Hey, thank you. >> Good evening. Tonight's committee of adjustment hearing is being held by video conference and live stream video on the town's live stream webpage at opal.ca. This is a hearing to consider applications for minor variance and consents held under the authority of the plane 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 town, individuals, organizations. If a request for a deferral is made and the committee grants such a request, the applicant or authorized agent must contact the secretary treasur to schedule a new hearing date. In order to conduct an effective and efficient electronic hearing, we have adopted the following process. If you are watching the live stream of this hearing on oak.ca and you wish to speak to an item on the agenda, please call 905-8156095. Again, the number is 905-8156095. When you call in, staff will ask for the name for your name, item number that you wish to address, and your telephone number. Further instructions will be provided for you to call back to join the video conference. When the chair of the committee polls for interested parties, please press star six to unmute yourself. The applicant or agent will be given the opportunity to briefly explain to the committee the basis of their application, answer any questions that may arise, and a maximum of 5 minutes will be provided for the presentation. You'll 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 for the record. A maximum of 5 minutes will be provided for each presentation. All remarks and questions are to be directed to the chair. Any submissions beyond the five minutes will be at the discretion of the committee. The applicant or agent will then be provided a further five minutes to respond to comments made by interested parties, answer any questions from the committee members. And if the applicant or agent has any concerns found in staff report, particularly with the proposed conditions, this will be the opportunity to advise. The matter will then be taken into committee for decision and this will mark the end of all discussions. Any persons desiring a notice of the decision for an application must provide a written request preferably through email to the secretary treasurer. Written notice of the committee's decision will mailed no later than 10 days for minor variance and 15 days for consent. The applicant agent or any other person who has filed a written request for such notice. The last day to appeal the decision to the Ontar the Ontario land tribunal will be noted on the decision. Only the applicant, specified persons or public bodies may appeal the decision of the committee to the Ontario Land Tribunal. In November of 2022, Bill 23 legislation, the More Homes Build Faster Act, amended the planning act to remove appeal rights for the members of the public. If no appeal is received within the prescribed time frame, the decision of the committee becomes final and binding, and the secretary treasurer will then notify the applicant and anyone who received the copy of the decision through written correspondence. People participating in the hearing are to be courteous to respectful of the members of the committee, town staff, and any other person participating in the electronic hearing. Tonight's hearing is being video recorded and available for future viewing at oakill.ca. Thank you. We have uh one regret this evening and Mr. John Hartcastle, you have any declarations of pec interest? I see none. We have a deferral for request. Um, application 066 of 2026 at 2279 Whistling Springs present has been deferred. Please note if you are here for this application, you will be receiving a notification when it does come before the committee. Again, that's application 066 of 2026 at 2279 Whistling Springs, Crescent. >> Madam Secretary, treasurer, anyone else standing in queue or asking a request to defer or withdraw an application? >> No, Madam Chair, we have no hands up and no further requests. >> Okay, thank you. We'll move to the first item on our agenda this evening, which is application 38 of 2026 at 52 Chartwell Road. Again, that's application 038 2026 at 52 Chartwell Road. I have a request to attend and speak from Anneil and Jazelle Murdoch, Anna Fargo, Esther Falconeer, Matthew Falhi. And we have letters of opposition from Neil and Jazelle Murdoch, Esther Falconeer, and Robert Bel. The agent for the application is Mr. Paul Cronis. One moment, Madam Chair. We're just having trouble moving him into the meeting. >> No problem. Good evening. >> Good evening, Mr. Cronis. Go ahead. >> There we go. I was starting to get a little bit concerned that technology got the better of me, but I'm glad I'm with you. Good evening, uh, madame chair, members of the committee. My name is Paul Cronis, uh, my land use planner where we're fold in Toronto, and as you, um, indicate, I'm the agent for the owner of 52 Chartwell Avenue. Um you may recall this matter was here before before you but in unofficial capacity as as a hearing has to be redone on this matter but we had uh preliminary discussion on some of the matters. Uh but I'd like to uh uh with your indulgence given that there's a uh others that have an interest in the application I can quickly go through a presentation. >> Yes. Go ahead. >> Okay. So, as you know, um 52 Chartwell Avenues at the, uh northwest corner of Chartwell Road and Carson Lane. If you can flip, uh quickly to um uh to page five. Okay. So, we're here before you to uh effectively seek four variances. The first one that I've highlighted in green is a variance that arises out of uh well what we're doing is we're repurposing this building and providing for two additional residential units a use that's permitted in the L3 zone uh the L L R RL3 zone but we have a a -0 suffix. So the first variance u deals with the uh the existing garage which faces Carson Lane. We are putting a divising wall in between them uh to separate the uh garage spaces for each of the arus and that and that effectively gives rise to the two variances. There's no change to the appearance other than the internal partition. Uh variance two and three which I've highlighted in red are existing situations that we're trying to address uh through these variances. And variance number four is a variance a new variance to deal with height. Uh if you can flip please. Uh as I mentioned the property is designated urban residential zone RL3 and um I'd like to uh if with your indulgence um I I think um think variance number one is fairly easy to understand uh it's not changing the exterior of the building um there' be no change from the appearance on the street other than the fact there'll be two uh separately contained private garages in respect of the variance number three and I'll and I'll deal with variance number two after three in respect to variance number three um the existing driveway on Carson Lane which was um which predates the requirements of the current zoning bylaw is as built situation. It was built in accordance with the bylaw that existed prior to the current bylaw and is set back 8.76 m from the intersection of the of the flanket street whereas 15's required. Uh there has been absolutely zero conflicts over the years with u with this arrangement. So in our respectful submission to continue with that variance doesn't undermine the public health and safety situation. Um in respect of variance number two this is a bit complicated as you know we've been before your committee uh previously on a consent application and minor variance. Uh we dealt with the minor variance to uh recognize Chartwell Road as the frontage for the purposes of setback. We've been through four or five preliminary consultation meetings with staff, including uh three rounds related to the current proposal. At no time did anyone bring to our attention anything to deal with required combined driveway with this came up roughly about a week before the notice for this hearing had to go out. There is a provision in the bylaw that says hammerhead hearings hammerhead driveways are excluded from the from the driveway calculation. I had I've had a discussion with staff on it, but we were unable to conclude as to whether it applies or it doesn't. So, we sought the variance as directed. If you could please flip to the site plan that you'll find on page 15, and it's noted in the staff report. You see the driveway with it doesn't come out that clear on that one. Maybe I can ask you to please go to page 36. Uh you'll see there's the the bylaw requires the the totaling of the combined driveways. There is an existing um uh driveway that has access Chartwell and one off of Carsten Lane. The combined driveway width is as noted in the variance which is 28.1 m. Now this is a little bit punitive because the width of the driveway is measured in totality. So in respect of the Carson lane, you'll see at the bottom just above lane, there's a measurement that's 12.13 m. So it measures the whole thing including a couple of wings outside of the paved area that's included. They may consist of about 5.4 m. So in fact, the driveway portion that you drive up to the garage is 6.76. If you go to the Chartwell Road, it includes those two areas that marked in in um in purple. So uh those are that's the parking areas and again it includes the whole width but in fact the actual paved width is as shown on the plans and it's roughly about 6.21 m. So the actual drive paved area is approximately 15 uh sorry 12.9 m and as you know the bylaw allows for 9 mters. Now, what the uh staff correctly recommended and we agree is on the car on the Chartwell road that we have interlock uh payment improvements and that's shown in their staff report and it's uh as a condition of approval and if you flip to page 15 you'll see the kind of treatment the staff are recommending and we agree to reduce the appearance of the driveway. Now um just for comparison purposes to see how it would visually look. Um if I may I can ask you to go to uh to page uh to page 49 what I where I provided um uh sort I've tried to do my best to provide the existing and proposed situation and you can see that we with the paving of the uh front landscape you can hardly recognize a driveway exists. So in our submission the the the the the intent of the bylaw while it is to reduce the driveway width to 9 meters this is an existing situation dysfunction um uh for some years and it's something