Good evening. Tonight's committee of adjustment hearing is being held by video conference and live streaming on the town's live stream web page at oakville.ca. This is a hearing to consider applications for minor variance and consents held under the authority of the planning act. Please keep in mind the intent of this process is to review the application that is before the committee, listen to the evidence, and then make a decision. This process is not intended to be used to resolve any concerns or disputes that may exist between the town, individuals, or organizations. If a request for a deferral is made and the committee grants such requests, the applicant or authorized agent must contact the secretary treasurer to schedule a new hearing date. In order to conduct an effective and efficient electronic hearing, we have adopted the following process. If you're watching the live stream of this hearing on oak.ca and if you wish to speak to an item on the agenda, you can call 9058156095. Again, 9058156095. The phone number is also posted on your screen below the live stream at oakill.ca. Staff will be standing by to take your call. When you call in, staff will ask your name, item number you wish to address, and your telephone number. Further instructions will be provided for you to call back to join the video conference. When the chair of the committee polls for interested parties, press star six to unmute yourself. The applicant or agent will be given the opportunity to briefly explain to the committee the basis of the application and answer any questions that may arise. A maximum of five minutes will be provided for presentation. You will need to state your full name and address for the record. Any submissions beyond the five minutes will be at the discretion of the committee. All delegations must also state their full name and address. A maximum of five minutes will be provided for your presentation. All remarks and questions are to be directed to the chair. Any submissions beyond the five minutes will again be at the discretion of the committee. The applicant or agent will then be provided with a further five minutes to respond to comments made by any interested parties and answer any questions from the committee members. If the applicant or agent has any concerns found in the staff report, particularly with any proposed conditions, this is your opportunity to advise us. The matter will then be taken into committee for a decision. This will mark the end of all discussion. Any person desiring a notice of decision of an application must provide a written request, preferably through email, to the secretary treasurer. Written notice of the committee's decision will be mailed not later than 10 days for minor variance and 15 days for consents to the applicant and/or agent and any other person who filed a written request for such notice. The last day to appeal the decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal will be noted on the decision. Only the applicant, specified persons or public bodies may appeal the committee's decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal. In November of 2022, Bill 23, the More Homes Build Faster Act, amended the planning act to remove appeal rights for members of the public. If no appeal is received within the prescribed time frame, the decision of the committee becomes final and binding. Secretary Treasurer will then notify the applicant and anyone who received a copy of the decision through written correspondence. People participating in this hearing are to be courteous to and respectful to members of the committee, town staff, and the other people participating in this electronic hearing. Tonight's electronic hearing is being video recorded and available for future viewing at oakill.ca. Thank you. We have one regret tonight from Miss McCale. Do we have any declarations of interest? We see none. Madame Secretary Treasur, do we have any requests for deferrals or withdrawals of applications tonight? >> We have none for tonight. We also have no consent applications. So we'll move to the minor variance applications starting with A026 2026 um 394 trfalar road deferred from March 4th. Good evening, sir. Mr. Manowski, will you be presenting? You're muted. You are. >> My apologies, Mr. Chair and committee. Jonathan Minskowski, uh 602 Pave Avenue. Okay, please proceed with your presentation. >> Absolutely. So, this was previously deferred um to allow uh us as the applicant as well as the owner to work with staff to come with uh a solution that does two things. One provides uh additional parking on the property itself. And if we could just zoom into the green dot, please. Um one is to to to provide additional parking on the property to the owner and the residents as well as hopefully in the future to be additional unit in the basement. Uh, as you'll note, there is no objection from planning at this stage. We are okay with the condition of approval that has been provided. Uh, additionally, we are in receipt of the letter of non-objection from the Credit Valley Conservation Authority. Um, I do note that if if approved here through the committee, there will be a permit process through the Credit Valley Conservation. Uh, as I as I said in the beginning, Mr. Chair and committee, the application really is looking to do two things. One, to provide additional parking for the ARU. The next is to provide a safe turnaround. So the the actual vehicle can come in and out of Trfalogar Avenue in a frontward motion. That's