Excellent. Uh good morning everyone. It's uh 10:00 a.m. We'll get started. This meeting the committee of adjustment is being called to hear applications under the planning act for minor variance uh and or consent. This is a statutory public meeting. Anyone having interest in any 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 this meeting. Meeting procedure. Please note each application will be addressed in the following manner. The planning coordinator will introduce the application and staff recommendation outlined in the report which was posted on the city of Kitchener website 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 or agent if they've reviewed the staff report and whether they are 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 stated by other parties. The committee members may ask questions uh of the parties in opposition if there are any. Uh the chair will invite the agent or applicant to make any comments if they have them and the agent/pplicant can ask questions regarding the staff recommendation. The committee members may ask questions of the agent/applicant and the committee members can also ask questions of city staff. Afterwards, this the committee will pass a motion to either approve, reject, or defer the application. Uh minutes. Can I call for someone to move a recommendation to approve the minutes from our last meeting so that the regular minutes of the committee of adjustment meeting held on May 19, 2026 as circulated to the members be accepted. Can I get a motion for that? Member Maria made that motion to approve the minutes from the last meeting. Seconded by member Marco. All those in favor of approving the minutes from last meeting. One, two, three, four, five. All five in favor. That's uh carried. Uh moving along. Uh disclosure of pecuniary interest and the general nature thereof. So if anyone has a conflict of interest on this agenda, uh I've got one on uh West Mount. So I have a conflict of interest there. I just live a few hundred meters away from uh from that house. So, at that point, I will step out of the room and I'll ask a member Bob to step in the chair role for um Westmount that's on the agenda item. Okay. Um cool. Uh next, I guess we move on to uh unfinished business. So, that's uh item number 5.1 A2026-010. That's at 12 uh Crescent Street. Um but looks like that was withdrawn. So, that's easy peasy. Great start. Okay. So, unfinished business is finished. Now, we move to new business. Uh 6.1 A2026-036 uh 44 and 50 Arlington Boulevard. If I can invite the agent applicant to be seated there in that uh chair on my right uh to your left over there. And while you're taking your seat, if I can please invite the planning coordinator to introduce the application and staff recommendation, please. >> Thank you, chair. This is a minor variance application for 4450 Arlington Boulevard. It's a minor variance to permit a floor space ratio of 0.95 instead of the maximum permitted 0.84. This is to facilitate the redevelopment of the property with a multiple dwelling having 16 dwelling units in accordance with the site plan application. Uh with respect to some background to the application, uh the um proposal received an official plan and zoning bylaw amendment in May 2025 to support the redevelopment with the 16 dwelling units having the maximum floor space of 0.84. Uh the increased FSR uh is as a result of the basement being slightly elevated from the ground. And this basement floor area was um included was not included originally with the floor space um calculation that was provided to council at the time of the zoning bylaw and uh official plan amendment applications. So there was a miscalculation um with respect to the um number and according to the definition of FSR the entire basement level must be counted towards FSR um including those portions that are fully underground. So this has resulted in an increase in the FSR from 0.84 to 0.95 and hence the need for the minored variance. It is important to note that the plan submitted with the OPA and ZBA applications is unchanged. There is no additional building height or floor area being added and no additional dwelling units and as such staff feel that this is a technical variance which does meet the four tests of the planning act and is recommending approval. >> Thank you very much. If I can confirm with the agent or um applicant if they review the staff report and whether in support of the recommendation if you can introduce yourself too please that'd be great. Hi. So, uh through the committee, uh my name is Zade Cash Fala with KSmart Associates. I'm the applicant on behalf of this file. We have reviewed the staff report and we are in support of the recommendation. >> Excellent. Thank you. Uh are there any parties in the gallery here in opposition application? Uh seeing none. So, um committee members, you have any questions of the uh agent or for city staff? Uh, seeing no questions. So, I'll just ask for someone to uh to make a motion, please. Member Marco. >> I will move the staff recommendation to approve. >> Thank you. So, member Marco made the motion to approve. Seconded by member Amanda. So, we got a first and a second. Uh, floor is open for debate or comments. No, seems straightforward. It's just really like a truly a minor variance here. Same height, same amount of units. So, it seems pretty uh pretty easy peasy. So, uh, I will call for the vote. All those in favor, uh, of approving, uh, one, two, three, four, five. All five are in favor, so it's carried. Uh, good luck. Uh, next up, we have agenda item 6.2. That's a 2022-037, 63 Courtland Avenue East. Uh if I can invite the agent applicant to come over there to the microphone, please. And uh we did have written submissions uh for this application. A few of them, including some that were on our desk this morning that were all read. Uh so we had a chance to to read those. Um yeah, if I can please invite the planning coordinator to introduce the application and staff recommendation, please. >> Thank you, chair. This is a minor variance application for 63 Courtland Avenue East. Uh there are five minor variances before