Thank you. >> Good evening. Tonight's committee of adjustment hearing is being held by video conference and live stream video on the town's live stream web page at oakville.ca. This hearing is to consider applications for minor variant and consents held under the authority of the planning act. Please keep in mind the intent of this process is to review the application that is before the committee, listen to the evidence, and then make a decision. This process is not intended to be used to resolve any concerns or disputes that may exist between the town, individuals, or organizations. If a request for deferral is made and the committee grants such a request, the applicant authorized agent must contact the secretary treasurer to schedule a new hearing date. In order to conduct an effective and efficient electronic hearing, we've adopted the following process. If you're watching the live stream of this hearing on oakville.ca and you wish to speak to an item on the agenda, you'll call 905-8156095. Again, that's 9058156095. The phone number is also posted on your screen below the live stream page at oakville.ca. Staff will be standing by to call to take your call. When you call in, staff will ask for your name, item number you wish, the address, and the telephone number. Further instructions will be provided for you to call back to join the video conference. When the chair of the committee polls for interested parties, you will have to press star six to unmute yourself. The applicant or agent will be given an opportunity to brief briefly explain to the committee the basis of their application, answer any questions that may arise. Maximum of five minutes will be provided for a presentation. You'll need to state your full name and address for the record and any submissions beyond the five minutes will be at the discretion of the committee. All delegations must also state their full name and address for the record. A maximum of five minutes will be provided for each presentation. All remarks and questions are to be directed to the chair and any submissions beyond the five minutes will be at the discretion of the committee. The applicant agent will then be provided with a further five minutes to respond to comments made by interested parties, answer any questions from the committee members. If the applicant or agent has any concerns found in staff report, particularly in the proposed conditions, this will be the opportunity to advise us. The matter will then be taken into committee for decision and this will mark the end of all discussion. Any person desiring a notice of the decision for an application must provide a written request, preferably through email to the secretary treasurer. Written notices of the committee's decision will be mailed no later than 10 days for variancees and 15 days for consent application to the applicant agent and any 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 person, or public bodies may appeal the committee's decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal. In November of 2025, Bill 23 legislation, the more homes build pastor act amended the planning act to remove appeal rights for members of the public. If no appeal is received within the prescribed time frame, the decision of the committee becomes final and binding. The secretary treasurer will then notify the applicant and any other person who has received a copy of the decision through written correspondent. People participating in this hearing are to be courteous to, 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, available for future viewing at oakville.ca. Thank you. You have no regrets this evening of any declarations of peculiar interest? I see none. Okay. Have there been any requests for deferrals, Madam Secretary Treasurer? >> We've had no requests for deferrals and I'm showing no hands in the audience. >> Thank you. Okay, we'll take the first matter on our agenda which is application 122 of 2026 at 262 Alcott Crescent. Application 122 of 2026 at 262 Alcott Crescent. I have uh Mr. Gerardo Castillo here as the agent. >> Yes. Uh good evening uh madam chair and members of the committee. My name is Gerardo Castillo from Keystone Home Designs. I am the agent for 262 also. [gasps] Um I'm going to just give you a brief uh we send a little presentation for you. We're we're here trying to um get two two minor barces. One is for a front yard of um uh 9.6 proposed where uh 10.29 is required and then an interior uh sideyard of 3 m uh where um 4.2 two is required. Um the reason if if I can um if uh they can show my presentation I believe it's page number two. Um you'll see there um no it's like a site plan um the second the second uh yeah that one I don't know if you can zoom in but in there you can see the full site plan and the reasoning why we're doing we're asking for these variances is not um it's basically due to conservation honore than or than half of the lot cannot be built and then we have a setback. Um so we comply with that and then the orange area that you see at the back where the pool is um they told us also that um we cannot build past existing house that you can see there a little bit of the outline of it. So that gives us even you know literally more than half of the house has to be pushed to the front and to the side. So that's the main reason we were both working with the conservation for months. Finally, they they kind of support this this layout. And one thing that I wanted to make clear was that even though we're asking for a side set uh setback of 3 mters, the existing house is at it's a three uh it's at 3 mters exactly or less than that. Um and on the opposite side, on the garage side, we're keeping the garage at the same the same location. So, we're not really moving the house towards any neighbor. We're keeping it on the on the exact same spot. Um the reason we're asking for the front setback again conservation is making us push the house to the front. Um so a port some portions of the house don't comply but the garage and some the rest of the house do comply and the second floor complies. Uh but if you do an average calculation between the two adjacent properties the one on the right is actually um I think only like 30 cmters um behind us. So from the street you don't really see it much. Actually, if you can go to the next slide. Um, so you see the 296 Also, right? That's a new house. It's really close to the street. Um, you can see there 262, which is uh the property we're doing and the the neighbor on the right. Um, that's the the side setback that we're requesting to which I wanted to uh make a note. Um, actually we can go to the next slide. Um on the right you see the the the distance between the two properties. So ours is not changing. It's going to be be building exactly at that location. I believe that the the neighbor um they send a letter um I guess before I went to visit them complaining or they had an issue that uh they were opposing to to these varants. Uh I went there last week too late but I talked with the the lady the owner very nice lady. We had a good conversation. I explained the situation. Uh she understood it. Now she she knows that we're not going towards her property. We're keeping that that exact same location. Um so verbally she was okay with it. Um just wanted to make a note of that. Um and again the whole reason we're going through this uh bar is because of of uh conservation. Uh if you can slide over to uh um uh I guess more like one or two more slides with the renders. You can see a little bit of an aerial shot um to get a better understanding. Yeah. Here. So the back of the existing house that is the back of of the um of our proposed lo uh house. And then the little porch is like a 5ft deck. Uh it has a natural uh walkout. Um, so, um, as you can see, we're not we're we're dealing with with a with a a situation with conservation more than anything else. Um, and again, I'm I'm free here to take any questions from the panel on from uh any neighbors that might have any any questions. I did went around with a few of the houses and left my my a letter explaining what what's happening uh to see if they have any questions, but nobody has called me yet. So, if you have any questions or any concerns, I'm I'm here to answer. >> Thank you, Mr. Cassie. Any questions or any items of clarification? >> Go ahead, Mr. Dicki. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I see her lot is uh 36.58 m wide and uh I'm surprised that that's not wide enough that you can't comply with the 4.2 m sideyard setback. A nice wide lot. Yeah, it is it is a white lot. Uh but again if you look at the site plan um you'll see that on the on the on the right side you see the red line coming uh it's a setback from conservation right the the the creek kind of comes on in the side so it pushes the house towards the left um again we have a standard twocar garage um nothing out of the ordinary we comply with lot coverage uh with GFA even with a new bylaw Um and um it's just and one of the issues we had was that uh originally we wanted to make a regular house a bit more more square because but due to the back restriction I had to to to squish it and make it more of a rectangular home to be able to put all the the required rooms for this for this family. And that's the reason it it's it's narrow but it's it's pretty it's getting wide, right? But like I said, we we didn't went over the existing footprint of the existing house or the existing bungalow. >> The existing bungalow is only one the existing bung bungalow is only one story high. You're now building a twotory high bungalow and and you're not adhering to the bylaw like you you you're saying that because because that house was closer to the lot line before, but it was only one story house. So no, you're building something different than what was there before as far as the height >> and you're on the south side. So there's the aspect of of uh shadowing, etc. >> The other thing is rather and I don't really look really know too much, but basically you've got four windows on that north side. You've got four windows on the ground floor and three windows on this the second floor. So, if you're saying you have a wide shallow house, why do you need that many windows on the side wall overlooking the the short the narrow sidewalk? Sorry, side. Um, I mean, we can review the floor here because I put them on my presentation, but the windows that are facing that side, um, one is a small laundry room. Um, the other one is it's a a um a bathroom. So those are the only two windows that are really facing that property. The other two windows are are because it's a motor house, it's a corner window. So it's just a small window facing the front and facing the back or on the corner. But the only two windows that are facing the neighbor are a small laundry room and a and a and a and a bathroom. >> Saying I counted wrong. You're saying I didn't count I didn't count four windows on the ground floor. Didn't count three windows on the second floor. >> Yeah. If you go Yeah. Um Yeah. There. So the the north elevation, right? Um on the ground floor, you have the first window, which is that's um um a bathroom. >> There's that bathroom. Can I look out of that bathroom if I'm in there? >> Yes. Yes. >> Can you look out? >> Yeah. >> No, I can look out of those if I'm in there. I can look out of those bathrooms and look over at my neighbor's house back >> on the ground floor. Yeah. I mean, you're looking at the garage of the of the of the neighbor. Um, on the second floor, the top one is is in the middle. That's a laundry room, right? >> Can you look out of it or is it is it frosted? >> It could be frosted, but I mean, you have a counter in front of you, right? So, it's not that you can get all the way to the edge. You have a counter in front of it. Uh, you can look at it on the floor plans um in in the presentation um and you can see it better. Yeah, you see there there's uh on on the right side you have a laundry room. That's small window. And then you have two uh corner windows, one at the front, one at the back. So, you're not really And if you go back to the picture that where you have the two houses, what you see there, it's it's the um the neighbor the neighbor, sorry, the neighbor uh garage. Well, one there you see one you can go one one picture down. Yeah. On the right. Um that's >> yeah that windows from uh their uh I believe it's a mumm I think and then there's a wall on top so not much. >> You got any examples of other properties that have set of modern properties twotory properties that have less than 4.2 me setbacks sideyard setbacks in the immediate neighborhood >> in this area. Um I believe I I drove around and there was a lot of there's one that I'm showing here new house which is the lot is starting to to turn. If you go one slide over up the one on the bottom um bottom left. Yeah. So you can see that's a it's it's a very big house in my opinion. Um close to the street very close to the street. And on the right side you can actually see there that uh there's um the setback to the right. It's is it's very very close. >> Can't see it. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And yeah, >> and again, one thing that I did talk with that neighbor um was about the the the window locations and I explained to her what was going there. She she understand she was okay with it before she did the letter that she sent. to after she she sent that letter. And again, the only the only thing about this this property as you as you know, you probably seen it is it's is the view of the property, the view to the creek. It's beautiful. Um, but due to this conservation uh restrictions, like I said, more than half of it uh you cannot use this property for anything. So this property has been jumping from owner to owner. Um actually I was involved in in the project a while ago um because nobody can really build what what they want in this lot right. So that it's a very expensive lot very expensive uh area but uh due to the to the creek uh has a lot of restrictions. So finally we did working work something out with conservation. Um so uh that's why we're moving forward with this one. Okay. Any other questions? Mr. Towski. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Castillo, just to follow Mr. Dickiy's questioning on the side yard, uh it seems when I look at the renderings, uh I look at the site plan, you've got this house oriented wrong on the lot. Unless I'm reading it wrong, you've not built right up to the conservation setback on the west side, which you could have moved the house further over and that side of the property. And I understand again I understand where Mr. Dickiy's comments are coming from. the existing is closer, but you're building two stories, a twotory wall. But on the opposite side where you've got the significant setback, you've actually stepped the building back. It just seems to me that this building should be sitting, you know, reversed on the lot where you've pushed it as far as you can to the west of to try to comply with the sideyard setback. And even if you can't, um, why didn't you step back the second floor on the side adjacent to the sideyard where you're looking for the variance? >> Um, yes. So to answer the first uh question regarding the the garage side uh the reason I didn't originally obviously when you look at this on plan it makes sense just to move it