important because as we're all aware that is a fairly busy stretch of trfalar there. Um and again the front portion of this property is heavily landscaped with trees and shrubs. So again not only to provide access for the the proposed ARU but also a safety issue. Uh if we could continue on to the next page. This stretch of trfoger here from the dwellings itself really is is a unique instance. Um what we see on the left are the two properties to the north. So what we notice there is that the front yard is extensively landscape. Um I've taken arrows from the right side and pointed it toward the left side. On the bottom right side of the picture on the left is the subject property. What we see there is actually the front yard of this property extensively landscaped. That's due to two things. one, the two properties to the north essentially sit on the property line. So all of that hardcape from the um from the circular driveway is essentially on municipal property. Okay? And that's important when we view the variances that are before you today as well as the proposal that is before you today because the proposal we have is the the the circular driveway is entirely on the private property. It is not in the public realm at all. If we could continue on to the next page, please. Similarly, we see the same thing with the two properties to the south. We see again properties that are pushed forward towards the property line with again the circular driveways that are again on the public realm itself. Again, different from what we are proposing. If we can continue on to the next slide, please. I think down to to the to the fourth one, please. Oh, sorry. My apology. If we can go to the second slide. I think there should be one above this. One more above this. That one. That's perfect right there. So, what I've done here is I've actually shown where the landscaping is as it relates to the zoning bylaw. So what we see are the two thick black polygons that have the green space. That is actually where the front main wall of this dwelling is uh taken for the purposes of front yard landscaping. What I've also done is if we look towards trfalger itself, I've also shown where the landscaping will remain. And if we go back to the pictures I previously showed that on the neighboring properties to the north and the south is extensively hardscaped with a smaller turnaround. Correct, please. Fantastic. What we see there again is that extensively hardscaped area which again is very different from the proposal that is before you today. We do have variances for landscaping. We do have variances for the separation but this is essentially the character of what exists along this portion of trfalar. What I would say is although we are moving towards the character of the neighborhood along Trfoger, we're actually offering greater landscaped area because of where the front main wall of this dwelling is interpreted within the zoning bylaw and all of that area in the public realm save for the access point for the circular driveway will be extensively uh landscape. Um Mr. Chair and committee, that's essentially it. Um, I think the point is again we're moving towards that character of the neighborhood and again we see the separation uh on the right side of the minimal separation between that circular driveway that exists on those properties today. >> Okay, thank you. And if any member of the public wishes to speak to this application, please call 9058156095. Committee members, any questions for the applicant? Let's see. None. Have we lost Mr. Dicki see him on my screen? Miss McFale, if I could just ask one question. Um, we had a similar application recently on all Scott with a reduction in separation distance of circular driveway. staff on that application voiced some concern with respect to an additional town policy that limited the ability to reduce the separation distance. I'm assuming that's not a concern for staff here. >> Uh to the chair, thank you for the question. Um it has been determined by uh engineering staff that it there could be an arrangement made for these two driveways to be separated by the 9 m that is uh was required. um they have 7.45 from um from the driveway between the driveways. Um I think really um there is a solution to make it 9 mters but staff planning staff are are satisfied with the variance requested in this case. >> Thank you madam secretary treasurer. Has anyone called in on this matter? We've had no calls and no hands showing in the audience. >> Okay. Thank you. And we'll close the discussion and look for a motion. M. Price. >> Taking into account my previous site visit, the reports provided by the agent, staff, and conservation Halton, and there being no letters of opposition, I find the variances to be minor in nature. As circular driveways are an existing feature within the surrounding area, I believe the proposed circular driveway configuration would not result in any adverse impacts to the public realm. In conclusion, I find the four tests of the planning act have been met and I recommend the application be approved subject to the following condition. That the driving be constructed in general accordance with the submitted site plan drawings dated August 2nd, 2026. Thank you. Any discussion on that motion? Just before I call for a vote, Madam Secretary Treasure, I'm not seeing Mr. Dicki. Is he not on this application? >> I think he must be having some technical difficulties. So, >> just his absence for this vote. >> Yes. All those all those in favor of the motion to approve. That is unanimous. Your application has been approved. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee. >> Thank you. Have a good evening. >> You too. Madam Secretary, Treasurer, should we give Mr. Dicki a minute or move on? Uh maybe we could wait for 30 seconds or so for him to give him a chance to log on again. I think we could move on because we still have quorum. Okay, thank you. Moving on to application A101 2026 was deferred from August 19th at 253 Margaret Drive. would note um we have five letters of opposition on this matter from Mr. Allen King Hassan Songa Matthew and some requests to speak. We have Miss Lindsay here as the agent. Yes. Hello. >> Good evening. Just get your name and address and then you can proceed with your presentation. >> Uh my name is Erikica Lindsay and um I work at Cory Planning 277 Lakes Shore Road East. >> Great. So good evening chair, members of the committee. My name is Erikica Lindseay and I am a registered professional planner with Corrin Planning. I am here on behalf of Beayshore Healthcare regarding 253 Margaret Drive. The application seeks permission to use the existing detached dwelling as a staffed residential care home. Kendry Alkins, director with Beayshore's integrated care solutions division, is also available to answer any operational questions. Next slide, please. The subject lands are located east of Dorville Drive and south of Mary Street within an established residential neighborhood. The property contains a detached dwelling, garage, and driveway and would continue to appear as a typical residential property. Next slide, please. The lands the lands are designated low density residential under the livable Oakville plan, which permits detached dwellings. Four adults would reside at the property and receive support for acquired brain injuries and complex care needs. The dwelling would remain their home. Next slide, please. The property is zoned R3-0, which permits a detached dwelling. A staffed residential care home is not specifically defined or permitted as of right under the zoning bylaw. Permission from the committee is therefore required. Next slide, please. The application seeks permission under section 452B of the platting act to use the existing detached dwelling as a staffed residential care home. This is the only relief requested. No relief from numerical zoning standards is required and no expansion of the dwelling is proposed. Next slide, please. The proposal is supported by official plan amendment 78. Policy 11.1.5 provides that additional needs housing and its supporting services may be permitted through a range of housing types in a in all residential uh designations. The official plan definition includes housing for people who require support with mobility or other functions of daily living. The proposed residence implements this policy by providing daily living support within a detached dwelling in a residential designation. Next slide, please. From a land use planning perspective, the property would retain its residential function and physical character. The proposed alterations are limited to minor washroom renovations and inaccessible rear entrance ramp. The dwelling footprint, number of bedrooms, and lot configuration would remain unchanged. And in our opinion, the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Next slide, please. The images show a comparable staff residents in the Lauren Park neighborhood of Missaga. Town staff visited the property and considered traffic, parking, noise, staffing, visitors, deliveries, and outdoor activity. Staff found that the use was compatible with its residential surroundings and did not create any ad undo adverse impacts. Next slide, please. We acknowledged the concerns raised regarding operational intensity, traffic, parking, neighborhood character, and safety. These matters were considered through the town's review. The existing driveway would remain and visits would be coordinated to avoid overlapping vehicle activity. No building expansion or signage is proposed. Fire staff raised no concerns subject to building code and fire code compliance. Building staff will complete a comprehensive review at the building permit stage. Next slide, please. In conclusion, the proposal is supported by the livable OF plan and OPA78 maintains the residential character of the property and represents good land use planning. Thank you and we would be pleased to answer any questions. >> Thank you committee members. Any questions for the opin staff? Mr. Hardcastle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I think this is a question of staff. I I I' I've seen this spoken to in both the staff report and uh and the applicant's presentation. Um my my understanding this scenario is that uh this breadth of residential type uses that are supportive to uh community needs are supported by the official plan but the zoning bylaw doesn't implement the official plan in this specific case uh this defined type of use and I'd just like to clarify that understanding one and understand whether there is is this a type of um supportive use that is um dissimilar to the definitions that are within the bylaw or there other efforts being undertaken in order to bring the the uh the zoning bylaw in line with the official plan. >> Uh through you Mr. Chair to member Hardcastle. OPA was approved in April of this year. The zoning hasn't caught up to it yet. Okay. Uh the use itself is similar to a detached dwelling where residents are in there