that our client inherited when they bought the property and um and uh there's um as noted in the staff report there's other uh similar treatments uh similar driveways in the neighborhood. Now on uh the final variance height which was a matter of uh some discussion at the last hearing event uh Mr. Dicki um challenged me to bring forward the technical requirements as to why this variance is required. It's a 1.39 variance. And I hope um the committee had the opportunity to review the response to that um to to to that in a supplemental correspondence that we filed on May 11th, 2016 that basically does a millimeter by millimeter uh statistical summary and mathematical calculation on why the height variance is triggered. And if I may very briefly um there's four elements. There's a deeper roof attic um insulation that's required. There's a modern HVAC ventilation distribution system that's required. There's acoustical um uh assemblies that arise out of uh trying to ensure that each unit has a proper soundproofing. There's ceiling heights that are being increased from the main floor which is 8 8 ft to 9 ft and from 9 ft to 10 ft on the second floor. And I'd like to also say that 75% of the existing roof structure will be maintained. The uh client is proposing to lift the roof, if you will, to make these improvements in the matter that I just indicated. Now, I'm I'd be more than happy to go through each of the justification. Um, but it's set out on page um it's set out starting on page 52. There's uh and it continues on page 53 where there's three components. The main ceiling height and you'll see the the fourth column it says the delta why that increase is triggered roughly 12 in to go from 9 ft to 10 ft on the main floor. The basement level is not changing. So the grade is not changing. The upper floor ceiling will be increased from 8 to 9 ft. These are all contemporary heights within modern homes. The interfloor acoustic assembly between uh the main floor and the second floor requires about uh 200 millimeters uh which is roughly about 7 78 in for improved installation. If you go to the next page uh it continues with the roof assembly um and and the uh second floor mechanical chase. So the roof assembly for the insulation mechanical chase to allow for the internalization of the HVAC and and other um uh air quality distribution elements and there's only about a 5 in uh number six uh construction tolerance buffer. So that's the mathematical side of the equation that uh Mr. Dicki and I believe Mr. Towski and Mr. Hardcastle are asking me to to answer and I hope this provides you with the technical information you were seeking. But in terms of the planning merits uh madam chair members of the committee as I've indicated in the planning justification report filed and that's supported by the planning department the the uh height that's proposed is uh reasonable in the context of ensuring that the streetscape is maintained. This is a corner lot. Traditionally corner lots have a little bit more advanced treatment. Um, and we're we're we're we're in an area where uh immediately across the street on Carson Lane, if you go to um if you go to page 7, you'll see uh right across the street there's a a lot that's zoned RL3. It's not subject to the zero suffix. Um and that permits a 12 m height limit. The property to the immediate north has a a um a height limit similar to what's being proposed. And the property to the west on Carson Lane also had a height variance of about half a meter. I think a 75 meter. So in the context of what has evolved in the context of what were proposed in the mathematical exercise we just went through, we believe the variance is reasonable in those respects. It contains it maintains the streetscape. Uh there's no visual intrusion. There's no shadow impacts. There's no offsite impacts or on-site impacts. The the lot is large enough to be able to accommodate the site. The massing is not overpowering. Uh from an urban design, it meets all the objectives and uh we feel that the height variance and we hope the committee agrees is justified on those bases and it meets the forecast. Um I think that sort of is my overall presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions that may arise. Um, and I hope um I I did my homework to provide you with the technical information that you were seeking. Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay, members, any questions, items of clarification of Mr. Cronis before we take uh questions from the public. Go ahead, Mr. Towski. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, Mr. Cronis, in your existing and proposed driveway rendering, in your submission, the proposed looks significantly larger, larger paved area than the existing, yet the I think your submissions and even staff is that they're existing. Can you explain to me why there seems to be such a visual difference between the two plans, two? May I ask which uh which uh diagram you're looking at so I can have the proper reference? >> Uh the one you had on the screen page three of your recent submission. >> Oh uh yes. Okay. Um I can't speak to that sir. It's a architectural uh perspective that was uh uh provided by the architect. I don't know what software they used but if you look at the cover page for example of the presentation the very first page uh you know that gives you a different perspective as well we are not increasing any of the areas in fact with the landscape script uh strips we're are decreasing the paved areas that's the intent that I think Mr. Uh Brandon Hassan has um asked us and we endorsed. Uh so so there is no change in the driveway. I can't speak to the architectural freedom that an architect used for the expression, but I can assure you we're not changing any of the widths, but we're just improving by adding the landscape strips. Okay. >> Thank you. with respect to height. Um, so maybe it's just me, but the submissions got me more confused than uh resolved on the issue. Um, I've looked at the table provided that again you had up on the screen. >> Yes. >> And it's inconsistent with the drawing submitted with the application. Um, in particular, it's referencing a 10- foot and 9 foot ceilings where the drawings with the submission have 12T and 9 foot10 ceilings. So, what is it you're proposing to build in terms of ceiling heights? >> Exactly what's on the charts, sir. Nothing nothing different. Uh, I didn't pick up on that discrepancy otherwise I would have had it corrected. We are not the the existing is as shown on on the on the table. Um I'd like to go to flip to um I'd like to flip to the uh elevation that suggests that otherwise and maybe we can start on page 42. Is there any way we can blow that up so we can follow together? So I'm I'm not seeing the numbers. Let me see if I have a larger diagram on that. What the chart did as well, sir, is provide specific reference to the plans that were filed. So um we try to reference back to what what is shown in the diagram. So, I'd be very surprised. Again, I did not pick up pick up on that and I'm usually good at that. Um, unfortunately, I can't see. There it is. 9 ft. Second floor is So, we got to go from existing grade. I can't see that number to the left of the arrow there. But we have >> So this drawing is very inconsistent with the table you've just presented. It's got a 12 foot ceiling, a one foot difference between finished main floor ceiling, second floor and 9 foot 10 second floor to finish ceiling. the submission you just made and part of the justification for increased height, you know, was going from 8 to 9 ft or 9 to 10 ft. that's inconsistent with the plan that you submitted with the application. And as you know, any approvals get tied to the plans. And there's a lengthy explanation of why the se the floor between the first and second floor has to get thicker. >> Right? It's a one separation for both a fire and acoustical performance. But you're showing a 1 foot2 floor which is only 254 or 256 I think and the submission says it needs to be 60. >> So I'm so I'm confused that your justification for an increased height is actually showing a need for less height. But when I add up all the items in the table that are justifying the increased height, it's still under the bylaw 9 meter height. Yet you're saying that it's performance standards that are driving it. So I don't see that. I see inconsistent drawings with statistics you provided and a rationale that doesn't seem to be a requirement other than we want a higher roof and higher ceilings. So can you help with this inconsistency please? >> There is a there is an element within the existing structure that has a a grand room that has a height that's greater than the 8 foot. It's like a 12t ceiling. I'm wondering whether the architect has marked that. I'd like to if if we could go go to page 43 to check out those sites as well. And um right, they show 12 and 9. I'm wondering if there a labeling uh labeling uh mistake because these are the uh the chart that I provided is um something that I asked the the client to produce to give me a millimeter by millimeter analysis and this is what I received and there's if you look at the chart they go they cross reference back to the plans that are filed you'll see references to the um to the uh sheet uh spec 2.1 and they go right back to the plans And so it seems like there might be um um a labeling exercise on the plants. That that would be my conclusion. >> So if I add up the numbers, am I going to get to the 10.39 m? >> If you add up the numbers in the chart that you would get to the 10.39 m. Yes. So the 1 the 1.39 m plus the n that's permitted. Correct. >> Okay. Well, when I add up the numbers in the chart, I get 7150, which is less than the 9 meters that's permitted. That's before adding the first floor and the difference between first floor and grade. But that looks like it's about 4T. So I I'm still under uh the requirement yet you're asking for 1.39 meter increase. So I I'm I don't understand the >> So by I I'm I don't have a I don't have a scientific answer for it. uh there is you're correct a discrepancy that shows 12 meters and we're showing uh um something less than that but I what I what I wish to express upon you is we we spend a lot of time doing the mathematical and statistical analysis and that's one component it's a very important component the other component