the four tests the planning act find that they meet all four tests and are recommending approval of the minor variance applications. Staff are also recommending approval of the consent applications um as they uh meet provincial, regional, and city policies and recommending them subject to a number of of conditions including the water allocation policy condition. >> Thank you. If I can ask the uh agent or the owner to introduce themselves, please read the staff report and if you were in support of it. >> Uh good morning. My name is Kristen Barisdale from GSP Group. We are the agents acting on behalf of the property owner. Uh, I have had a chance to review the staff report and we have no concerns or objections. Um, I did want to take this opportunity to reiterate um, Miss Malone Wright's comment. This is a very complex application. Um, we've been at this with the city for about six months now and I just want to take this opportunity to thank them for their continued patience, effort, and collaboration on this one. We recognize that it's it's very complex and it's very detailed and a bit um complicated and hard to understand, but we made it through and here we are now in front of the committee with uh recommendations that uh we have no objections to in support. >> Thank you so much. Uh anyone here in opposition? I'm seeing anyone left. Uh so I guess no one in opposition. Any questions for the agent Christristen that's here or for city staff? Seeing Oh, Mayor Bob, >> uh, just a comment, seeing we're wrapping up today's, um, when I saw this, uh, report came in on Friday to me, I won't repeat exactly what I said, uh, but, um, I I was amazed and I by the second time I read through it, I was it was it's pretty straightforward. um as you both staff and the applicant has said a very complex um issue and severances are they make sense. I mean in today's financing world they truly make sense. So in general, Mr. Chair, I'm in support of this and u I I would like to thank staff for all of the effort that they have put into it and the applicant too. Um and probably the committee who pulled their hair out like I did over the weekend going, "What is this?" All,200 pages of one application. I think this is the biggest one we've ever had. I think um so anyway in that regard uh I'll just say I'm in I am in support of this all four six six different uh applications. So I'm in support of it. >> Any questions for uh see no questions. That might sound like a motion. >> Well, seeing there's no further comments. Yes, I will make that into or turn that in into a motion that um this be approved as outlaid in the 1200page staff report. >> Okay. Excellent. Thank you. Member Bob made that motion. Seconded by member Amanda. Uh floor is open for uh for debate. >> Yeah, piggyback that like this is overwhelming to me as far as just reading through this. uh hard to sort through it, but sure enough, I guess it does make sense to break it off into small pieces versus one big chunk how it all looks. Truthfully, like this is when it comes these things come to our our committee package, I have really no idea how this all works, but I trust city staff and I trust the applicant that this will all make sense in the end when it comes all together. Um, any other comments or debate? If seeing none then we will call for the vote which is uh to approve. Uh all those in favor one two three four. All four are in favor uh carried. Uh good luck. >> Thank you so much. >> Excellent. Thank you. I'm not seeing any other agenda uh items here. So number seven uh adjournment. So can someone put forward a motion to adjourn? Member Maria, seconded by Come on, guys. There we go. Member Bob. So, motion to adjurnn. Uh, uh, put forward by member Maria, seconded by member Bob. Call for the vote. All those in favor to adjurnn. Uh one.