and support services come in like PTS OT's and whatnot. So that's why we're saying the use is similar to not exactly detached dwelling but similar to the 452 definition about appropriateness. We we still have a little bit of work from a zoning perspective. this application came in before we got to it. >> Uh thank you, Mr. Thun. Um yeah, you know, it it's this is a kind of an interesting scenario where I think of some some neighbors that we have that are um you know uh residing within their home and given their their their current situation, they're very much living in in an environment that that sounds very similar to what we would have here. elderly folks who've got uh people coming in to meet their their daily living needs. And it's very not in my my reading of what I'm uh what I read in the staff report, what I've heard through the presentation sounds very similar to to what you'd see in in many neighborhoods in terms of its intensity of use and the and the supportive services that are provided. >> Thank you, Mr. Sun. If I could just follow up Mr. Hardcastle's questioning. I'm similarly um struck that the OPA was approved in the spring. The new zoning bylaw was approved uh after that um a similar time. Was there any discussion in the formulation of the new zoning bylaw to address these additional type uses or is this a separate uh stream that the town plans on dealing with? Uh you Mr. Chair, I believe this is going to be a separate screen. >> Okay. Um and I Mr. Son, could you speak to I know we'll hear from the residents, but I've read their letters and you know, they're liking this to a commercial use. Um and and I agree the official plan clearly permits this. the number of residents living in this property will probably be less than what you'd see in or could see particularly with the uh permissions for two additional units, but with the staffing and the overnight staffing, they're likening this to a commercial, not a residential use. I don't know if you can speak to staff's view on that. >> Uh Mr. Chair, I I as Mr. Hard Castle uh alluded to, it's no no different than a resident in a detached dwelling having uh professionals come to them for physiootherapy or occupational therapy or whatever. The fact that these residents, as I'm I'm advised, have brain injuries, that's why they've got the the staff member overnight and the staff members during the day for any rehabilitation uh sessions that are necessary. I think the operation of this is probably better by Miss Alkins um who's put forward the application, but I see this no different than a regular house where professionals are coming in to provide treatment. >> Okay. Thank you. Maybe uh one last question for now and not I perhaps it's for both you and Miss Alkins concern as well. We'll hear I believe or we have read about the scale and the analysis and it's for residents um concern that it could increase. Um there's no condition restricting the amount of residents. Would that be appropriate if the committee were to find favor with this application to actually limit the number of residents? Yeah, I can speak to that just just briefly. So, thank you, Mr. Chair and committee for this opportunity. And just introduction, I am the director at Beayshore. I started 10 years ago as a frontline therapist. Um, and we have no plans. We have another home at uh tobacco 4th and 427 uh the highway there and we have four residents there. We plan on keeping the occupancy to four residents in this home. We would have to do another application for any changes to that home beyond four. And a big change of the home as well would include um the implementation of a sprinkler system. That is the requirements as per fire code and not something that we are um planning on um in the future. Um we are going to keep this occupancy at four. >> Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant or staff at this time? I see none. Looks like we've lost Mr. Dicky again. Um, Madam Secretary, Treasurer, has anyone called in to speak to this matter? >> We've had no calls and we're showing no hands up in the audience. >> Okay, we had two requests to attend. because that they've changed their minds. Okay, seeing no input from the committee or from the public, no further questions from the committee, we'll close the discussion and I'll look for a motion. Mr. Hart Castle. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um like I uh spoken to previously um this uh this this proposed variance is consistent with the official plan um with the general intent and purpose of the official plan. It is um implementing uh the official plan where the zoning is not yet caught up with it. So it is uh inconsistent with the direction of council with respect to this specific matter and I believe um uh uh the uh sub material submitted in support including a very detailed letter by the operator um has um expressed and addressed a number of the residents concerns that are identified within within the letters that have been received. Um accordingly I am satisfied that the requested variance um uh does conform to the four tests of the act. It it is appropriate and uh and the expansion and use should uh should be approved. So I'll put forward a motion of approval and that motion would be subject to bear with me uh Mr. Chairman, while I'm uh um finding the condition from staff that the approval expire within two years of the date of the decision of a uh if a building permit has not been issued for the proposed construction. >> Thank you, Mr. Hardcastle. Is