is to look at in the context of what is proposed in relationship to what's surrounding it and this is what I try to do is there's the planning side as well you know does it fit uh does it make sense? Um is it appropriate? Does it undermine uh and ruin the streetscape? Uh does it present itself well from an urban design? Is it visually intrusive? Is the mass inappropriate? You know, those are the uh I think when you look at the four tests, it directs us to not just stay on the mass but also um uh provide a an analysis based on on the four tests. And I've concluded and I hope I've conclude I've persuaded you as well and others that the um the variance meets meets the poor test and uh I can certainly provide more information on a discrepancy. I just don't have it now. >> But regardless, your your any approval needs to be tied to these plans and if the plans are inconsistent with what we are approving, that's not going to fly either. >> Correct. But we can get you the revised plans that match up and and that's something the committee has done before. Provide us the plans that match up with the 10.39. Should the variance be approved? >> So Mr. Cronis, you just said that it should one of the questions and I agree. Is it visually intrusive? And I'm pretty sure we're going to hear from some neighbors later that suggest it is. This is a corner lot and there just seems to be no attempt to soften the massing at the corner. Why, you know, the existing house has got varied roof lines and yet on this house he chose to go absolutely consistent across it. Um, again on a corner lot where it's going to be more intrusive than if it were not a corner lot. Can you explain why you didn't try to add some >> to soften the impact of the variance that you're requesting? >> So if you go back to page 49, I believe that uh this is what I try to do to demonstrate between the existing and proposed. I tried to show that the existing um has a couple of large mass areas in the front and we try to keep one and reduce the other. Uh, if we go to page 49, this is the vestibule, the the vestibule, the main entry, the foyer, if you will, the main door. Uh, page 49. If you can blow that up, that might help us uh have a better visual at it. So you see uh well we think the uh the articulation that's provided the architectural articulation in combination with the three uh very uh reduced roof the uh the the terretets or the penetrating roofs in the front does provide the uh the massing. I think the massing that's existing now with uh um with the larger vestibule in fact is uh prevents provides more massing on the street. So the architect has in fact attempted to soften the facade on on the uh on the um Chartwell side. And if you look and you compare that to the to the development that was approved on the north and again I can find reference to that. I I believe the um the planning report um had um a streetscape diagram in it. it might that might be worthwhile putting up. Uh it shows what what the existing is to the north and both I concluded independently of staff that the massing is appropriate for this corner lot. The corner lots typically can uh are required to provide more more more presentation. Uh they can accommodate more mass. they're are more uh visually um prominent in the neighborhood and they provide a landmark and I believe from an urban design perspective it respects all the town's urban design elements in their residential urban design guidelines. So uh we feel that that roof line um is uh is appropriate for for that for that build form and the articulation that continues to exist provides for a massing that is not visually intrusive on the street. and and it's set back it meets all the setback requirements as well. >> I appreciate that. Your your your submission is the proposed is less visually intrusive than the existing where the existing at the corner has got a drop roof line and the proposed is a full twostory wall with with articulation for the for the way it visually appears along along Charwell. Uh there there is no in in my humble opinion um when you're coming southbound on Chartwell, you you you start experiencing increases in height, you let you get to 54 and you're already at 10.39 m and then you proceed towards this lot and you don't see any um it would be unusual to have a build form that then drops again. So this is uniform built form and the massing and the presentation of the articulation continues to provide a feel of comfort. You're not intimidated as you walk on the street in in my view. And then as you're walking northbound northbound from uh from the lake towards the street, then you start feeling the uh the presence of the of of the proposed uh building at 52 and substantially the same as before with a little bit more height on the south end. And then as you proceed towards 54, you you you have the same visualization from the street of uh the height and then it starts degrading down as you get towards Lakeshore. And I I think from an urban design and a planning perspective and from the forecast that's appropriate. >> Okay. One last question for now just going back to the driveway is I understand that the driveway predated uh uh 1404 bylaw. Did it comply with 83 to86? Do you know? >> I I don't know sir. I don't uh I don't have that old B. I couldn't I couldn't find it, but neither could the town find it or do could the town confirm it. So, um what what happened was we just agreed to seek the variance. Like I said, there's a provision in the bylaw that exempts these hammerhead driveways from the calculation of driveway, but because neither of us could uh could come up with um an interpretation consistent with each other because we ultimately like to seek a building permit, we uh applied for uh the variance. Now, like I said, it's a cumulative variance. It includes the wings. It doesn't u it includes everything that is not landscape. So it is a little bit on the punitive statistical side but that's how it reads. >> So you mentioned the wing the one wing looks large enough to park a car on. Is that the case? >> On which frontage sir? >> On the Carson frontage. >> Um well it is 6.74 meters. I guess yeah, someone could, but it's not a legal parking spot. You can't park there. >> It's hard. It's hardcaped, >> right? Why is it necessary then if you can't park there? >> Well, the client prefers to have hardscape rather than softscape. That's again, that's the way the property was inherited. So, uh he hasn't changed it. Um there hasn't been any conflicts. There hasn't been any problems. Like I said, uh we did we did a minor variance on the frontage in 2023 and no one raised this as an issue uh as part of something that needed to be corrected during that process. So this caught me and everyone by surprise. It's a new uh a new set of eyes and a new interpretation. So we just um accepted the fact that we're trying to remedy an existing situation. So, uh, and what what what you see there is what existed when a client brought the bought the property and that's as much as I have. I did an air photo interpretation through Google Earth as well. Tried to see what what transpired. That's as much as information I I could achieve through that exercise. >> Okay. I'm going to try to stop my questions for now. Anyone else have any questions? >> Mr. Dicki, go ahead. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. >> Um, I I'm concerned about the hype. I appreciate your your description and details as to how it all comes about. Um um I see a lot of it or or the main difference between what's we say normally on the on the street or in houses you've got uh added insulation or acou soundproofing and uh or something else relative to the fact you've got dwelling units between you which adds um additional um you need additional space between the ceiling of the ground floor and the floor of the second floor. Uh what I wanted to get a little explanation is you put in from I think you said R40 to R60 insulation. Why does that need to increase the height of the roof? I know I put extra insulation in my house and you don't have to put the in. Now, I'm not an a builder or contractor, but uh I think your argument seemed to be that you have to increase it because of over the eaves and the height as the peak of the roof or the slope of the roof comes down, but that doesn't need to be insulated if if your uh if your um sophets or whatever out there, but I don't understand why that needs normally that would just take up more room in the in the attic. So, if you can first answer address that question for me. >> Okay. Well, I I'm I'm going to defer to the technical memo because just like yourself, I'm not a builder. I'm a planner and I'm not going to learn how to engineer and build in my late career here. But, um, if you go to, uh, uh, to the chart, um, you'll see on on page four, it talks about the roof assembly. Uh, and I'll I'll direct the secretary treasure. What page? That's page 53. So if you go to 53, you're right. It says we're going from an R40 to an R60. And the technical rationale, and this is all I have that I could say. It says the net zero ready envelope consistent with B 60. The energy direction, it requires deeper raised heel trust at the eaves to maintain insulation depth over the top leg without compressing vent baffle. It drives uh the ridge height as a geometric consequence of the heel, not as a not as a design choice. That's the explanation, the technical rationale that surrounds that 150 mm increase, which is roughly about 6 in. So, >> so the the roof will somehow be severed and raised with the crane or whatever other mechanism and then uh and then reinstalled keeping 75% of it and then altering the other 25% to show you the uh to to to match what I showed you on on the plans. So th this this uh builder developer is uh is is the one of the first in Oakville, maybe Ontario, that has net zero homes. It has one of the highest carbon capture. Uh it has the first ever energy star rating. So he doesn't build homes that we traditionally used to build uh in the 80s and the '9s and the 2000s. They're they're all customuilt and they're built to uh the highest standards and quality. And it's not until recently that the province has caught on to that and is required especially in the ARUS as contained in this correspondence there. If you read the correspondence on on page uh on page um