you this morning. Um the first one is to add a cluster townhouse dwelling as a permitted use. Uh the other variances relate to setbacks and building length. The variances are to facil facilitate the development of five stack town dwelling units and a 84 unit development with uh sorry five stack townhouse dwelling units with 84 dwelling units and a cluster townhouse with four dwelling units in accordance with a site plan application. Um staff have reviewed the variances in light of the four tests and find that they meet all four and is recommending approval. I would note that the committee of adjustment does have the jurisdiction to consider a use variance provided that it does meet the four tests of the planning act which it does. Um the variances um some of them relate to the uniqueness of the lot. This is a through lot. Uh the frontage is on Courtland Avenue and the rear yard is actually on Martin. And I think the variances are going to facilitate a streetscape along Martin as well as Courtland. So that's why you're seeing some of the variances for the building stuff backs along Martin in to address the comments from some of the um in in the comments in some of the submissions. Again, staff have the variances in light of the forecast of the planning act find that they meet all four and is recommending approval of all five. >> Thank you. If I can ask the uh applicants to introduce themselves, please. and whether you view the staff report and whether you're in support of the recommendation. >> I'm with MHPC planning here on behalf of the owner. Um I'm here with Cecilia Silva from Canro as well representing the ownership. I have reviewed the staff report. I'm here in support of the recommendation. I've also reviewed all of the public comments including the uh submission that came in this morning. I have provided the committee um for the benefit of the committee uh an aerial image that shows uh something and and this is actually quite helpful with the comments that came in this morning that confirm they weren't sure where the property line sits on this property. So the red square on the uh figure I've identified is the property boundary. This property is comprised of 63 Courtland and 26 Martin Street. You'll see that the 26 Courtland property was subject to a previous widening. So the uh right ofway is wider across that property when compared to the other parcel that makes up the block which is 26 Martin. So the yellow line on what I provided shows you the 1.6 meter setback as compared to other homes along Martin Street. Um the correspondence received this morning asked that the buildings be set back similar to 16 and 14 Courtland. Um unfortunately my figure doesn't have addresses, but if you were to look at the subject property and then look over two properties to the west, there's sort of a gray roof and a brownish roof. Those are those two properties. And what you'll see is the setback is quite consistent with the setback of those homes. Uh and that really is because we have this um wider right of way. So the 26 Martin Street building uh property which hasn't had the widening. Our proposed town homes and multiple dwellings are 3.6 to 3.8 m back at that point and they're aligned with the buildings that are 1.6. So the 1.6 um is really closer to 4 meters from edge of curb. it is just because this property was subject to a widening that the rest of the north side of Martin Street has not been subject to. So, I'm hoping this figure helps, but I'm here to answer any questions that the committee may have. Thank you. >> Yeah, thank you for that and thank you for this as well. It's helpful to uh take a better look at the uh the property because it is unique. I know it's an older uh building and different lot lines here. So, that helps out. Uh are there any parties in the gallery that like to make an oral submission in opposition? Yep. Thank you. Uh so that microphone over there where I'm pointing then um on your uh right hand side there. Uh one more over. And if you can just uh introduce yourself uh please uh before we go on. Thank you. Uh hello. So my name is uh Matthew Murishon. I'm a resident in the nearby neighborhood. So, I'd firstly just like to thank members of the committee for their time hearing my comments as well as city staff in particular, Connie Owen, who provided information to me on this process, and Tim Sailor, who is the planner and provided some context, as well as, uh, Andrea, who did meet with me before yesterday to explain some of the, uh, matters which were mentioned. So, uh, I would like to say that I'm happy to see the site redeveloped and I'm fully support the efforts being taken to breathe life into the site at 63 Courtland. I'm also pleased that some part of the original building facing Courtland is being preserved and I look forward to the improved streetscape on both Courtland and Martin that will come from this redevelopment. That said, I do have some concerns with some parts of the variance request as submitted. Part of my concerns are available to the committee already uh through my written statement. Um but I will elaborate here a little bit with some additional details. The core of my concern is that I am of the opinion that some parts of these requests are not minor, not desired in the context of the surrounding committee uh community on Martin and not in the spirit of the zoning bylaw and are not in best alignment with the city's official plan. I would like to focus primarily on the setback request on Martin Street. The applicant is requesting a setback reduction from 4.0 to 1.6 meters. I do not believe that this request is minor as it is a 60% reduction. Through my conversations with city staff and the applicant, I have been told that the ordinary setback for a rear lot is 7.5 meters. However, in this case, as was mentioned previously, because the units kind of front Martin, the setback requirements are being reduced and treated as though they are front setbacks of 4.0 m. I believe that this already represents a minor accommodation, particularly when we talk about buildings E and F. If you look at the site plan and if the committee