over light it over but um right next to the garage that's where the existing grade drops significantly pretty pretty pretty pretty um harsh right so the the closer we move it we will not be able to have a uh even a little path to go towards the back of the of the backyard right Because with conservation, we're not allowed to to change much. We we're not supposed to touch any of the grading there. So, if I move it right next to to the limit, then there was no no we were not allowed to do retaining walls to have a path to go down to to the back on that side, right? Um, so I just wanted to have a little bit of a of a of a break, which is about about a meter, which is basically what we're asking for on the opposite side to have a path to go down um naturally down the um down the side down to the backyard. Uh, now to answer your your question about the the second floor. Um yeah, so we did of this design um took a while again going with conservation and then trying to have as all all the the wish list from from from the client and we keep reducing reducing uh the area. Uh like I said, this is not a um we didn't go for GFA or lot coverage because the lot is big enough that you can build even a much bigger home than this. Um but I if you look at the renders maybe this perspective is not the best but uh we did push some of the uh rooms uh in um you can see that on on for example on the garage side obviously has a proper um slope roof and then on the opposite side we just needed uh the space to to accommodate um the bedrooms and and the area that the client needed at the time. Right. So when you look at the front uh on that side, we do have a a roof that breaks that uh that uh twotory view, right? And then there's just a portion of the second floor that goes straight. But on the ground floor, we have a a little um loia on the ground floor that we're going to have a um a fireplace and a privacy wall to, you know, to to keep the privacy between the two properties. So um yeah, so we did look at a few other artic elements to to uh to avoid any any privacy or any issues with the neighbor. Again, that's the main reason we didn't want to push the house more to the opposite side. It was it was due to the if you look at the site plan, I I draw like a red line just showing what would be the the the restriction from conservation. I think it's on the second page of the the presentation yet there. charging that you see kind of uh greenish bluish. Um >> but I also I see that you've got the walkway encroaching into the conservation setback on this plan. So again, I'm if you can encroach the walkway, I'm not sure why you couldn't have shifted the house. >> Uh well, if I don't know if you can zoom in, um not really encroaching like it goes next to the to the to the garage, right? And it's just when you get down to the last uh um you see the the is right next to the house the pad and the last corner just a little square of it is it's encroaching. That's the only part that's encroaching. So it'll be tricky once we do the landscape, right? But uh but you don't see it here, but um it just steps steps down pretty pretty deep. So everything that you see kind of greenish on on that side. Um there's lots of uh very mature trees that obviously we cannot touch and we don't want to touch anyway. Uh but just the radius goes down. If now staff can zoom back out. Are there any further questions? Okay, I see none. Has anyone called with interest for this application? Madam Secretary Treasure, >> we've had no calls and no hands showing in the audience. Thank you. If there aren't any other uh comments or items of concerns, we'll take the matter into committee. Who would like to start the conversation? Go ahead, Mr. Tosski. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I'm in no way convinced that this sideyard setback is necessary or desirable. With a little bit of effort, um the applicant could have shifted the building to comply or closely comply with a little bit of more um sensitive design. They could have shifted the second floor on this side with the decrease setback as they did on the side with the significant setback. But they chose not to do that. wouldn't have necessarily changed the square footage of the house. Um I I can accept staff's um support based on the ground floor. I can't support it in terms of a twotory straight wall. I also can't accept the applicant's explanation on they can't shift because of the walkway. The walkway is already in the setback on part of it. The grade in that area falls off and where they're enclosing in a similar manner to where it does next to the garage. So, I'm not sure that that grade falloff is a reason um nor am I convinced that the desire to have a walkway at that side of the house is rationale um for representing a minor variance and a desirable situation. Madam Chair, um like Mr. Dicki, I'm concerned with the sideyard. I understand it's a constrained lot from a front yard perspective, but I don't believe this the constraints in the lot have created the need for this sideyard setback. I'd recommend the application be denied. >> Okay, there discussion on this recommendation. Okay, I see none. All those in support. Okay. All those opposed. Okay. Your application has been denied. >> Thanks very much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Uh, application 123 of 2026 at 315 Glenn Ashton Drive. Again, that's application 123 of 2026 at 315 Glenn Ashton Drive. I have Mr. Lincoln Low here as the agent. Apologies for that delay. Uh good evening madam chair uh and members of committee. My name is Lincoln Low. I am a principal with the land use planning firm alone given Parsons and I am the planner representing the Ashton Inc. on the variance before you this evening. Uh the variance request pertains to uh minimum parking ratios uh in support of a n-story mid-rise building located at the northwest northwest corner of Glenn Ashton and Trafaloger Road. Uh when I last visited the site, which was about a month ago, uh it looked like construction was just about uh completing uh on this newly built building. Um specifically with respect to the variance, uh the request is to permit the minimum number of parking spaces for an apartment to be 1.14 per dwelling. Uh of which.15 of those parking spaces will be for visitors. Uh whereas the minimum requirement currently is 1.15 per dwelling. Uh again, of which 0.15 of those spaces will be for visitors. Um essentially the uh 154 unit uh mid-rise building requires 178 parking spaces uh per the bylaw. Uh and the variance request is to permit uh 177 spaces. So a reduction of one space. Uh to note the visitor parking ratio and spaces provided to accommodate visitors remains unchanged uh with this application. Uh I do sometimes think it's it's quite helpful to understand why this request uh is being made. Uh from my understanding and in speaking with the civil engineers uh on the site uh for this project during the excavation phase it was discovered that there was a townowned uh duck bank within the road rightway uh that was unfortunately not identified in the servicing drawings uh that were submitted. Uh this meant that the water pipe that was needed to support this building that was supposed to be located uh where this duck banked uh is currently uh had to be lowered uh to be below the duck bank. Uh consequently, this pipe entered the building uh at a lower elevation uh than planned and and unfortunately it did had to come in uh to the building at the P1 level. Um if you wouldn't mind going back up to slide two. Yep, that's perfect. So, this is an exerpt of the architectural uh P1 level drawing, I've highlighted the impacted space uh in the red square. Uh, and you'll see uh in