there discussion on that motion? Mr. Dicki, as you missed part of this, I think I'll ask you to refrain from voting on this matter. Hopefully, your IT issues are resolved. Okay, motion is to approve subject to the conditions recommended by staff. All those in favor? >> Okay, so that is unanimous. Your application has been approved. >> Thank you very much for your time. >> Have a good day. >> Thank you. And now here application A 110 2026 at 1504 Calder Drive. >> Good evening, sir. Get your name and address for the record. >> Good evening, Mr. Chair. Uh my name is Dana Chumich. I'm the architect and the agent for this project. >> And your address, please. And you can continue with your presentation. >> Oh, certainly. Uh my firm is located 1185 Queensway East in sweet 3A in Missaga, Ontario. >> Thank you. >> Please proceed. >> Uh yeah, so uh for this project, uh the owners actually wanted to modernize this corner unit. Uh it is a twostory home with a an attached garage as you can see the shape of the of the building. Uh we are a corner condition. Uh we tried very very hard to uh stay not be here tonight but uh unfortunately there is a significant uh interior side setback on the uh on the right side if you will beside the garage of 4.2 meters. So if you could please scroll over to our site plans. There is an existing and a proposed which we yeah this is great actually the proposed site plan if you don't mind and just zoom in on the right hand side which is our proposed site plan. As you can see here the existing home shape is actually the light gray and all of the additions to this home are in a dark gray. We can just go back to that one. And basically we've proposed uh just back to the site plan if you don't mind. Yeah, that one. Perfect. Uh yeah, so there is a bit of an addition at the front of the property. There is a covered patio at the rear of the property. And then the owner wanted to expand behind the garage itself. And he wanted a great room, which basically ended up being like a twostory room. Uh which works great in plan. Unfortunately, you can see the dashed red line representing running right through the garage representing the required 4.2 meter setback. As you can see, the existing garage is actually passed that setback already. Uh so we're hoping that uh the committee will consider this a very minor uh variance that uh um does not affect the the neighborhood negatively. And you can also see the distance to the property to the right is is probably close to like six 6 m plus. Uh this variance will cover the addition at the back of the home as well as the proposed uncovered deck that spills uh off of the great room towards the rear yard. Uh and yeah, that's uh that's basically all we're in here for today. It's just the one variance. >> Thank you. Any members? Any questions for the applicant? Okay, I see none. Madam Secretary, Treasurer, is anyone called in to speak to this matter? >> We've had no calls and no hands showing in the audience. >> Thank you. Therefore, I will close the discussion and look for a motion. Mr. Hardcastle. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, having reviewed the application including the written uh staff report and the submitted materials, I'm satisfied that the uh requested variance conforms to the four tests. the um addition that is uh resulting in the um reduced sideyard is well in the minor variance I should say is consistent with the setback that's been established by the existing dwelling as spoken to by the applicant's presentation and it's consistent in being a one-story addition. So it's not uh increased massing and the cumulative uh separation seems to be consistent with what you uh see in the neighborhood. Um and um so I I don't see any opportunities for negative impact. So generally speaking, I think this is consistent with the general intent and purpose, although I I would say I'd like to see a little bit more language from staff with respect to this analysis um uh in assisting us in our staff reports. Um, but that being said, I will put forward a motion of approval subject to conditions that are noted. That the dwelling be constructed in general accordance with the submitted site plan and elevation drawings dated July 14th, 2026. And that the approval will expire within two years of the date of the decision if a building permit has not been issued for the proposed construction. >> Thank you, Mr. Hard Castle. Any discussion on the motion to approve? See none. All those in favor? That is unanimous, sir. Your application has been approved. >> Thank you all very much. Have a good evening. Bye-bye. >> Good evening. Now move on to A11 2026 270 Bilma Drive. Evening Mr. Matelen. There you are. Good evening. >> Good evening. >> Proceed. >> Well, thank you. Um, my name is Rick Melgen from SMDA Architects Limited. Uh our address is 482 South Service Road East, Sweet 118 in Oakville. Um I'm before before you this evening, uh the background here is that we designed a new single family home for this family at 270 Velma Drive about two years ago. Um at the time that we we designed the the home, there were there were no variances required, although there actually was a follow-up one for a very small addition of some GFA that was made because of some changes that were made during construction. Um but um one of the features of of the home as we designed it at the time was that there was a large um covered but open uh porch or patio at the at the rear of the dwelling. So after the after the house