is aware of the elevations and past business done on this site at the heritage committee. As I understand these buildings, they are stacked town houses with the lower levels consisting of a single one-bedroom unit and the upper two levels consisting of a two-bedroom unit. Since the upper floors do not have access to Martin, I therefore believe considering these buildings to front Martin is already a compromise as twothirds of the face visible on Martin Street is really the back of the unit. Additionally, it is not clear to me if the lower units have access to the parking lot. That would be on the rear side facing away from Martin or on the or on the if they have access on the parking lot like through a door. If access is provided, an argument could be made that these units also do not really front Martin as the residents will be using that door to access their vehicles rather than the doors fronting Martin. If access is not available, then I would like to put to the committee's attention that this road has no sidewalk on that side of the street and access to vehicles from these units could be a concern amplified by the additional reduction in setback. Regardless, my main point with this discussion is that a minor accommodation is already being granted to the applicant, especially with respect to buildings E and F, which you can see on the site plan, and that is the waving of the 7.5 meter setback in favor of the 4.0 meter setback. Therefore, I believe that additional reductions of the setback cross out of minor and into major, especially considering 1.6 meters. You will note in my written submitt submission, I did uh as I'm understanding the difference in property line supports a larger setback than the 1.6 meter requested. Secondly, I believe that when looking at the provided site plans, the SECAT mainten uh is as in the bylaw fits better with the surrounding buildings and is more desirable. On the site plan, it appears to me that the proposed buildings will be the closest buildings to the street. This is visible considering the footprint of the two adjacent buildings. And I don't have the benefit of the map that the applicant mentioned, but uh as I understood the site plan, these buildings, the faces that is. So some of the buildings on this street have porches, but the faces of the buildings proposed, sorry, um will be the closest. In fact, um the building visible on the left of the site plan, which is uh 18 Martin, is set back 10 meters from its property line. I therefore believe that if the legal setback is respected, a better transition is achieved between the buildings at 44 Martin and 18 Martin when the resulting buildings are added in, especially considering that the building at 26 Martin will be removed. Thirdly, the city's official plan identifies this region, including this parcel, as a cultural heritage landscape. I therefore believe it is of additional importance to ensure that the resulting buildings constructed here integrate well into the surrounding se streetscape. With the requested setback, the buildings when constructed will be the closest to the street. As I understand this neighborhood is a mixture of mostly vernacular buildings with brick facades, particularly those buildings across the street. I do not believe it is desirable, therefore to have the buildings that are closest to the street, that is the faces closest to the street to be in a modern style with a modern design. From the renderings, it is not clear to me what materials the faces of the buildings will be. But the elevations, as I have seen them from past presentations, do not appear to be brick. And therefore, if this variance is granted, I believe that the streetscape will be negatively impacted as the sides of these buildings will be visible when coming down Martin, especially in light of the large setback that is already present with the building at 18 Martin. With the expected loss of 26 Martin, which is a vernacular type house, I believe it is of additional importance to consider the impacts of the streetscape and cultural landscape on Martin Street. Finally, I believe that many of the other requests interact with this one. And though the setback on Martin is my primary concern, the building length variance and setback reduction on the side adjacent to 44 Martin amplify my concerns. If any reduction in setback is granted on Martin by reducing the setback between buildings E and 44 Martin, the transitions between those two buildings becomes more harsh, especially if the faces do not align. The building length extension for building D feels only necessary because of the setback encroachments on Martin and Courtland, which suggests to me that the combinations are not in the spirit of the zoning bylaw and are not minor. The additional use type requested also adds onto the cumulative set of requests, giving the impression of a non-minor request that deviates a little too much from the intentions of the zoning bylaw. I therefore urge the committee to refuse in part or at least modify some of the requests being made by the applicant. Thank you very much for your time. >> Thank you for that. Uh committee members, do you have any questions for who just came here to speak in opposition? No questions. Okay. Uh would the agent have any comments make after that uh submission >> coming in and uh sharing your comments? And we did meet um just a couple of minor things. So, uh, there will be a sidewalk from the internal parking area to Martin Street that will provide access, um, from the parking area to those units, but it also was intended to provide access from residents on Martin Street to get out to Courtland without having to go around the entire block. So, that's uh, one comment. the uh cluster townhouse use. The way the zoning bylaw defines cluster townhouse versus street townhouse is for street town houses, they have to be on their own separate parcel. So, if you were to sell a freehole townhouse unit, the cluster townhouse that we've requested function as street town houses. They are uh facing Martin Street. It's that one block of of four units. Um, but because this is intended to