the notation at the bottom right of the square, it says metal cage around water main pipes. Um, and there's a bit of a rectangle. Uh, and then you can see that's the limit of the obstruction. Uh, the obstruction causes the space to be reduced from 5.7 m, which is the standard length of a parking space, to 5.2. uh and as such it can't be counted towards the minimum required parking spaces uh in the zoning bylaw. Uh the space will be counted as a compact parking space uh which again are usable spaces but again not for the purpose uh of the bylaw uh of on on that topic. This building does actually provide 10 uh such spaces uh compact spaces uh including this one subject to the variance. Again they can be used as as parking uh but not counted towards the minimum parking requirements. Uh if you go to slide three, uh here's a picture that I I was able to get from the site super uh of the uh the water pipes protruding into the space. And there you go. Slide four. And here's the side view uh of the pipes. Uh I I do want to note that the pipe at the wall um is is is quite tall off the ground. It's It's probably taller than the hood of any car um that that would be driven by residents. May maybe not maybe not that Elon Musk car, but most cars. Um I think it would be taller then. So So if a future user of this space did want to front into the space, uh I think it could actually accommodate a full range of vehicles. Uh and I would say that even at the 5.2 2 meter uh reduction or the compact space uh that that could reasonably uh accommodate a fullsize sedan uh but but would probably be too short for for let's say a minivan or or a 9-seater uh full-size SUV. Uh I've reviewed the recommendation report. Uh I I do support staff's recommendation. I've also reviewed the conditions of approval with my client uh and we have no issues with them at all. Uh in my opinion, I do believe this variance meets the four tests of a minor variance. I I believe it's minor in nature being the reduction of one parking space into a compact space. Uh I think it meets the intent uh of the official plan in the zoning by law uh by continuing to provide uh sufficient resident and visitor parking to support the develop to support the development. Uh and I think it's desirable and appropriate development uh on the subject lands. Um I would ask this committee to approve this variance and and I'm happy to answer any questions uh should there be any. Thank you. >> Thank you Mr. Low. Any questions? of Mr. Law at this time. Items of clarification. Okay, I see none. Is there anyone called with interest for this application? Madam Secretary, Treasurer, >> we've had no calls and and no hands in the audience. >> Okay, very well. We'll take the matter into committee. Who would like to move a motion? Oh, sorry, Mr. Arasa. Did you have your hand up? >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I did want to ask a question of staff. I'm I'm I'm I'm looking for a bit of a procedural question or or or an approach question here just uh to assage I'm I'm struggling a little bit with my memory on the way we've dealt with these things in the past. Madam Chair, um we've seen a number of um scenarios in in in my time on the committee where uh an underground parking structure is constructed and for one reason or another there ends up being some form of encroachment into the bylaw required space. And for the life of me, I'm I'm sitting here tonight thinking that in the past we've allowed for encroachments to allow the parking space to be counted, although I'm hearing otherwise from the applicant here and and and I just I can't uh put my mind on a specific example here. So I' I'd like to understand the thinking on staff in terms of reducing the number the the ratio as it applies versus allowing this singular parking space to be substandard in the length of the parking stall uh or allowing a compact to be counted or or what have you in terms of another methodology or approach. just like a couple of comments from staff with respect to that to um uh [laughter] help remind me what what we've done in the past, make me feel a little more comfortable about it if I could. >> For you, Madam Chair. Um I'm new to the site or to the committee of adjustment process, so I'm not sure what the committee has seen in the past. Uh however this is a viable solution that the site planner for the actual site plan application who I talked with said was appropriate way of dealing with this as opposed to a number. Uh it was more dealing with the ratio. So we felt that this was an appropriate way of dealing with the matter. Does that satisfy you to start a castle? >> Um, it's an answer. >> Uh, Mr. Low, go ahead. >> Oh, uh, if if you wouldn't mind, uh, you know, Mr. Hard Castle, I I will say that, uh, I also am am, you know, I I do many minor variances all all over, you know, the GTA. Every municipality does it different. I will say that I think on your question I actually also found uh that the Oakville process does I think allow for what you're saying which is that um the parking space is an obstruction but it's still counted and therefore you're not uh amending the ratio the parking ratios but I unfortunately did not know about this process until after I had made the submission. So in my speaking with the file planner he said look you could do it this way which is the variance way but you know in in the in in in the future for your benefit there's probably also a simpler way which is the obstruction way which you know uh full full disclosure to you Mr. our world. I did not know I did not know that this existed because um uh God, it would be useful to exist in other municipalities as well. I'm not going to lie. Uh but I did not know that Oakville had this. So So that would be my miaakopa uh on that. I I just uh I just didn't know that this process existed. But um in in my speaking with the planner, he said both both options work. Just you know, you you I I chose the harder path allegedly. Yeah. >> Thank you, Mr. Tusk. You had your hand up though. Thank you, Madam Chair. [clears throat] Mr. Hard Castle raises a good point. I'm not sure how we could change it on the fly. Um, the way that this is structured, that parking space exists, Mr. Lo has gone through an explanation how it's completely usable parking space, but instead of requiring it to be there as a small car space, we're actually just taking it off the books. So they could the condo corporation could walk in day one and turn it into a storage room and actually reduce the amount of parking. So I think Mr. Hart Castle is right. The it would seem the alternative route which I do believe we dealt with in the past would have been uh more likely but a more favorable way to go. But uh I'm not sure and I don't think anybody's has the information tonight to be able to say this is the exact variance that you would need. But um I tend to agree Mr. Hard Castle would have been better dealing with it the other way. Guess that's just comment not a question. >> Yeah. Okay. Um All right. If there are no further comments, uh, we'll take the matter into committee. Who would like to move a motion? >> Go ahead, Mr. Castle. >> Um, thank you, Madam Chair. Um, having undertaken my uh site visit, having reviewed the uh materials including the written staff report, having heard uh the presentation and comments, um I'm satisfied that the the variance does conform to the four tests of the act u that the site will continue to function um from a parking and parking perspective and will maintain its functionality. quality notwithstanding some of the um um potentials that are out there. Um uh so I'll put forward a motion of approval. Um that motion would be subject to the uh three stated conditions uh in the staff report. Those being that the approval of the site plan uh note to file updating the approved plans of the site plan approval be granted which recognizes the reduction of one compliant parking space and addition of compact car signage. uh that the subject parking space be constructed and and compact car signage be provided in general accordance with the approved plans and that the owner agrees to place notification and rental agreements advising prospective tenants that this parking space along with the compact parking spaces are deficient in size and may not be suitable for larger vehicles to the satisfaction of the director of planning and development. >> Thank you Mr. Hardcastle. Was there discussion on this recommendation? I see none. All those in support. Okay. The application has been approved. None opposed. >> Thank you. Have a great evening. >> Have a good evening. >> You too. Bye. >> Okay. Application 124 of 2020 6 at 212 Burgundy Drive. Again, that's application 124. 