was finished and occupied, uh our our client decided uh without without telling us and without asking anyone because he he thought it wasn't a big deal, he um purchased these custommade glass sliding uh doors that were that the idea being to take that covered covered porch, the open covered porch and enclose it. So he thought that this was something that that wasn't a problem. He just went ahead and did it. And he also um if we're looking at that site plan there, so the area that we're talking about that he enclosed um was um was that area that's shaded in purple. And then and at the same time that that he was he was doing this, the company that was doing this offered that they could square off that that open corner there with some uh glazing on on the roof and and cover that in. So he did that too. So he he did this as I say not thinking that uh that there would be any concern and um but then somehow um it came to the attention of the town and they informed him that that he he needed a building permit. So we we we then did the calculations, apply for the building permit, but knew that um that uh that there was potential that that the town considered that this now enclosed uh covered porch uh was was going to become GFA that in fact would be a GFA implication. After some back and forth with with with the town, that was where it landed. The the town was or is of the opinion that that uh porch is Glor area. And so we are uh uh before you this evening to ask ask for your consideration to grant the minor variance to allow those glass panels to continue or to continue to remain. If you scroll down a little bit, we've supplied some photos here so you can get a sense of what it looks like from the interior. The top uh photo there shows the panels open. The lower photo there shows the panels closed. So you can see it's a kind of frameless glass system that rolls on tracks. And uh when it's open, it's as as we designed it. when it's closed, it of course is the is the enclosed uh portion. Um in ter in terms of impact, our feeling is is that there really is no impact to the community uh from from having that that enclosed if if they choose to to you know to close it in for the for their own purposes. Uh this is still a single family home. It's very low occupancy. Um our client has spoken to uh the neighbors, the neighbors side, neighbor to the rear. They all have no issues with it. there's copies of emails to that effect in your package. Uh we know the staff have no concerns and so uh we would ask for your support on on this monitor application. >> Thank you. Any members? Any questions for the agent? See none. Secretary Treasurer, has anyone called in on this matter? We've had no calls and no hands showing in the audience. >> Okay. And do you see that we do have three letters of support for this as well? Okay. No questions from the committee. No questions from the public. We'll close the discussion. I'll look for a motion. >> Mr. Dicki. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Based upon my review of the owner's application, the site plans, the building elevations, my site visit together with the presentation by the owner's consultant and the planning staff's report plus the support by the neighbors. I am satisfied that the variances are minor in nature and conform to the four test under the planning act. I put forth a motion that the application is applied for be approved subject to the conditions that uh the addition be constructed in general general accordance with the submitted site plan and elevation drawings dated November 19th 2015 2015 and the >> excuse me if I if I may that 2015 I believe that's actually a typo It's should be 2025. >> That's I caught I was wondering about that dating too. Um so 2025 the the drawings dated November 19th, 2025 and that the approval expires two years from the date of the decision uh if a building permit has not been issued for the proposed construction. >> Thank you Mr. Dicki. Any discussion on the motion to approve? Seeing none. All those in favor? That two is unanimous. Your application has been approved. >> Thank you very much. >> Have a good evening. >> Thank you. Good night. >> Moving on to the final application of the night. A12 2026 at 514 Wellington Crescent. Mr. Speza here. Good evening. >> Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of council. Um, hi. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak to about our plans for our house. Uh, my name is Michael Spetza. It's my wife, Stephanie Spettza. Uh, we're currently the owners of the 514 Wellington Crescent, uh, where we live with our two children. Uh we submitted for your approval plans with respect to a small addition that would give us a bit more square footage to fit our family of four. We tried to limit our changes to a modest addition that meets that objective. Um we have spoken with and received support from uh our neighbors surrounding our house uh which in um which support is important to us because we plan on staying in this neighborhood and um for a long time and raising our children there. Um, we've also included, I don't think that it was posted, but we've also included letters from our surrounding neighbors as well as well as neighbors uh within our area. Um, in addition to support from our neighbors, you'll also see that planning has no objections to the proposed variances uh for our project, but we are happy to answer any uh questions or concerns you may have with our requested variances. Thank you. Committee members, any