be a rental property and they're not going to be individual lots, it's technically defined as a cluster townhouse. But I will mention that street town houses are permitted as of right on all of the properties along Martin Street. Um, outside of this property. So, the street townhouse that we're proposing, um, not that I'm suggesting that will happen on Martin Street, but that is a permitted use and it's very similar to other uses that are already permitted in the zone. Uh, I also wanted to advise the committee um that this is an SG2 zone, which is uh strategic growth area zone. So, this zone would permit an eightstory uh building as of right. our clients given the interface with Martin Street felt that a more threestory low-rise would be more appropriate here. And then in terms of the comments made about heritage, there's been a very comprehensive heritage impact assessment that was done for the property that looked at the entire development including setbacks. That heritage report was accepted by the city heritage uh staff and it's already gone to heritage committee and was supported by the heritage committee. So, I I don't believe the heritage aspects are really for this committee to consider, but I did want to let the committee know that there has been um very in-depth work related to that. Uh and that the setbacks that are proposed, there's um an existing fence that runs along this property. Uh the buildings will be set back beyond that fence that's existing today. And then my last comment uh in terms of the porches, uh it's true, a number of these properties have porches. Uh the two that I mentioned at the beginning, 14 and 16 Martin Street, that are generally aligned with our setback, those have stairs coming out, but they do not have a front face. So that yellow line is lining with the um sorry, front face of the house as opposed to the the porch. So um it is a narrow rightway, but I would say the vast majority of homes are set quite close to the um property line. So that's all and I'm happy to answer any other questions that the committee may have. Thank you for that. Committee members, you have any questions for the agent? Mayor Marco? >> Yeah, I have a couple questions for the agent uh or city staff. Um typically the city rights of way. Uh what is considered city property includes the sidewalk. Um it's not just to the curb. So in this case, that might add another effective meter, meter and a half on top of what on top of the setback that you're asking for um to the actual curb itself. So I think for context that might um provide some useful information. Um and then I was also curious on the building height along Martin Street. >> I can answer the um city question in terms of rightaway. Um our rightways do include sidewalk and curb and boulevard. So that's not part of the property. So, you are correct that the building would be set back in addition to that that um space on the right of way >> as a follow. There's no sidewalk though on Martin Street, is there? >> Through the chair. No, not on the side that the development is on. >> Okay. Thank you. So then for clarification the my understanding is that 26 that is 26 Martin has not been adjusted in terms of effectively expanding that right of way whereas the courtland property because it's a bit further from the curve has been effectively >> that is correct. Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So there would be additional space beyond that 1.6 meters to the curb. >> That is correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Are there any more questions for uh the agent or then for city staff? Around >> just one question for city staff out of curiosity. It looks like there's been like this kind of sporadic road widenings along Martin. Um, I guess my question is whether was there consideration of whether that sort of one jut out piece um would be of interest to be conveyed to the city um just to regularize the sort of rear lot line of the property >> through the chair. Uh the only way we could take that piece of property if it was in the official plan for roads to be widened Just for clarification then sorry. So that this part that juts out here that's part giving us some of the challenges as well right because I think most of the um letters and opposition submissions have been because of the setback and how narrow it is. Is this jetto causing most of the issues then as far as our setbacks here? I I see your hand up. Um, so it's actually the the setback is really from the part of the we need the 1.6 for the part of the property where that widening was previously taken because that's kind of the pinch point. So the where the jut out is the setback to the building ranges from 3.6 to 3.8 meters. So even though the buildings are completely aligned along Martin Street within this block, the um the ones on the east and west side of the block are only going to be 1.6 to the property line even though they align with the buildings that are 3.6 to 3.8 and that's because the property line is just um that much narrower like the right of way is wider in that spot. So, um, regardless of the im irregular property line, which isn't too uncommon, the built form will be consistently set back from the curb. So, it's about, I think it's approximately 4 meters from the curb line across the entirety of the property, but we had to vary for where we're the closest point. So, the setbacks will range from 1.6 up to about 3.85. Thank you. I think just but uh typically it's not how the process we uh we work with. So my apologies there. >> Pardon me. >> I'm sorry. Unfortunately, we can't at this point though too, but I appreciate that. Um any more questions though for uh the agent or for city staff? May Marco? >> Yeah, quick question for the applicant. um along Martin Street. Um those town houses are I think you said three stories, >> correct? >> Thank you. >> There's no more questions and we'll just wait for a motion. I will move the staff recommendation to approve. >> So member Mark made that motion to approve seconded by member Bob. So a first and a second. Uh floor is open for uh for debate. No debate. Yeah, I