2026 at 212 Burgundy Drive. I have Mr. Joseph Dome as the agent. And we have letters of support from Moren Delgado and Keith Delgado, Matthew Enra Enra, and Michelle uh Clay Horn. Um, yes. Uh, Joe Dome, 133 Torres Avenue. Agent for the owners. Go >> ahead, Mr. Do. >> Um, the owner would like to construct a new uh two-story dwelling with a front partially covered porch and a rear detached uh cabana. I will note that as per planning staff comments, uh, revised drawings were submitted uh, yesterday as the presentation materials. Um, if we could just bring those up on screen. So the material should show the uh the revision to the um to the roof um on the uh the north side. Um and that basically alters the uh the roof slope uh to ensure that the overall height complies with the bylaw. And uh the proposal has been through the pre-conultation process. Um and revisions had previously been made in accordance with uh staff recommendations. And uh before you today, there are three variances requested. Um lot coverage of uh 27.01%. Um this does include the uh the rear cabana and the front covered porch areas. Uh whereas the dwelling itself, I believe, meets the bylaw uh for coverage. Um I believe the the cabana and covered porches account for about 5.1 uh%. And an RFA of 40.95% is proposed and um impact is mitigated by the fact that the design incorporates a number of features uh which help to reduce the appearance of massing such as uh articulation and stepbacks on the first and second floors and uh lowered roof lines. Uh the variance also includes the the void attic space uh above the 1 and a half story open to blow area at the rear of the dwelling uh which does not affect the massing um at the to the streetscape. Um and there's no height variance uh requested. I'll note also that the uh sideyard uh setbacks exceed the 4.2 uh meter minimum requirement. So the north side maintains a 7.4 4 meter setback and the southside yard maintains a 5.6 meter setback. So there will be a significant separation uh between dwellings and and a reduced impact combined with the uh the lowered roof lines um and the compliant dwelling height. The front yard setback variance of 11.16 m does apply to a smaller portion of the uh the front main wall around the entrance. So, if we could bring up the site plan um on screen. So the um the area um around the the uh front porch um that section is is uh is the portion to which the front yard setback uh variance applies while the remainder of the dwelling um does meet the bylaw for front yard setback and uh planning staff is supportive of the application. Uh the owner has communicated with the neighbors and has uh received three letters in support uh on file. Two from neighbors to the rear um and uh one from across the street. And overall we feel the application is uh reasonable and minor in nature. And I'd be happy to answer uh any questions you may have. >> Thank you Mr. Dome. Any questions of Mr. Dome at this time? Mr. Dicki. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, there's mention of this void or add attic space which is included in the residential floor area. Can you tell me a bit more about that? What how many uh square meters we're talking about and what percentage that that reflects of the lot area? I I'm unclear as to the exact number. I believe it should be at least about 6 mters by 6 meters. So, it should account for about uh about 2 and 12% of the uh of the floor area variance. And what's the you said it it's above the one and a half story great room or whatever you want to call it. Is it still a good height in this in this area? Standing height above there, >> I believe. So, it would be a one and a half uh story. So, a sloped roof design um and so it it wouldn't um add massing to the uh um to the front of the dwelling or impact to the the streetscape or even to the rear as just due to the uh the slope of the the roof. Um, so why is it included in the residential floor area? Is it a part like an attic? This is why I'm confused and I don't want to I mean I could be asking the town that question, but I'll ask you if you don't mind. >> Um, so I I'm a little unclear as to um as as to that as well, but um apparently it was um included and it's I believe like an open to below uh space. Um, but with the the slope proof, >> but for this square footage, 6 mters by 6 m, it does not have a floor on it. The floor is down on the ground floor. >> That's right. >> Okay. Could I ask the town to explain this to me then? Somebody from the town, one of the town planners, please. >> Yes, through you, Madam Chair. >> Oh, thank you, Madam Chair. Um, through you. um with the new bylaw provisions for 2026-088 um void areas within you know uh open to below front foyers or or living rooms or family rooms um if the ceiling height's greater than 7.5 m. Um, so regardless of whether it's a one and a half story with an attic above or a full twostory, um, if the wall height's greater than 7.5 m, the area above that, uh, portion of the dwelling that has that particular wall height, um, the floor area ratio is included in that. So um most of the times you know um the committee might be familiar with um you know previously the uh open to below void areas were excluded from the floor area ratio calculations. Um but with the bylaw changes they are now included. Um which for the most part usually means a full twotory open to below. Um but in this case to try and mitigate some of the massing concerns from this particular proposal um the architect lowered it to be about one and a half stories in height but because of the overall height of the area still um the attic space above um is still included within the floor area calculation. >> Thank you. I didn't realize that the bylaw changed that definition to open to blow. Okay. Thank you very much. Any other questions? >> Go ahead, Mr. O'Hare. >> Thank you again, Madam Chair. I just wanted to bring to the committee's uh attention um as the comments for this particular application were completed um last week um prior to receiving the updated plans with the new um roof as well as the new elevations. Um just a brief history about that was when I was reviewing this application, I had noticed that um the percentage of the flat roof area seemed um as though it might be higher than 65%. Uh and again for committee's reference um if more than 65% of the roof area is flat um the maximum permitted height under the new bylaw provisions is 8 m. Um and the applicant is currently seeking 8.55 m. So they were really close to that threshold. They were able to revise the roof plan uh as well as the elevation drawings to um have a percentage of the roof that is flat to less than 65%. It's approximately 63%. Um because it's less than 65% they are entitled to a maximum permitted height of 9 m. Um, so the height they're seeking is actually uh 45 cm less than what they're technically permitted now as of right. Um so with that information I just wanted to um make a friendly um revision to the condition uh number one where uh currently it states that the dwelling be constructed in general accordance with the submitted site plan dated [clears throat] May 19th 2026 um and elevation drawings dated August 19th 2026. Um if if if three, Madam Chair, if you're immenable to um revising condition number one so that it now states um that the dwelling be constructed in general accordance with the submitted site plan still dated May 19th, 2026 uh in elevation drawings dated October 9th, 2026. >> Very well. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any other items clarification? Okay, I noted the letters of support. Has anyone called in with interest for this application? Secretary Treasure, >> we have received no calls and uh I'm not showing any hands in the audience for uh asking for participate participation. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. We'll take the matter into committee who would like to move a motion. Go ahead, Mr. Dicki. Thank you, Madam Chair. Based upon my review of the owner owner's applications uh application, the site plans, building elevations, my site visit together with the presentation by the owner's consultant, the planning staff report, and the two support letters by the neighbors. I'm 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 is applied for be approved subject to the conditions that the dwelling be constructed in general accordance with the submitted site plan dated May 19th, 2026 and the elevation the new elevation drawings dated October 9th, 2026. and that the approval expires two years from the date of the decision if a building permit has not been issued for the proposed construction. Thank you, Mr. Dicki. Is there discussion on this recommendation? I see none all those in support. Okay, the application has been approved. None opposed. Thank you. Have a good night. Okay. Application 125 of 2026 at 16 Glenn Manor Drive. Again at application 125 of 2026 at 16 Glen Manor Drive. I have Lindsay Bruce here as the agent. Good evening, madam chair, members of committee. Sorry, can you hear me now? >> Yes, go ahead. >> Fantastic. Thank you so much. So, yeah, today we're discussing 16 Blend Manor Drive. This is just a simple cover page. Next slide, please. Um, see on the scene on the left hand side is the existing uh raised bungalow been there since the 50s. We are looking at a proposed new twostory dwelling uh with a mixed front facade and staggered volume to really keep the overall physical form um not heavily dominant on that front facade to nicely blend with the existing streetscape. Next slide please. Um, we want to put together a quick context here for how we got to where we are today. So, April 20th, we finished the design with the clients. Uh, May through July, we are finalizing construction detailing for the entirety of the project. In the midst of that process in prepping for the Denge submission, there was the amendments to the zoning bylaw um which was flagged during the building permit submission and town zoning review which drove the um uh slate modifications to the building design and application to committee of adjustment for this evening's hearing. Next slide please. So the overall impacts here that we uh we are negatively impacted by the new bylaw on first and foremost would be the maximum lot coverage. Um so we are allowed 25% we are sitting at 27.71 um because the dwelling is greater than 7 m in height. Um and and originally we allowed 35 we've been dropped from 35 down to 25. Um and um the rear covered patio which is highlighted in a solid orange box on the right hand side of the site plan is depicting a 34 square meter lock coverage or 3.7% ratio calculation. Um which is basically that elevated deviation above and beyond that 25% allowable. Uh next slide please. Uh so requested variances number two and three um easterly sideyards are required to be sitting at uh 1.8 um and are have been uh basically they've been modified and so we we've been negatively impacted. So again minimum easterly interior sideyard of 1.2 whereas the 1.8 8 is required and that same instance is existing on the westerly which is driving variance number three. Next slide please. Um the uh the neighbors had sorry well the homeowners had great discussions with all of the surrounding neighbors um and have uh some excellent uh petitions in support of the proposal um and that is what's being depicted in front of you uh on this slide. The next slide, please. Um, so yeah, I mean, this is obviously a tricky situation for the homeowners. They've, you know, they fell in love with a home design that worked really well for their growing family to, you know, live in and thrive for the next several decades. They've already lived on the street for for well over 10 years. And they're they're quite excited at the prospect of, you know, breaking ground on this project for winter. And hopefully the committee is very much in support of the proposal and definitely you know open up the the door to any questions, comments or concerns regarding the proposal in front of you this evening. Thanks folks. >> Very well. Thank you. Are there any questions or items of concerns? >> Mr. Towski. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Bruce, you may have heard my comments on an earlier application, but on this one, just um if you can confirm my reading of this, you're looking for two sideyard variances. the one side it is a singlestory along that side and the second uh sideyard while the variance applies to the ground floor the second floor is stepped back what looks like at least two or beyond the minimum is that correct >> yeah so we you are correct on on both both houses >> thank you >> anything further Okay. Is anyone called with interest for this application on Secretary Treasur? >> We've had no calls and no hands in the audience. >> Who would like to move a motion? >> Oh. Um, pardon me. >> Oh, >> yeah. >> Madam Chair, yes, we do have a hand up. Um, it just went up now. Could you I'll move her into the meeting. It is Mrs. Nancy Adler. Okay. Very well. Go ahead, Miss Adler. >> Hi there. Um, I and my husband, we live at 343 Queen Mary Drive and, um, our backyard partially backs on to the sideyard of this proposed house. And we have a couple of concerns um with the proposed variances. The um proposed coverage variancing variance is allowing the proposed house to be much deeper than any of the houses on either side. And because of that, the proposed house where it goes beyond Tang Glenn Manor, even though it's set back, the sideyard set, the sidewall has floor to ceiling um windows on both the first floor and the second floor. And because they've manipulated the grades at the back in order to allow a walkout basement, um those windows, the floor of the first story starts at 1.6 m above the sideyard elevation um just behind the house. So, and that's the elevation of my backyard. So that means that these uh windows in the sidewall um have clear views into both my neighbors property at uh 347 Queen Mary and and ours both into our backyards and also into the backs of our houses. And so I'm I'm not saying like that the variance the variance has impacts, but perhaps we can mitigate it by requiring that those that glass be frittered so that they they're not staring into our backyards. And um they also the platform of their their patios are also at 1.63 63 m above the elevation of our property and their