questions for the applicant? We get the full screen back. There we go. Any members, any questions for the applicants or staff? Miss Buckerfield, if I may, I guess it's always good to go to the source. And as the lead author of the new zoning bylaw, the sidear setback changed from 1.2 2 to 1.8 meters, the coverage changed from 35% to 30%. Since the bylaw came into force, we've had three applications. All three of them staff have supported the previous zoning standards and I'm struggling to understand the true intent in this case. I understand that uh we've got a situation where the existing coverage is 35%. The existing garage is 1.2 mters, but there's an opportunity to set back the second floor and the area behind the garage to the new zoning standard. The the staff report says the intent to the zoning bylaw the sideyard setback is for access and drainage. If that was the only reason, we wouldn't have changed it from 1.2 to 1.8 mters unless I believe unless town was seeking greater separation distance. So, um can you please help me understand the true intent of the recent change to the bylaw to go from 1.2 to 1.8 8 m because the staff reports also have all concluded that it's consistent with the neighborhood which when the entire neighborhood was built it had 1.2 meter requirements so of course it would be consistent. So um I I struggle with this. Please help me understand the true intent of why the bylaw setback was increased. Excuse me. Sorry for you. Um, Chairlowski, uh, I appreciate the question. Um, in the report says that the intent of regulating the sideyard setback is to ensure an adequate spatial separation between double dwellings and no in negative impacts on drainage and to allow for access as you've mentioned. Um, in this site I I do um again there's kind of two qu two answers to your question. for this site specifically um when we review viner brands is everything's all within the context and having constraints and different things like that and in this situation having considering it in the context of an addition to an existing home um this conditions that were already on site what improvements are being made to those conditions what mitigation is being done to um satisfy the intent was all part of why it was considered appropriate in in this instance. And so, for example, allowing for adequate drainage that's being able to be demonstrated on the site. And so, those are sort of mitigating impacts. But when we evaluate the idea that overall we've updated the standard to 1.8 And that's an expectation for as houses come in when they go to build permit if they want to comply with the zoning bylaw as of right that there is that new standard that does allow for a setback to be in relation to the size of the lot. That's a huge part of what was shifted and changed and that allows for a kind of right zoning within neighborhoods. So, if we're we're regulating the size of the homes through the sideyards as well. And through this, you're going to see a shift and a change overall to having further separation and further change on the lots. But there we still have a minor variance process where people can come in and we can evaluate it on a case-byase basis to view the appropriateness. Have they mitigated the impacts appropriately? And going forward, I do hear you that we should be considering this quite closely in terms of is it appropriate to allow for this reduction or not. Um, but in this specific scenario through my review and site visit, it did seem appropriate to allow for this reduced sideyard on this specific lot. But I don't think that it's a general everywhere we will allow for reductions going forward. I'm happy to answer any questions as you consider. So despite what the staff report says, it's not purely a matter of drainage and separation because like I said, I I don't know why you've changed the bylaw, but I guess in this instance and you know I again the the existing garage is closer than the 1.8, but I think in this application it's actually even closer than the exist. Wouldn't it have been more appropriate to recognize that existing situation? Like in my mind, I can recognize the existing 35% coverage, but wouldn't it have been more appropriate to try to get mitigation by setting back the second floor in this instance to try to get closer to what the bylaw requires? >> Um through you, chair, you're right. There's always opportunities to comply with the bylaw. Um, and we encourage that wherever possible. Um, but we have to evaluate the application as presented today and the evidence that's provided and what we can see on the ground. But of course, every time there's opportunity to have further separation, a big part of increasing the sideyards was to allow for improved storm water management. And that's something that um through the site plan application engineering has been satisfied that they have the opportunity to allow for that mitigation and to have enough um soft landscaping to make that possible on this property. But that's a huge factor in increasing the sideyards, allowing for more separation drainage, reducing impacts on adjacent properties. In this instance, there was already a a a condition that's being improved through this addition. And so that's something that's recognized on this specific property. Um, but I I totally hear you and that going forward any opportunity to comply with the zoning bylaw is what is preferred. Um, but we are evaluating it based on the four test of the planning act each time a request