think this is a tricky one with the different lot lines and yeah, always adding more density is a challenge, but uh I guess the silver lining, you know, gentle density and being three stories is probably a lot better than an eight-story building. Right there is the silver lining. It just seems like it's uh planned pretty well as far as streetscape and parking that's in there. And I think Martin Street is a bonus and have access points. people that want do want to walk. So, yeah, it just seems a tricky every time you do add more units, but certainly like better than a big giant tower there versus, you know, three-story town homes. member Marco. >> Uh yeah, overall I think it's um a pretty well planned uh development and um I think I saw some concerns about potential traffic volume on Martin. Um but seeing as there's only pedestrian access to uh Martin Street, I don't think vehicle traffic would really increase on Martin. They've got a pretty significant amount of parking, so I'm not particularly concerned. If there's any more comments or debate, can we call for the vote? Okay. All those uh in favor? One, two, three, four, five. Uh all five are in favor, passes. Uh good luck. Uh, next up we have agenda item 6.3 A26-038711 West Mount Road West. And I have a conflict on that one, so I'll ask member Bob to uh to jump in here. Okay, the next application on our list is uh a 20 26 7-Eleven West Mount Road West is the I see the applicant is already seated. Um, can staff uh give us an introduction to this application, please? >> Yes, thank you, chair. Uh, there are three minor variances before you this morning for 7-Eleven West Mount Road West. Um, the variances relate to the existing property and dwelling. Uh, so to permit a lot area of 790 m instead of the minimum required 929 m. To permit a corner corner lot width of 21.9 m instead of the minimum required 24 m. and to permit an interior sideyard setback for the principal dwelling or existing dwelling on the property of 1.3 meters instead of the minimum required three meters. I would note that the uh lot at the time that it was developed met the zoning bylaw including the sideyard setback of 1.3 and I believe the zoning bylaw at the time of the house construction would have been 1.2 m. So it was just a little bit over that 1.2 m. the applicant would like to construct a detached additional dwelling unit in the rear yard of the subject property. Uh when that happens, we review the zoning regulations for the the property itself and the principal dwelling and ensure that they meet the the zoning bylaw. In this case, because the lot does not meet the minimum area and lot width and the existing dwelling does not meet the minimum interior sideyard setback, uh variances are required to facilitate the construction of the detached ADU. The detached ADU will meet all zoning requirements. It's no variances are required to facilitate that construction of the building. Staff have received submissions. Um we reached out to uh the applicant uh or sorry the um one of the submissions that was uh written in last week. Um staff reached out and provided some clarification because I think there was some misinformation in terms of the variances relating to the ADU rather than to the principal property. Um just clarifying that the ADU does meet all zoning regulations. Staff are recommending approval of the variances. We find that they meet all four tests of the planning act. Uh we are recommending that a condition be added and that's to verify that um the vegetation to be removed is not in shared ownership with adjacent properties and um that condition must be satisfied by June 16, 2027. Again, staff are recommending approval. Finds that the variances meet all four tests of the planning act and subject to a condition. >> Okay, thank you. Um, is there anyone in the gallery who is in opposition to this? There's Can you please come down and sit to my left over there? Um, and uh we'd like to hear from you. U please state your name for the record >> West Mount Road uh West, which is the property next door to 7-Eleven. West Mount Road West. >> Okay. Thank you. And I'm assuming that you are in opposition to the application. >> I am. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh to the applicant, have you read the staff report? Good morning. My name is Kevin Bull and I'm with King Street Construction and I'm joined with the property owner Sasha here. We have read the report and we are in agreement of this staff's decision. >> Okay. Thank you. Um to those that to the person who is in opposition, can you please uh for the record state what your concerns are? >> Certainly. Um, we object to the application, but I want to make it clear from the from the outset, we do not object in principle to our neighbor improving or expanding uh their home. In our view, a sensitive extension of the main dwelling would be more a more desirable option. It would be also more consistent with the way density has historically increased in the West Mount East West cultural heritage landscape. gradually through additions, renovations and redevelopment of the principal dwellings rather than in by inserting a new detached residential building into a rear yard green space. I also want to acknowledge the planning staff's recent clarification and I appreciate them coming back to me on that that the proposed ADU is not itself seeking seeking a setback variance. the 1.3 meter um sideyard setback variance relates to the existing house. We understand that. Now our objection is therefore not that the ADU fails its own setback requirement. Our objection is that the requested variants are still required to facilitate this detached ADU on this particular lot. That distinction is important. The staff report says the purpose of application is to recognize the existing lot and dwelling conditions which will then facilitate the development of a new ADU detached ADU. The lot is 790 square meters instead of 9 uh 929 square meters and the lot width is 21.9 meters instead of 24 meters. These are not in incidental numbers. They are what would be required if this entire development was to to