backyard. So, um, and I'm not saying that it should all be screened, but the side of that elevated platform should be screened. And because um with the reduced sideyard setback, it has to be devoted entirely to drainage. They can't screen it in any way with vegetation. And in fact, their proposed development is actually taking the trees out um in the backyard of 10 Glenn Manor, the property beside them. So, we're also losing that screening of the mature trees. So perhaps there's an architectural way that they can they can put um a screen on the open and covered porch towards the side lot line so that they're not overlooking and causing privacy impacts on the neighbors that front on to Queen Mary to Miss Adler. Um, I just want to touch on all of the items that you spoke of. So, we do have a proposed privacy screen which is being provided on the westerly side of the dwelling. That privacy screen is anchored in a budding right against the rear wall of the living room roof canopy that folds into a wall assembly. So, we do have full privacy. >> Can we see an the elevation that shows that? I would be happy to share my screen if I have the ability. >> No, we have a ren is that is it part of you the pictures and the rendering that you provided in the application? >> Uh, it's a little bit clear on the actual elevation plans that are that are through the the review process. The uh >> do we have those? Do we does town staff have them? Because you're not able to share your screen, but if you've provided them, we can put them up. Uh they I mean they they would have been part of the standard application would would be providing those full set of plans for zoning review and and conformity comments from the town staff. >> Um I don't know if town staff has them. >> Yeah, through you madam chair. um to the secretary or assistant secretary treasurer. Um I believe the submitted package um that was made for this minor variance application does include full elevation drawings for both all four sides that um do show the privacy screen. Um they're on the town's website um on the Oakville agenda and meetings link for comments or for materials provided. So I'm wondering if perhaps the assistant secretary treasurer could bring up the plans that were submitted for this application uh which show those you madam chair to to Mr. O'Hare this this particular snapshot is fine for now for reference purposes. Um so on this the bottom render here you're seeing the red brick on the left hand side. So the left hand side of that volume is the living room window and directly adjacent the brick of that lefthand volume of the living room you're seeing a horizontal slat assembly. That horizontal slat assembly is attached to the facade of the home the rear of the home and it is coming out a total of about 10 ft. So that wood slat assembly which is sitting directly on top of the concrete foundation wall is providing full screening directly to the neighbor to the west. That neighbor to the west is as noted um it would be the impacted 10 um 10 Glenn Manor and then also 347. Both of those neighbors provided signatures of support of the proposal. So they're the ones that are directly impacted with that privacy screen. I also want to note that the elevation deviation is is actually about 98 mters, not 1.6 m on that platform on the rear. >> So there there we haven't manipulated any of grades. We actually kept all the grades in the rear completely intact and undisturbed. The walk out basement condition is actually a complete subterranean volume that is that is completely concealed. So, all of that basement glass, um, you're looking out into their walkout basement. We're not actually manipulating the grades at all. We've kept all of the grades intact. We also have a mandate by town staff. Uh, we've already had a full arborist uh, review done by the town staff, but also by the neighboring property at Tenclan Manor. They've reviewed and approved the removal of their vegetation. However, we're agreeing to plant a number of trees to satisfy town staff conditions when it comes to the removal replacement uh requirements. So, I do feel like we've gone above and beyond to communicate with the with the appropriate parties. I do understand 347 um Miss Adler her her her rear property does slightly abut the rear of of of our client's property. I just don't feel like there there's a as significant as an impact um as as is being mentioned. So I just want to kind of reiterate our our bullet points here. >> Thank you. Miss Adler, you have your hand up again. >> No, no, this is Mr. O'Hare. >> Yeah, sorry. >> Okay. Um very well. Mr. Talski, go ahead. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Bruce, the the neighbors in her presentation thought that the coverage variance was requiring or resulting in the house being deeper into the lot. Is your coverage variance for the actual dwelling itself or is it uh simply because of the rear covered porch? uh lot coverage 27.71. 25% is allowed of that rear patio. That rear patio is 3.7 of the 27.71. So we're the the dwelling itself is sitting at 25.01 and then there's that orange canopy that's above and beyond that. Okay. So effectively the coverage is for the cover porch, not the house. Thank you. >> That's correct. Yeah, exactly. If there anything further, we can take the matter into committee. Who would like to move a motion? >> Go ahead, Miss Bryce. Taking into account my site visit, the reports provided by the agent and staff, and there being no letters of opposition, I find the variances to be minor in nature and are in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the official plan and zoning bylaw and are desirable for the appropriate development of the land. As noted by staff, the seconds story setbacks, lowered roof lines, and extra exterior cladding all helped to contribute to a reduction in the potential massing and scale impacts of the surrounding neighborhood and abuing properties. In conclusion, I find the application meets the four tests of the planning act and therefore recommend the application be approved subject to the following conditions. that the dwelling be constructed in general accordance with a submitted site servicing and grading plan dated August 27th, 2026 and elevation drawings dated September 11th, 2026 and that the approval expires 2 years from the date of the decision if the building permit has not been issued for the proposed construction. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Is there discussion on this recommendation? I see none. All those in support. The application has been approved. None opposed. >> Thanks so much, Comm. Have a great evening. >> Good evening. Okay. Um, application 126 of 2026 at 301 Helen Lawson Lane. Again, that's application 26 of 2026 at 301 Lawson Helen Lawson Lane. And I have a letter of support from Meyn and John Lafrener. And I have Valerie Nassau as the agent. Good evening, chair and members of the committee. Uh my name is Valerie Nasso and I'm a planner with Bator Planning and Management here today on behalf of the applicant uh for 301 Helen Lawson Lane. >> Thank you. Go ahead, Miss Nassel. >> Thank you. Um so the site is located on the west side of Allen Street and is a corner lot with flankage on Helen Lawson Lane. Uh the surrounding neighborhood consists of a mix of detached dwellings of various sizes and architectural styles. Um there is a significant history behind the development of the OTM lands. Uh the area was subject to town initiated official plan and zoning bylaw amendments for new institutional and residential development. And a key part of that planning framework was special provision 383 which was intended to ensure that the residential development