comes forward. >> Thank you. Just one final question. Would you agree that Sorry, I shouldn't put it that way. Sound like a lawyer. Is it appropriate to use when you change the standard to be inconsistent with the entire South Oakville standard? Is it appropriate to be referencing that you know it's the appropriate test is because it's consistent with the character of the existing neighborhood because you just changed the standard from what that character is. In my mind, if staff continue to look at that as the test, then you're never going to support the new zoning standard because of course 1.2 is going to be consistent with everything else in the neighborhood. um through you chair. That's a fair ass assertion. I think that there's going to be a bit of growing um I don't know if the right word like sounds kind of crash but growing pains as we explore the new boiler coming forward. There's new standards um coming through and I do believe that we will see a shift and change in our neighborhoods for the better as we have these implemented further and further. But it doesn't stop us from needing to evaluate the four tests on a site-by-sight basis. And so going forward, we're going to be providing a recommendation to the committee based on our our review. And in this instance, the site visit really shifted it for me. You know, on the paper, I might not have thought that this was appropriate, but once I I saw the site, saw what it looked like in terms of shift and change in the neighborhood, what the adjacent house looked like, what the current condition was, I could now see how this could be appropriate, but I'm not saying that that's going to be the case on every time. And I and I think that it's good to challenge and to ask why we're making the changes that we are so that especially the public can understand them. The goal is to as of right have a condition that we know is good for the the property owner and the neighbors. Um saves you from needing to do extensive storm water management controls on your site. All these kind of different factors that are going to save and support the public. In this instance, the the applicant has to go through a site plan. they're going to have to demonstrate 25 milliliters retention on their property and they are going to have to do potentially more extensive mitigation than someone else. And I think that that's those are all factors that are going to go into this and be part of it. Um, but I agree there is going to be a shift and change and neighborhoods are going to change. Every neighborhood's different as well. The conditions are different. There's a lot of neighborhoods that have existing sideyards that are larger. And that's part of why we made this change is that the new houses as of right were coming in with really tight sideyards. When you had a neighborhood that existing had three meters based on how houses were constructed in the past and now we're putting that forward. But on a site by sight, if it's a neighborhood that has had a lot of change, has smaller sideyards, maybe then we could see that it's appropriate based on that site evaluation. But going forward, this will be a positive change and will actually make for neighborhoods that are more in line with their existing character in the long term since we have so many neighborhoods that have existing large sideyards that will be maintained through these regulations. Thank you. As you said, I'm challenging you so we all have a better understanding. >> Absolutely. And I'm happy to continue to have these discussions. >> Thank you. One more time, committee members, any questions of staff? Madame Secretary Treasure, has anyone called in on this matter? >> We've had no calls and no hands in the audience. >> Thank you. I will close the discussion and look for a motion on this application. M Price. >> Okay. Taking into account my site visit, the reports provided by the owner 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 is desirable for the development of the land. The proposed development maintains and protects the character of the existing neighborhood and does not present unacceptable adverse impacts. The owner has created a side addition that reduces the mass and scale of the building and mitigates the overall v overall variances. In conclusion, I find the four tests of planning that have been met and therefore put forth the motion to approve the application subject to the following conditions. Number one, the dwelling be constructed in general accordance with the proposed site plan and elevation drawings submitted to the town on August 20th, 2026 and that the approval expires 2 years from the date of the decision that building permit has not been issued for the proposed construction. >> Miss Price, any discussion on the motion to approve? I see none. I will just note that um while I agree with Mr. Buckerfield, we should not be looking for compliance outright compliance with the new zoning standards in this case. I think far more could have been done to mitigate the impact and try to get closer on the sideyard setback. So I will not be supporting that motion to approve. All those in favor of the motion to approve. All those opposed that would be myself. Your application has been approved. Uh 3 to one. Have a good evening. >> Thank you everyone. >> Hey, that concludes the applications for this evening. We have confirmation of the minutes from September 2nd. Mr. Hardcastle and a motion to adjourn. Mr. Hardcastle. Thank you. We are journed at 7:56.