meet res one zoning standards um that determine whether the property is large enough to take this density of of of development. Um, the reason that the ADU does not require a setback variance is that Kitchener general ADU rules allow detached dwellings to be placed much closer to the rear or interior lot line than a principal uh res one development. A principal res one development requires substantial setbacks. Again, I think this is now understood that may be compliant with the general ADU rule, but compliance with a a generic citywide ADU rule does not answer the cultural heritage landscape question in this particular case. This is not an ordinary site. It is an undersized underwan lot inside the West Mount East and West cultural heritage landscape. This this um cultural heritage landscape in West Mount is not just about individual old houses. It's about the spatial character, generous lot sizes, generous separation between buildings, mature trees, rear yard green space, and garden suburban patterns of houses set within the landscaped lots. A detached dwelling placed in the rear garden close to a neighborhood neighboring property changes this pattern. It converts an open treed rear yard space into a separate residential building. Timing is also significant here. The staff report is dated May 28th, 2026. After that report was written on June 1st, the council voted in the Kitner 2051 process to protect the West Mount East stroke west area as a cultural heritage landscape. As communicated to residents, that direction is to keep West Mount East and West together as a single cultured heritage landscape, exclude West Mount from the strategic growth area, and to apply a three-story maximum to buildings within that area. So, the point being this is not this is not Kitner planning as normal. This is a specific area and the elected officials have voted to keep it such um in our view this proposal contributes it contributes this in three ways. First, the variances variances on an unders sized underwidth resan lot per to permit the building of a new detached residential um space in the in the rear yard. Second, it relies on the more permissive ADU setback rule in the context of the very thing being protected, the spatial character, separation, openness, mature landscape and rear garden uh space um of the cultural heritage landscape. Third, it risks setting a precedent. To our knowledge and based on public information, and I I actually asked this of the staff yesterday as well, um there are no ADUs in this area. So, this will be the first additional unit, a dwelling unit to be established within the West Mount East West cultural heritage area. And we believe that is a dangerous precedent. Um I asked, as I said, I've asked staff to identify and they they were unable to respond. Um as it stands, the staff heritage report I don't believe is sufficient for a precedent setting application, nor is a minor variance the place to determine whether whether a precedent should be set. We acknowledge the the stats report acknowledges that this property is within the West Mount East uh stroke west cultural heritage area but it gives no indication as to um why they say there is no impact um in in the report. There is no detailed um written submission that that we were able to find as to uh the considerations that had been given to that. Um for these reasons I asked that the the the committee refuse the application. Thank you. Uh I should note for the record that there were some written submissions, several other uh written submissions that have been received by the committee and I know I have read them. I haven't asked my colleagues whether they have read them but I assume they have. Um does staff have any comment on uh the um submission by the person who's in opposition? Uh sure I can provide some um additional information for the committee's consideration. Um so you will note in the planning report are the heritage planning comments and they do indicate the proposed they did review the application. Um they indicated the proposed variances are not anticipating to have an adverse impact on the cultural heritage landscape. Um as such heritage planning staff have no comments or concerns on the application. Um the meeting that happened on June 1st was to consider the city's new official plan. That is not yet in effect. Um there are some new policies in the uh draft official plan. However, uh the policy direction is not to prohibit ADUs uh citywide. Um additional dwelling units will continue to be permitted on all properties. Um and that is in accordance with the Ontario Planning Act which requires municipalities to permit three dwelling units per lot and particularly detached ADUs. So our zoning regulations are put in place to ensure that additional dwelling units uh can function appropriately on the subject property and in this case staff have reviewed the variances in light of the four tests and do find that they meet all four and is recommending approval. Um the ADU will have uh the 1.1 meter uh obstructed access to the street to provide emergency access and uh it does meet the setback and the height requirements and so again staff have no concerns with the variances. >> Okay, thank you. Does the applicant have any further comments uh with regard to what either staff has said or what uh um your neighbor to your right has brought forward? >> Yes, thank you. I appreciate the concerns that have come forward. We spent a great deal of time planning this. If you look at the property, it's a nice little al cove. We planned it perfectly to meet all the setbacks. You can actually hardly see it from the street. There's some big evergreen trees and just because it's a corner lot, they're actually taking the Union Street as the frontage. The West Mound Street frontage is over 30 meters. So, but because of a corner lot and how it's situated, that's why we weren't able to meet the the lot frontage. But to to Tina's point, none of the variances are for the ADU itself. Therefore, the existing building that's been there since the 1950s and the existing lot, which at 790 meters, is not a small lot. It's quite