um reflected the existing neighborhood character. And so the applicant has been developing a series of residential dwellings on the OTMH lands um with lower density detached dwellings uh fronting McDonald Road and Allen Street and then medium density uh town homes that will be developed on Helen Lawson Lane. Um in 2025, a zoning bylaw amendment was approved by council to modify special provision 383 and add um sight specific regulations for 15 of the 19 detached dwelling lots. And so the intent of the zoning bylaw uh amendment was to provide greater variety and architectural features um while providing opportunities to accommodate additional housing options in the form of an accessory dwelling unit above detached garages. Um I note that one of the changes made through the zoning bylaw was to increase the width of the garage doors for attached garages um to 4.98 m as showcased in the far right column of the table excerpt on the slide. Um, next slide, please. So, currently lot 19 was approved for a detached garage with an ADU, additional dwelling unit above. Um, based off of market feedback from interested buyers, the applicant is requesting that the garage be relocated and integrated into the main dwelling. And so, this requires a variance to the site specific provisions to permit a maximum garage door width of 4.98 m. Um, as detailed on the previous slide, the proposed garage door width for lot 19 aligns with the existing sight specific provisions for several other lots um within the OTM uh redevelopment. Um, next slide. Thank you. Um, so as we can see, the garage for the dwelling on lot 19 is proposed to be relocated from the rear of the site and then integrated into the dwelling. Um to compensate for this change, the dwelling has been slightly pushed back from the street um in comparison to law 18 uh to further reinforce variation in the bill form. I note that the proposed width of the garage door um does not impact the size of the garage um and that the floor area of the garage continues to meet zoning bylaw requirements. Um next slide, please. So through several discussions with planning staff, urban design staff, local counselors, um, and neighbors, the elevations have been carefully considered um to mitigate the presence and the visual impact of the attached garage. Uh, notably, we've introduced a front wraparound porch to the dwelling um to distinguish the facade from the adjacent interior lots. Um to complement the attached garage, uh the front entrance has been reoriented from Helen Lawson Lane to Allen Street. Um and the garage doors are slightly recessed from the front porch um to reduce its visual pre prominence from the streetscape. Next slide, please. So, in accordance with official plan policy 11.1.9, the proposed facade with the attached garage provides for a build form that is compatible with the surrounding building scales, heights, massings, and architectural materials present within the streetscape as detailed on the slide. Um, the design also incorporates best practices from uh the design guidelines for stable residential communities. Specifically, um, it aligns with section 3.2.6. six of the design guidelines as the garage door is slightly recessed from the main facade and the front porch is designed to mitigate the visual prominence of the garage. Um the garage door and the front facade of the proposed dwelling on lot 19 is designed to be similar uh yet visually distinct from the adjacent lots. Uh the sighting of the garage door aligns with the character and architectural rhythm of the adjacent approved dwellings. Um, of note, the garage door is designed to be um, different than the immediately adjacent dwelling on lot 18. Um, but it does have a similar um, pattern as the approved garage doors on lots 16 and 17. Uh, next slide, please. So, in conclusion, the updated design of the garage um, has been designed in accordance with the official plan policies and design guidelines, incorporating elements that maintain visual interest and articulation along the front facade. uh while ensuring that the garage door does not appear as a dominating feature along the Allen streetscape. Um the requested garage width garage door width sorry of 4.98 m aligns with the maximum garage door widths permitted for other detached dwellings within the OTM redevelopment under special provision 383 of the zoning bylaw. Um both staff and an adjacent neighbor are supportive of the proposed application. Um, we've reviewed the staff recommendation report and support the conditions of approval. Um, in our opinion, the requested variance satisfies the four tests um and represents good planning. Thank you. >> Thank you, Miss Nas. Any questions of Miss Nassau at this time? >> Mr. Towski. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. In your presentation, you seem to indicate the change was a preference. The staff report talks to a conflict with the original driveway and the access to the parking garage. Can you speak to that, please? >> Um, thank you, member uh, Tiski. Um, it's a bit of both. So, you know, this is one of the last remaining lots to be developed in the subdivision. And the feedback that the applicant has been getting from potential interested buyers in the the lot is that um there's a preference for an attached garage as opposed to a detached with an ADU on top. um you know, in terms of um access and um applicability with the zoning bylaw, moving the garage or sorry, moving the driveway from the flankage road to the um Allen Street fronting the property um does not result in any other um changes to zoning bylaw regulations. >> Thank you. Perhaps um I could ask Mr. O'Hare similar or sorry um sorry member it's um Miss Hutchali who prepared these comments. >> Okay, I could only see you on my screen. Sorry about that. >> But just for clarity, it's staff's preference it be moved to eliminate a potential conflict with the traffic going in and out of the parking garage. Is that correct? >> Um through you, Madam Chair. as u the applicant had indicated it it is a bit of both. Um so to answer your question yes that is correct. >> Thank you. >> Anything further? >> Okay I see none who would like to um have we had any calls or interest to speak to this matter. Madam Secretary, Treasurer, >> we've had no interest uh for that. >> Okay. Who would like to move a motion? >> Go ahead, Mr. Towski. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I'll move that this application [snorts] be approved as applied for finding that it meets the test of planning act and only do I believe there will be no impacts from this variance. I believe that's a favorable solution resulting from functional issues with the adjacent driveway. I think this is a probably far greater solution for the town houses to the rear not having a building immediately adjacent to their narrow backyards. and the garage doors being proposed are consistent with the other doors or many of the other doors in the new subdivision. I would note there was a letter of support. No opposition. I would make the approval subject to the dwelling being constructed general accordance with the site plan and elevations. I guess just dated October 2026 and that the approval expires within two years of the building permit hasn't been issued. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Fowski. Is there discussion on this recommendation? See none. All those in support. Okay. The application has been approved. None opposed. >> Great. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. Have a good night. >> You as well. Hey, we have minutes to confirm from October the 1st. Miss Price, thank you. And motion to adjourn, Mr. Hart Castle. Thank you. You're adjourned at 8:19