significant and we believe it's pardon me it's minor in nature and it meets the four test of planning act. Thank you. Uh are there any members of the committee who have questions for staff, the applicant or the uh person who is in opposition? >> I have a quick question for staff. Um, it sounds to me like the property owner can build an ADU effectively as of right and if these variances because therefore the principal dwelling if they get refused then the principal dwelling might be in jeopardy. Am I understanding that correctly? to provide some background and clarification. When these dwellings were constructed, um they did meet the zoning bylaw, the zoning regulations in effect, the lot area, the lot width, the setbacks. Um since this new zoning bylaw came into effect, there's the application of the res one zone, which is a very um less dense zone and the lot width, lot area requirements increased from those that were required at the time of the original construction of the property. So, it's really to recognize and facilitate um an ADU construction on this property that if it had been under the previous zoning, BA wouldn't have the issues that it does today. So, if they wanted to construct the ADU before 2019051 came into effect, they wouldn't be here today. >> Okay. Thank you. Is there any other questions from the committee with regards to either the uh applicant or the person who's in opposition? Seeing none, I see that the uh person who is in opposition has a comment planning of of staff. um how how they reconcile removing what is about 35% of the green space to build the ADU in in is in line with what what the cultural heritage landscape um sets out as significant rear backyard rear yards spacious and generous um spacing between um um properties. It just I I I struggle I I struggle to reconcile the two and there's no explanation given of of how that was was was reached within the within the document. >> So heritage planning staff did review the application and they did find that it meets all the regulations of the zoning bylaw. Um that is applicable law as it relates to development and construction on residential properties is a zoning bylaw. Um, if you did not meet the zoning bylaw and require a variance, then it does require a review. Um, but there are no zoning requirements in the bylaw to require uh a certain amount of open space. The zoning bylaw does regulate the coverage of buildings on a property and this would um meet those maximum permitted coverages. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh any further questions, comments from the committee? member Marco. >> Um I'm curious if since if I'm understanding this correctly, um since we're recognizing a bunch of existing condition, um do we want to perhaps amend the phrasing to add u to recognize existing site conditions and to facilitate the development? Does feel like that would be unnecessary. >> I don't feel that's unnecessary. It could provide some further clarification in your recommendation and to support your um decision either way. Um but the variances are to recognize the existing property and the existing principal dwelling and facilitate the construction of the additional dwelling unit detached. >> Okay. Um if there's if my fellow members are uh ready, I think I'll move a motion um to approve uh as amended. >> Just one question. This comes up sometimes for me and I'm it's still not clear to me. um like how why do does the property owner have to go this route as opposed to sort of some sort of legal non-conforming use given that the property existed at a time where the bylaw was different and it complied? >> Yes. So the zoning bylaw is clear that if you are to construct or propose to construct a new additional dwelling detach, you must meet the regulations of the zoning bylaw at the time in effect. So there is no recognition of legal non-conforming or legal non-complying. So that is the by the way the bylaw is written. >> Okay, that's helpful. Somewhat unfortunate but helpful. >> Any further questions, comments from the committee? Any further comments from the applicant? Okay. And we have a motion on the floor that has been seconded. Okay. So, there's a motion by Okay. Who Who made the motion? I'm sorry. Member Marco made the motion. Is there a seconder for the motion? Member Maria has seconded. Uh, okay. Any further questions, comments, debate? Seeing none, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor of member Marco's motion to approve. One, two, three, four. That's four of the available people on the committee. That is passed. >> Good luck. >> Thank you. Okay, excellent. Back at it. So, item number 6.4 A2026-0391 193 Strange Street. If I can invite the uh agent or applicant to come forward with the microphone and if I can please ask the planning coordinator to introduce the application and staff recommendation, please. >> Yes. Thank you, chair. Uh this this is an application for minor variance for 193 Strange Street. There are four minor variances before you this morning. Um the purpose of the minor variances is to facilitate the construction of a detached building in the rear yard which will contain two additional dwelling units. So the first variance will permit the personal service use in the existing single detached dwelling to continue um where a property with ADUs uh does not permit this type of home occupation. um to permit the personal services home occupation to occupy 19.5 square meters instead of the maximum permitted 15 square meters to permit a driveway width of 5.2 instead of the maximum 4.8 and to permit a lot width of 12.1 instead of the minimum required 12.8 Eight staff have reviewed the variances in light of the four tests the planning act find that they meet all four and is recommending approval subject to the condition of the preparation of a plan um showing the location of the detached ADU and trees and uh any mitigation that must be um done to protect those trees on adjacent properties. That work must be done by June 16th 2027. So again, staff are recommending approval of the variances. They meet the four tasks subject to the condition. >> Thank you so much. If I can ask you to introduce yourself, please whether you've read the staff report and whether you're in support of the staff recommendation. >> Um Christopher Mashado. Um I have uh read the report and I am in support of the application. >> Excellent. Thank you. Are you the agent or the owner? >> The agent. >> Agent. Thank you. Uh can invite any parties in opposition to this application to come forward? If there are any uh seeing none, uh committee members, do you have any questions of the agent or of city staff? Seeing none, we'll let just wait for a motion. Member Marco, >> I will move the staff recommendation to approve. >> Excellent. So member Marco made that motion to approve, seconded by member Amanda. So first and second. Uh any debate or comments on this application? If I'm seeing none, I will call for the vote. Uh all those in favor uh to approve. One, two, three, four, five. All five are in favor. Carried. Good luck. Thank you. Uh next up, we have uh agenda item 6.5 B2026-007, 104 Wood Poppy Court, and 182 Gray Fox Drive. Uh, I see they're already at the microphone. Thank you kindly. If I can invite the planning coordinator to introduce the application and staff recommendation, please. >> Yes. Thank you, chair. This is an application for consent for 192 Gray Fox Drive in 104 Wood Poppy Court. Uh, this is an existing semi- detached dwelling that has merged in title, so both units are located on one lot. The purpose of the application is so that each uh semi- detached dwelling can be dealt with independently. There is also the request for a maintenance easement uh to provide access where the Commonwealth is not shared between the two properties. Staff have reviewed the consent application in light of provincial, regional, and city policies and finds that it meets all of those subject to a number of conditions. >> Excellent. Thank you. If I can ask you to introduce yourself, please whether you've read the staff report and whether you're in support of it. Thank you. Uh my name is Robin McIntyre. I'm with MHBC planning. Um this morning I'm here with Jessica Chivich from um the ownership. Um we have read the staff report and we are in support of the staff recommendation. >> Thank you so much. Uh I don't see anyone here in opposition to this uh application. Um any questions for the agent or owner or from city staff? Member Amanda >> just a point of clarification. So is the the required easement to be registered just the maintenance easement? >> Yes, that is correct. >> Okay. And the units are self-contained then. There's no shared servicing or anything like that. >> Uh through the chair, sorry, that's correct. They're currently existing units. Um and they've operated individually for a very long time just as part of business transactions. They've been merged in ownership. So we're recreating the previously existing parcels. >> Okay. Thank you. >> No more questions. Member Bob. >> Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks for answering our questions. Um I think this is fairly straightforward. Uh I had a good question or comment or discussion with my wife over the weekend on why these things merge on title uh over the years. And uh it seems just to correct paperwork uh at some point. So, I'm going to move that this be uh approved as per the staff report with the conditions that are in the report. >> Excellent. So, member Bob made that motion to approve. Second by member Marco. Uh floor is open for uh for debate or comments. Seeing none, these ever so often come to our uh our committee here where they two properties come together and then you put them back apart. So, part of the process, I suppose. Um if there's no comments and we'll call for the vote. All those in favor? Uh, one, two, three, four, five. All five are in favor. It's carried. Good luck. Uh, next up, uh, agenda item 6.6, uh, B2026-008, uh, 12 onward Avenue. If I can invite the agent or applicant to come to the microphone. And if I can please ask the planning coordinator to introduce the application and staff recommendation, please. >> Yes, thank you chair. This is uh an application for consent to create an easement. Uh so the easement would be created over part two on the the reference or plan of survey for the purposes of access in favor of 16 onward and then part three on the plan of survey for the purpose of access and maintenance of the detached garage that is currently located on 16 onward avenue. and the consent and creating this easement would allow um the functioning um legal functioning of 16 onward to continue in terms of driveway access and being able to maintain their detached garage in the rear yard of the subject property. Staff have reviewed the application for the easement and finds that it does meet provincial, regional and city policies and is recommending approval subject to conditions. >> Excellent. Thank you. if I can invite you to introduce yourself please whether you've read the staff report and whether you're in support of it. Thank you. >> Good morning Kiri. Uh my name is Upendra. I'm acting as a agent uh alongside with u Mr. Tommy who is u partner with the applicant and I have read the report and I'm in support with the >> Excellent. Thank you. Uh I don't see anyone left so I don't think there's anyone in opposition here. Um, any questions for the agent uh or owner? No questions for city staff. And then we'll just wait for a motion. Member Marco. >> I will move the staff recommendation to approve. >> Excellence member Marco made that motion to approve. Uh, seconded by member Maria. Uh, any comments? Seeing no comments, seems pretty straightforward enough. Uh, so we'll call for the vote. Uh, all those in favor to approve. Uh, one, two, three, four, five. All five are uh, in favor, unanimous, carried. Good luck. >> Thank you so much. >> No problem. >> Thank you. Because that that's it as far as agenda items that what we need now is uh a motion to adjurnn. Mor Marco. >> I will make the motion to adjurnn. >> All right. Motion to adjurnn. Second by me Maria. All those in favor to adjurnn. One, two, three, four, five. That is uh carried. Um meeting over.