I'll give you the reference. If we flip to page 55. Oh, sorry, 54. No, I I I missed it. Yes. So, 54. Um, so each one of these entries corresponds to uh the chart. So where you see the number four roof assembly and then then it has a little bit of of elaboration. So the proposed assembly is a raised hill engineer truss carrying the R60. Uh it's a net zero ready envelope that bill 60 energy provision to rip permit without additional pro uh procedural friction. The additional height is in the eaves not to the ridge of the eaves reflects a thicker envelope not a taller roof form. The ridge raises a geometric consequence of the heel, not as an independent design choice. I mean, that's as far as I can go on my technical expertise. Okay. I I still look at this and I see you're 0.61 m of greater height because you have to deal with um different matters between the floors. relative to the fact you've got one dwelling on top of another dwelling. So that seems that could apply across the board in the future for us. But the other thing I'm concerned about, you seem to put a heavy reliance on the fact that the house to the north, I believe it's number 58. Chartwell has a a height of 10 38, the same as yours. But the house to the north is is is a smaller the the the front elevation because it's only got 18 ft of frontage is got to be uh narrower than the front elevation of your house which has for your frontage of your house you got 25 point something. You're um you're you know you're wider. So, it's it's going to appear the house is going to be the mass and scale of the house is going to be larger than the mass and scale of the house to the north even though their heights are the same. I thought if you were to re if you could have if you were to stick to the the height or height that wasn't so substantially above the the zoning bylaws maybe the mass and scale of the house would not be as huge and much larger than the scale and mass of the house to the north that you use as a reference and a justification for your height variance. Well, sir, if we if we flip to page 26, I think what we tried to do is provide here a streetscape rendering that shows that in fact there are very many similar similarities between the two. The the the width of the house presents the same on the street. The height presents the same. The articulation is uh not as much as we're proposing. So, we I mean I I I appreciate your opinion, sir. Um but but it doesn't I don't think um reflects what we show on the streetscape rendering here. I I think the re streetscape rendering uh shows compatibility between the two build forms and I don't use 54 chartwell as any precedent. I mean we know each application is dealt with on its own merits but it is part of the urban fabric in this neighborhood. It is part something that now um presents itself. And the question then is how does this proposed built format 52 chartwell undermine the character of the area when for mo for for for the most part all the urban design elements all the official plan components. It doesn't destabilize the neighborhood. It's it's compatible. It's not the same. It's compatible and it's consistent with the streetscape. So, it's got similar features and designs. Um, it's got a a comparable height and like I said, as you approach the corner, traditionally corners warrants a slightly more advanced treatment. I'm not saying height, but we have a treatment that I think uh respects the corner the corner lot and it doesn't create a mass where someone feels completely overpowered looking looking at it from the street. Again, I respect your opinion, but um I see our proposal as providing um an appropriate integration. I just looked at Google Maps to see the streetscape, looked at the house to the north, and to me it looks it looks much it looks smaller than the than the house uh that you're proposing or the house that you're converting on your on your on your property. So, I'm I'm concerned about the massing and scale, but Okay. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Mr. Dicki. Thank you for your questions. Okay. Anyone else before we take uh comments from the public? All right. Madam Secretary, Treasur, I have several people here that have requested to attend and speak. Um can you invite them in one by one? >> Yes, certainly. Uh, I'm not showing any hands, but I will invite them in in case uh they're new to Zoom and they don't. Uh, we're going to start with Anna Fargo. You want to be muted? Hi there. >> Hi. Go ahead. >> Uh thank you. Um so I live across the street and as you're seeing on Google uh Google search um the streetscape is not as he's describing uh and um again Mr. Cronis is paid to do this. So I don't have a presentation prepared. I did for the last meeting. But uh the c the house right across the street um on Carson is a 1950s cottage. The there's going to be people speaking who live in other homes on this street. These are the these are unusually large lots compared to the rest of the street. But what I wanted to talk about mostly was it's going to be less about the specifics and pulling out the different bylaws. Um but ironically most of my argument is going to be from the words of the actual owner of the house who has published a book uh called the corner enclave of 52 Chartwell. And so in in this book my biggest concern and I think the concern of most of the neighbors all of these variances um he mentions them in a chapter in chapter 8 called the variance war and he highlights that he has to he needs to get these heights approved. he needs to get the garages approved. Um because this is the fear. He names this as the Trojan horse strategy. And I'm just going to read directly from his book. Phase one is the build. We pull permits for single detached homes with two additional dwelling units. This is as of right. The neighbors cannot stop it. The municipality cannot stop it. We build the fortress. Phase two, the occupation. We move in. We rent the units. The cars are parked underground. The street looks quiet. The chaos the neighbors the neighbors predicted never happens. Phase three, the strike. Once the building is standing and occupied, then we apply to convert the title to condominiums. Why this works? The city generally opposes converting freehold lands into condominiums because they fear the precedent. But logically, the density already exists. The fire separations exist. The independent living exists. We are simply asking to change the legal title to match the physical reality. So this is the concern. And again from his book, he's not creating affordable housing. He's listing these rental units in in his phase two of renting them as listing for anywhere from 11,000 to $25,000. He's projecting this to come to him to learn how to do this with your own property in Oakville. And in his own words, he says when he bought this place, which by the way did not have those parking wings, he added them. I was here before those wings were there. And those are new wings that he had added because he knew what was the end goal was. And in his own words, he says, um, I just want to quote it exactly. He says, when he bought 52 Chartwell years ago, he did his homework. My intention, his intention was always clear. live there, raise the family, and when we become empty nesters, monetize the land by splitting the lots and densifying the asset. So, if you're wondering why he's asking for all these unusually small, seemingly small variances, it's to densify this asset for the Trojan horse move that's going to come years in advance, but it's going to set a precedent for our town. And I like that he was able to raise his own family and then leave. But I'm still here raising my family right across the street from what's going to become a condominium development. That's all I have to say. >> Thank you, Miss Fargo. Go ahead, Mr. Murdo. >> You're muted. >> I am now. Great. Thank you. Um I'll echo what Anna said. Um and in particular, Mr. Kronos said that the driveways were there in particular. They weren't. We've lived on the street 14, 15 years. I also texted the previous owner. Um during this conversation, she confirmed that um the current owner put the driveways in. And frankly, that's my biggest worry in addition to what Anna said is uh uh we don't want the street to be a parking lot. Um, and we can cover it up with with the nice uh uh uh grading and and the grass coming through, but we're we're going to have a parking lot on our street and most of the people on the street do not park on their driveways. Um, and it will meaningfully change the scope of the street. Um, I'm concerned about the height as well as as uh member Towski noted, but uh primary point is Ann's on on the Trojan horse strategy. Um, and then secondarily, um, don't want a parking lot on our street. Those those wings were added after, uh, the current owner bought the house. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Is there anyone else that is waiting to speak, Madam Secretary Treasure? >> Yes. I'm going to uh move Esther Falconer into the meeting. And there's also one other person waiting after her. Let the light. >> Hi. So, my name is Esther Falconer and I live at 64 Chartwell and I again am concerned about the parking. So, I've been in the street for 15 years and 100% those driveways were paved after I moved in. So, they were not existing driveways. The hammerhead driveways have been there for about 14 years. That's number one. Number two, I am going to also read from his book and it says on page 76 of his book, The Vertical Vault, 6 M high Garage. Unit one will have a private bay with a triple car stack for three cars. Unit two will have a private bay with a triple car stacked for three cars and unit three will have exterior parking which is the parking that you are talking about on the front of the property. Now I've sat and watched these videos tonight from Mr. Cronis on what he's sent to the city. I ask any one of you to go onto the internet and just search 52 Chartwell Road and the drawings that appear for rental for 52 Chartwell have no resemblance to the drawings that have been submitted to have these variances. Okay, that's anybody can go on the internet and check it under Foxy whatever the name of the company is. The other issue I have is that he says in his book at 52 Chartwell we do not build to cold code we build to commercial specs. Now this is a residential property. It is not a commercial venture. This whole corner is going to be nothing but parked cars. If he's saying there's going to be eight cars allowed to come in and out of this property, which is a corner lot, but it was for a single family dwelling. And he's converting it to three units supposedly to help with um rental units. These are highend rental units. and he's proposing eight cars can be parked in the corner of Carson and Chartwell. And I totally oppose this type of parking. That's all I've got to say. >> Thank you, Miss Walner. Anyone else? Madam Secretary Treasurer? >> Yes. One more. Uh Matthew Falah. Okay. Hi. Hello. Can you hear me? >> Yes. Go ahead, Mr. Falahhe. >> Yeah. I'm I'm the owner of 58 Chartful. Um, first of all, I would like to say my house doesn't look like what they showed on the on the under plan. If you can go to Google map, you can see it yourself. The front of my house is aligned with all the other house. The back of my house is aligned with the other house. And also regarding the driveway, when I was building this house, I was going to ask for 9.4 m of driveway and I was told don't even think about that. Don't even go there. So I had to go with 9 m. So how is that her that I had to go with nine and somebody else asking for three times as much 28.1 meter of driveway in a residential area? Is this a parking lot area or residential area? Why do why didn't I get 9.4 but someone else is getting 28? That's all I have to have the section. Thank you. >> Thank you Mr. Fal. Um, any questions of the neighbors from the committee members before I pass it over to Mr. Cronis to answer all their queries? >> I see none. Okay, Mr. Cronis, the floor is yours to answer all of the concerns of the uh, neighbors. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh, thank you for those comments. Uh, um, I I I must confess I just recently caught up with all the planning act changes. I didn't have time to read all the different books that are written by Mr. Gerardino. I'm sure at some point I will. But um we we're here at task to deal with the four tests. Uh someone has aspirations and ambition. I think this is the country where we can try to make that happen. But ultimately we need to uh deal with the forecast not with someone has written sort of as an idea. um years ago, the thought about having uh ancillary or additional residential units in the uh in a stable urban area anywhere in Ontario, not just Oakville, was anathema. It just couldn't happen. The province stepped in and they said, "We're going to make it happen." And in fact, just for a little retrospective history, the town of Oakville staff supported up to three additional residential units. council cut it back to two to match that that's been mandated by the planning act. So it's no wonder why Mr. Jardino and others are thinking how do we uh deliver the much uh needed um uh housing units uh not not affordable affordable has a different connotation but the way you get affordability manageable for for our generation of children is to provide more housing supply there's a reason why my son lives in Mexico and my daughter lives in Calgary because he can't afford to live in Ontario and so it's up to us and every developer in every neighborhood to embrace the additional residential units so we can actually give our children a choice for a housing supply. So the book is consistent with that with that theory. Uh that's just in response to Miss Anna Farago and Esther Falner on the book. Now um the the proposal cannot be a condo. I mean, I think uh um uh Kate Coin and Brandon Hassan has told us repeatedly that will require a reasonzoning and and think about it, go through the condo process for three units. It's just not practical. Um in respect of Mr. Murdoch, and it's good to see you again, Mr. Murdoch, he uh coached my son in younger years. Uh the driveway um it with all due respect has been existing. I'm not quite sure the information he got, but I just listened to Miss Falconer say that um she moved in there 14 years ago and the driver was there, which means about 2012. And my aerial photo uh Google interpretation confirmed that it was there when my client bought it in 2014. Um this is not a parking lot. This is not going to change what you see on the street. It's going to be a continuation. We meet the parking requirements of the town of Vogville zoning bylaw. You know, obviously you have to provide park uh parking on on the lot and the additional residential units have generate a parking requirement and we meet all those standards and uh this is not a parking lot contrary to uh to what people are saying in terms of the commercial specs. Uh what that was intended to reflect is the client builds to the higher standards, commercial standards if you will for residential properties. Um he doesn't do the minimum. He maximizes out on everything he can in terms to provide an interior space that is most comfortable for anyone who lives there and um uh and and that whether they're rentals or whether they're uh they occup they continue to occupy for their own space. That's undetermined and that's not something that the committee or the town can regulate to say the additional residential units must be leased or must be sold. So, but they are available. They become part of the supply. So um again in terms of the height uh um I have to remind Mr. uh Mr. Falah that um you know again as I've been faulted by saying I look next door and see the height and we're comparable. I think uh the same would apply. He received multiple variances uh many many years ago uh including one for a balcony which you know uh was prohibited uh at that time but he was just in the middle of the old by the new bylaw. So his property has caused uno impact on our clients in terms of overview and privacy loss because of the balcony. But we live together and we're and we grow together and we understand that this is an inner urban area where we don't have 50 acre farms so we can live on. So we have to respect each other, respect each other's privacy and um the additional residential units provided here including the height with no balcony, no great change and uh is entirely appropriate. It's uh endorsed by every level of government and hopefully it finds merit with your committee. Okay, thank you. If there's no further questions, we can take the matter into committee. >> I I had raised my hand and I got back in. It's Neil Murdoch. Sorry. Uh I don't want to break protocol, but can I have a minute? >> Go ahead. >> I appreciate that. And Paul, good to see you. I wasn't sure if you remembered. That was a fun year. Um, see you in the lanes down in Toronto once in a while as well. >> Yeah. Um, but but to be clear, uh, your client the ex extra driveway did not exist when your client traded for the property. I I've asked the previous owner that this evening and I just want to be clear and I don't think it's the residents's responsibility to figure out whether or not landscaping meets with zoning approval or not. Um, so I just, and I should have said at the start of my earlier submission, we live at 24 Chartwell, so we walk north every day. >> Yeah, I have you, Mr. Mardock, at 24 Chartwell. And regardless of who had the the driveway first, it's it part of the plans now and we have to look at the application as as it's presented. But we've heard >> the evidence that everyone has um provided and um it's interesting because no matter how far you go back on Google Maps that I guess through a proprietary way they've phased out or blackened out the facade of the of the home. So there's no way of us being able to >> I don't know >> to go back. Yeah. I've been trying since you all started the speaking. Um, so I didn't know that you can actually do that on Google Maps, but regardless, uh, we're going to take the matter into committee now and we'll have our discussion and vote on the matter. Thank you all for your submissions and I appreciate it. >> Thank you, >> madam. >> Okay. Yes. >> One of uh, Miss uh, Falconer has her hand up. I I know they're all going to go back and forth and I I I I guess I have to be fair. Go ahead, Miss Faulner, but you have a minute. Okay. And I only need a minute. One of the main things I wanted to bring up was flooding in that corner. Okay. The property by 33 Carson has taken their building right to the edge of this property and it has created a flood plane issue for 58 Chartwell, 64 Chartwell, 72 Chartwell and three houses on Howard. And if you go back to your bylaw enforcement officer, we had two major floods in 2025 and they concluded that it was because there was not enough flood drainage put in when 533 Carson was built. Now 533 is there and it comes directly into 52 Chartwell. So there is also consideration should be given to the flood plane. That's all I need to say. Thank you. >> I hear you. Thank you. >> Mr. Cronis, the the property is it subject to um DSP or any of those um building um parameters where they will be looking at grading and flooding and all of that. >> It's subject to sight site alteration permits for sure. I'm not sure it's subject to site plan, but it would be subject to a site alteration permit. Um, but like again, we're not changing the grade. Uh, we're only working on a building. So, if there's if there's issues with the flood plane, I think uh uh Miss Falconer did the right thing and contacted the town. U you know, this property at 533 is outside our jurisdiction, at least my uh sphere of review. >> Okay. Thank you. All right, members. I'm in your hands. I just there's the photo. Um it's on from House Sigma. It's from 2025. If you go to House Sigma and look up 52 Chartwell, you can see the original house that has the no driveway. >> I don't know if you can not sure what we're looking at, but >> Oh, sorry. >> Yeah, it's it's very hard to see it uh because of the glares of the phone. Thank you. >> I don't know if you can see that there, but yeah, >> that's the original photo. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Um, all right. Um, everyone mute their their microphones. We're in session now with the committee members. Um, who would like to start the ball rolling and have a discussion? >> Need a minute. Okay. Go ahead, Mr. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, Mr. would be long and rambling. I apologize. Um, I'm sure I can't support this application. If if for no other reason, I am not clear what the applicant's proposing to build. The information presented tonight is inconsistent with the drawings presented um, filed with the application. the height justification provided actually reduces the need for an increase in height. But like I say, I I do not have clear information in front of me in order to approve this application. Uh having beyond that um you know the the applicant seems to just want to work within the system to their ultimate advantage then seek additional relief but not give anything back not try to mitigate the impact. Uh I agree with the neighbors. The fact that the driveways there is not a good enough rationale to and particularly Carson the amount of hardscaping um the amount of cars that can be parked there. Uh, I don't know again neither staff or the applicant have provided the information whether those driveways are legal non-conforming or just nonconforming and never complied with the bylaw. But the applicant seeking relief from the bylaw. I believe there's onus on the applicant to try to mitigate the impacts, not just say, "Well, it's there, so we should keep it." Uh, with respect to height, um, I completely agree with Mr. Cronis. The existing building that steps down treats the corner with more respect. The proposed building is a straight twotory wall, and there's no justification for it. I I know need is not a test. Um but appropriateness is to build 10.39 m with justification that does not support it and take an existing situation and make it worse is not desirable. It's not appropriate for the development of this property. I I understand um the system these three units are allowed. The system would allow the applicant to apply for a condominium and that would be up to town of Oakville to decide down the road whether they wanted to do that. That's not in front of us here today. But what's in front of us, I do not I I cannot conclude that it's desirable. I see the applicant is taking everything the system gets them, asks for more and not willing to compromise to mitigate the impact. So, Madame Chair, my motion would be to deny the application. And uh this I assume will go to the OOLT and the residents would have to go and state their case all over again. But madam chair that is my motion to deny with the reasons provided. >> Thank you Mr. Towski. Is there discussion on this recommendation? >> Okay I see none. All those in support. All those opposed. Okay. The uh motion is uh to deny has passed. None opposed. >> Have a good night everyone. Thank you. >> Thank you madam chair. We are on application. uh 67 of 2026 at 297 Oakwalk Drive, unit 104. Again, this is application 067 of 2026 at 297 Oakwalk Drive, Unit 104. I have Karan Navir Gariel as the agent. I'm sorry if I'm mispronouncing this. Okay, mom. >> Hello. Go ahead. Do you have your camera on? >> Who is on right now? >> Yes. Hi. >> Okay, very good. Go ahead, Mr. Guriel. >> Yes. Uh good evening madame chair and uh members of the committee. I'm Karan Gal and I'm uh representing the business owner of uh 104 unit at 297 Okaoka Drive. Um the application seeks a minor variance to permit the principal entrance to the unit 4 104 through Westable uh building common. Uh now the unit uh zoning bylaw requires that at least one principal building entrance to be directly accessed from the uh uh towards the transit facility. In our case, the entrance to the unit is through uh building main common vestibule. Uh but we believe the intent of the provision 13 we are meeting because uh entrance to the unit 104 is exactly adjacent to the uh main uh vestable entrance facing the street. >> Okay. Thank you Mr. Guerrero. Is that your submission? >> Uh yes, we have uh we have provided the um presentation. >> Oh yeah, go ahead if you want to go through it. I thought you were finished for some reason. I apologize. >> Um nobody. Uh yes. So this is all explanation. Uh this is the title. Uh if you go on a sheet uh three I believe which shows the um yes this is the site plan. If you see a red highlighted area this is the unit 104 um entrance to um and adjacent to is a vest which is facing the street. Now uh if can you please go on our next sheet? Yes. So if you see uh the entrance to the unit uh 104 which opens into vestable. Now we are seeking variance that we should be allowed because this entrance is directly opening to into the vestible which is directly facing the street. Uh if you go on our next sheet please as uh uh even a planning department has clarified uh that this is a minor variance because with the time um the uh interior layout of the building changed uh to provide the easy access to the uh pedestrians uh uh to street and transit facilities. So this vest table uh acts as a main entrance to the um uh unit. Well uh actually this is a uh this is all uh in the we are seeking to have an entrance to the vegetable. There is not much to explain in my case actually. >> Okay. Thank you. Any questions of Mr. Gal? I see none. Uh we do have a letter of objection uh from Angelo and Verendez. Are they here to speak to the matter? Madame Secretary Treasur, we have the letter on hand. >> I do not see them here. >> Okay. Well, the questions raised by them actually they said u the ease of access will for the visitors will be reduced but that is uh planning department has already confirmed that's not the uh case will happen because the vestable is the common entrance which is has a direct access to the street and uh our unit is accessible through from from that vestible. So uh as per our understanding and believe it will not affect uh as the question raised by uh the other unit owner. >> Okay. Thank you for your explanation and your submission. Any questions uh from committee members? >> Okay, I see none. Who would like to move a motion? Go ahead, Miss Price. You're muted. Sorry. Taking into account my site visit, the reports from staff, the agent, Halton Conservation, and the one letter of opposition, I find the variance to be minor in nature and is in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the official plan and zoning bylaw and is desirable for the appropriate development of the land. As there are no changes proposed to the building exterior, building envelope or ex exit con configuration, the variance will permit the principal entrance exit to continue to allow easy and direct access through the existing building best. In conclusion, I believe the four tests of the planning act have been met and I therefore put forth a motion to approve the application subject to the following conditions. that the existing principal entrance be permitted as constructed in general accordance with submitted type title page site plan and key plan and floor plan drawings dated February 5th, 2026. >> Thank you, Miss Price. Is there discussion on this recommendation? >> See none. All those in support and the application has been approved, none opposed. >> Thank you. Thank you. Thanks everyone. >> Have a good night. >> Application 068 of 2026 at 111 Glouster Avenue. Again, that's application 068 of 2026 at 111 Glouster Avenue. I have uh Jeff Ro here as the agent. Madame Secretary, it's actually uh Terry Martino is presenting this file. >> Okay, go ahead, Mr. Martino. >> Can you hear me? Okay. >> Yes. Go ahead. >> Thank you. Uh good evening, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Terry Martino with Grand Wise uh Design Studio in Oakville, and we are the agents for Mr. and Mrs. See at 111 Gloucester Avenue. Our application to the committee tonight, thank you very much for this slide, uh is uh for three minor variances to permit the construction of a single family dwelling on the subject property. As staff noted in their report, uh a similar application by a previous owner uh was heard by the committee in August 8th, 2025. uh seeking variances. Um and in staff's opinion uh that this new proposal uh has improved the variances being requested. As you can see from the site plan in the design, we've attempted to align the proposed dwelling uh with the uh adjacent house to the north as well as the adjacent house um to the south. the proposal meets uh or exceeds the setbacks, sideyard setbacks uh north and south as well as the uh rear yard uh conforms to the zoning bylaw in terms of setbacks as well as height. Um the design incorporates, as you can see in the plan, a uh courtyard, interior courtyard, breaking the mass towards the uh south uh property line and the dwelling to the south. And um you'll see that more evident if I could have slide five, please. So this is uh a streetscape and you can see that the attempt through the design is is that we've aligned to the north side that would be the left on the drawing the sort of twostory portion of the house uh and then it steps down towards the south and the smaller dwelling um to the south of the subject property. We think this is um uh good design uh in keeping with the streetscape and there was clearly an attempt to sort of have it fit into the established fabric uh of the neighborhood. I believe the committee is in receipt of two letters uh from the adjacent neighbors at 117 that's the northern neighbor and 103 Gloucester respectively. I had the opportunity to meet with both neighbors on two different occasions uh to discuss uh the proposal with them and look at ways to uh ameliate some of their concerns. Um the letters uh reference a revised site plan and which is what I would like to share with committee tonight. If I could have slide two please. Thank you. So, in consultation with the owners, um, and it started with the owner to the north at 117, um, we, the intent is, and through our discussions with the owner, is that we were actually able to rotate the dwelling slightly clockwise, if you could understand that, about the closest point um, towards the street and the adjacent neighbor at 117. Effectively, what this allowed us to do is open up a greater sideyard to the neighbor at 117 as well as um while still maintaining the rear yard setback, we were able to push the house back from the street an additional uh.53 m. So, the um uh the proposed dwelling under this site plan is actually further set back on the property. Uh furthermore, there was a uh landscape plan uh produced. If I could have slide three, please. This is a schematic of the landscape plan. So on the left side, uh there's an incorporation of a solid hedge uh hedging and it returns along the rear property line and as well as the planting to the south. Uh there are some service berry trees uh for the privacy uh between this residence and the neighbor to the south. Uh if I could get slide four, please. These are just pictures. So the uh hedge, it's a beach continuous hedge. They grow quite tall. That one in the picture is probably about 12 ft. That would be all along the north property line. And then you can see the uh intended plantings on the south side of the service berry trees both in summer and in the fall. If I could go back to the slide two please site plan. So, I think in keeping with our conversations and um and our commitments, my owner's commitment to the neighbors in the north and south, uh if I could ask the committee's indulgence, we would um be prepared to reduce the variance request uh number three uh to permit a minimum front yard setback. As currently stated, it's 9.82 m as shown and indicated on this plan. uh permit a minimum front yard setback would be 10.35 meters. Uh if the committee would be interested in um making that amendment to variance request number three, uh I've read the staff report uh and I do concur with their conclusions that they believe that the proposal is minor in nature. it meets the general intent of the official plan and the zoning bylaw as well as represents um good development, appropriate development for the lot. Um I'd be happy to answer any of your questions. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Martino. Um Miss McFale, you're okay with uh this change. Um we are going down versus going up. So uh it should not uh bear any uh calculation problems if everything else remains the same. So um I would I would say that we haven't had a chance to review those plans. Uh yes, I agree that the there are improvements that have been proposed uh through these changes. I would suggest that um one could argue that these changes are still in general accordance with the submitted plan um that as uh I um suggested as a possible condition to an approval. Uh so it would be the will of the committee if you wanted to change the condition um and or the the variance as it's listed number three um as requested by the applicant. Um I'll leave that um to the will of the committee. >> Okay. Thank you. Miss McFrino, items of clarification. Okay. I see none. I appreciate that you took the time to work with the neighbors, Mr. Martino, and um made the necessarily changes. Um let's Are any of the neighbors here to speak, Madam Secretary Treasur, or they are satisfied? Um I guess silence is uh a key indication. >> Uh we do have u Mr. Joseph uh here one of the neighbors. >> Okay, go ahead. Oh, Mr. Martine, you have your hand up. >> Uh thank you, Madam Chair. I I'll let the neighbor that's the neighbor uh to the north speak first and and you know, perhaps I can have an opportunity to um address anything that he says. So, I'll go I'll go second. >> Very well. That's fine. Um, if you do have your camera handy, it's easier if you put it on then I can actually see you. Um, go ahead, Mr. Joseph. Bear in mind you are muted and your camera is off. Mr. Dr. Jio, are you with us? Madam Secretary, Treasure. Okay, I see he's unmuted now. >> Good evening, Madam Chairman. >> Go ahead. Good evening, Mr. Good evening. I I I don't have anything negative to say, but I do have something to say to Terry that we my wife and I really appreciate the time that he spent and the uh concessions that uh they were able to make. So, we're very satisfied. >> Thank you for your submission. I appreciate that. We're always happy to hear these uh conversations between the neighbors are prosperous and fruitful. >> Thank you very much. Good evening. >> Good evening. Okay, go ahead, Mr. Martino. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to add that um I know that I'm in the committee's hands for uh attempting to amend uh the variance number three, but um I think it makes a lot of sense and one of the tests of uh we could add to good neighbors. So, uh, in that respect, if, uh, my, uh, agreement with the neighbor was is that's what my owner would intend to do. So, I think if it's reflected in the plans, and I think the committee could tie it to the site plan dated, uh, May the 12th, which is the date on that drawing that I presented tonight, um, that that would be consistent with our conversation. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Martino. Any questions, items of clarification of Mr. Martino before we take the matter into committee. Okay, I see none. I'm amendable to uh making those changes. I will leave it up to the rest of you in the discussion. Go ahead, Mr. Towski. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. As they say, there's an exception to every rule. Yeah, >> we don't like doing this, but uh it would in my view it would be wrong to punish the applicant for doing the right thing and making him go back and with a deferral. I think he's shown willingness to work with the residents and to their satisfaction. He's willing to amend the variance to make it a less of a variance. staff were supportive of the greater variant. So, Madam Chair, I believe there's no reason in this case to defer this. So, Madame Chair, I would move the application be approved as amended to amend variance number three permit a front yard setback of 10.35 meters. with that change. I believe this application meet to test the planning act. I don't see an impact being provided by the variances. The applicant has worked with the neighbors including the one that had objection. I would note that the objection really did not have anything to do with the variance, but the applicant was willing to work with them on landscaping regardless. Madam chair, I'd make that approval subject to two conditions. As we have not staff have not seen the drawing, I am going to tie it to the director of planning as well. Uh so the conditions would be the dwelling be constructed in general accordance with the submitted elevation drawings dated March 24th 2026 and the revised site plan dated May 12th 2026 as presented to the committee to the satisfaction of the director of planning and development and that the approval expires within two years if the building permit is not issued Very well. Thank you, Mr. Towski. Is there discussion on this recommendation? Okay, I see none. All those in support. Okay, the application has been approved and none opposed. >> Thank you very much for your help and have a good evening. >> Good evening. Okay. Application 069 of 2026 at 59 Cudmore Road. Again, this is application 069 of 2026 at 59 Cudmore Road and I've got Mr. Darren Sandra Smith as the agent. >> Good evening. >> Go ahead, Mr. Smith. Thank you very much. Uh, good evening, Madam Chair, members of committee. My name is Darren Sanger Smith, Structure Creations 445 Elizabeth Street in Burlington. I'm the agent for Jennifer Patterson, owner of 59 Cudmore. Um, the application tonight is for one minor variance. We were in front of the committee back in June of 2025, uh, requesting several variances, uh, for a much larger scale project. Uh in this particular case, it involved a substantial addition to the south side of the building and part of that was bringing that addition forward of the existing front elevation. And then the second component was the extension of the garage. Due to some circumstances with the client, the project has been broken down into two phases. Um the first phase is going to be the extension of the garage and some interior renovations to the basement uh creating an accessory dwelling unit. And the second phase will be the substantial addition on the south side. The project was larger uh bite to take than they had originally anticipated. Um as such we submitted for building permit and staff has flagged the fact that the original variance for the garage projection came from the proposed south edition. Uh the proposal that we are are going for is is uh an 8T 10T extension to the front of the of the garage. The variance requested was slightly less due to the fact that we were actually taking the dimension from the front of the addition. With the addition no longer uh being completed at this stage, the variance changes. Uh the garage and design hasn't changed and it is still in line with the job or sorry the garage immediately to the north of the property. Um but as a result the variance the quantitative number of the variance has changed. Um, I understand staff is in support of this application. Uh, and I don't have any other further comments and open to any questions that you may have. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. H. >> Any questions, items of clarification of Mr. Smith at this time? I see none. Has anyone called with interest for this application? Madam Secretary Treasurer, >> we've had no calls and no hands showing. >> Very well. Let's take uh the matter into committee. Who would like to move a motion? Go ahead, Mr. Dicki. Thank you, Madam Chair. Based upon my review of the owner's application, the site plans, building elevations, my site visit together with the presentation by the owner's consultant, and the stand the planning staff's report. I am satisfied that the variance variances are minor in nature and conform to the four tests under the planning act and I put forth a motion that the application be as applied for be approved subject to the conditions that um that the me oops that the uh addition be constructed in general accordance with the submitted site plan drawing revision uh number four dated March 24th, 2026 and that the approval expires two years from the date of the decision if a building permit has not been issued for the proposed construction. >> Um Mr. Dicki, I think we missed one of the revisions. There's a revision number eight dated March 27th. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> That's the site plan drawing. And then >> then revision number four dated March 24th, 2026. >> March 27th for revision number 8 >> and March 24 for revision number four. Sorry about that. >> Thank you. Um is there discussion on this recommendation? I see none. All those in support. Okay. The application has been approved. None opposed. >> Thank you very much. Have a great night. Thank you. Application 070 of 2026 at 3020 Pine Glenn Road. Again, that's application 70 of 2026 at 320 Pine Glenn Road. I have Glen Char Associates here, Mr. Maurice Loic. Good evening. Go ahead. >> Uh good evening, Madam Chair, members of committee, um staff, and there's any public in attendance. My name is uh Moraurice Luke, and I'm a planner with Glenn Schnar and Associates agent for Innovo Group, the owners of the site. The application before you tonight is for variances to specific parking rates for the property at 3020 Pin Glenn Road. Um I'd note maybe before I go into the presentation, I've reviewed the town staff report um and pleased with the positive uh staff recommendation and appreciate that. And I've also reviewed the conditions and I have a small uh issue and request with just one item which um with your permission madame chair and committee I'd like to discuss just after my presentation. So before you guys go into you know your discussing the motion if that's okay. >> Yes. Go ahead. >> Thank you. Um so next slide please. So let's get everyone oriented in case not everyone's familiar. So this minor variance application is in the Polarmo village part of the town. So that's south of Dundas and along Bronty Road. And the subject site, as you can see on the slide, is the box outlined in red. The site is specifically located at the southeast corner of Pine Glenn Road and Bronty. uh surrounding uses as you can see from this top down view to the east. Uh uh there's institutional uses both immediately east and kind of kitty corner northeast uh along old Bronty Road. To the south there's existing town houses and further south um again if you're familiar with the area apartment development including the uh the ama building which is under construction right now. Uh to the west across Bronty Road, existing town homes and then to the north across Pinang uh you have uh apartment and mixuse development going all the way up old uh Bronty and then of course facing um uh facing Bronty Road you actually have that Halton paramedic facility. Next slide please. So here's a zoomed in aerial uh of the site as it exists today. Uh it's it's uh it's just the sub it's just showing that the subject lands are bound by again you can see Bronty Pineland Road and Kala Gate on the east and then of course that KSA gate turned into old Bronty Road further north and the site is currently vacant. Next slide please. So these slides just give you again if you're not familiar with the site just a bit of context. So this is a shot as you're standing on Pinang Glenn looking west towards Bronty Road. Uh these shots were taken on the a recent site visit. Uh I think it's I think it's when the signs went in the ground if I recall. Um and it just sort of again confirms the conditions of the site. Next slide please. And again uh this is um this is standing on Cala Gate and looking west again towards uh Bronty Road and again sort of confirms that it's a vacant site. Next slide please. So let's talk a little bit and about the actual application and minor variances before you tonight. So we are requesting the approval of parking uh related variances as follows. Firstly, to permit a parking rate of 0.1 visitor parking space per residential unit, whereas the town bylaw rate requires parking of 0.2 visitor parking per unit. And the second variance is to prevent a parking rate of one space for every 60 me squared of net floor area on the first story. Um whereas the bylaw requires one space for every 24 me square net floor area. Now the second variance is worded in a way to match uh kind of how the provisions uh in the bylaw work. But all that's saying is that that is going to be the parking rate applying for uh commercial gross floor area which is um uh you know being proposed in the building. So these variances apply to the subject site and not necessarily to a specific feature or element on a plan. So you've you've heard other items before you are always with uh you know a plan that's active. Uh this is something a bit different tonight. Um so while I'm showing plans on the screen which are the plans currently before the town uh the intention is with committee's approval of the variances tonight the client is actually going to be engaging the architect to prepare revised plans um um suitable to reactivate the site development plan process with town planning. So again, these variances are not specific to um proposed plans that are about to be approved. It's more so to set uh to set the parameters for, you know, um reinvigorating and starting up site design and building design again. Um I would note that in support of the parking variances, uh a parking justification study was also provided to the town staff for their review and approval. And this was actually done. Our clients had taken the initiative to engage planning and specifically traffic staff uh for quite a while to make sure that what they were doing in terms of the work and the proxy and um so how this variance application would be before you would um be satisfactory to everybody. Uh next slide please. I'll go through these quickly. You guys have had a long night. So um so first first slide here is uh this is sort of giving you a sense of the town's policy planning framework. This is from Livable Oakville's um schedule showing the land uses and the schedule shows that the lands are part of a growth area and within the built boundary. Next slide please. So this is a slide uh of the Polarmo village land use schedule and again the lands are um within an urban center uh designation and the use permissions for an urban center include a wide range of like retail service commercial office residential uses and permissions for mixeduse buildings and there's even standalone apartment buildings permitted um in that uh sort of pink tone. Next slide please. So this is the zoning that applies to the site. And again, if there's members of the public here um and get confused between official plan and zoning bylaw, this is this when it comes to the zoning bylaw, this is the as of right permissions that are allowed on the site. Um so today under the town zoning bylaw the lands are zoned as urban core and it it specifically is called MU4 and then the SP379. So that permits a wide range of uses which you I've got sort of at the bottom of the slides that includes apartments, business offices, you know, banks, medical office, restaurant, retail, similar uses to what you see as you go, let's call it further up old Bronty Road, the kind of developments that are already there. Now the special section uh the 379 reference is gives additional regulations from the parent base MU4 which is like a mixeduse zone but those special exceptions are just for yard landscape provisions, balcony projections, rooftop terraces, I'll call them incillary matters. None of that is changing. So again use permissions or setbacks or again some of these specific regulations are not being proposed uh to be revised tonight. Next slide, please. So, uh, again, I'll I won't, you know, talk about this a lot, but this just gives you a sense of some of the local transit service that's in the area. Um, the red dot on each, uh, sort of map shows where, uh, the subject lands are in context to proximate transit. Next slide. And then this is uh, showing uh, future transit. So, likely you've seen this before. This is from the town's um uh transportation master plan. So giving you a sense of you know uh the future state of transit. The subject site is very close to can you see in the sort of the top left corner the proposed Polarmo terminal. So that's that little orange circle denoted there. At this scale I couldn't even put a dot on the drawing but we're very very close to that orange circle. So we're just trying to convey that both existing and in the future state, our site is very close to uh transit infrastructure that is only going to be improving with time as part of the you know the town's vision for uh the transportation master plan. Next slide, please. Again, you've had a long night, so I won't read all of this. Maybe I'll just do really do a quick summary. Um so the variances um we'll be supporting uh a development application uh that fulfills policies under the various regional and local official plan policies. Uh and the intended layout for this project includes limits on surface parking, no parking between the building and the street and no access to Bronty Road. So this is again going to be helpful in supporting part of that site plan exercise. Uh with respect to bylaw considerations and the four tests, um as I noted, a planning just uh sorry, a parking justification study has been provided and it surveyed proxy sites which are immediately north of uh the subject lands on Old Bronty Road. Uh one of them, if you're familiar with the area is is the Mint building, for example, which is a one property removed from Dundas Street on the west side. Um and again they uh were chosen because they uh contextually in terms of what they are uh apartment development with retail at grade and where they are located are you know very similar to and would exhibit characteristics similar to what uh the proposed development for our site uh would exhibit as well. The study that I mentioned uh you know for the parking and the proxy information confirms that requested parking rates um provide parking matching demand for both the visitor and the retail parking uh in this Polarmo village area. And again I would just point out that no other variances are being proposed at this time. Next slide please. Um in my opinion the application before you is minor. uh there's no changes proposed to the you know the visible building that would result from these parking rates. Uh the parking rates uh align that we're requesting align with the proxy data that came as a result of the surveying of the properties on old Bronty Road. Uh the application is desirable and appropriate as it supports uh TDM measures which encourages public transit use of course providing adequate parking as illustrated from the proxy surveys as well. Next slide please. So this concludes uh my presentation. Of course happy to take questions whether it's from uh committee members or the public. But as I noted uh I would like the opportunity after questions to just speak very quickly to one small matter of a condition. Thank you. >> You can go ahead and and speak to it now. Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. Sure. Sure. simply. So, I'll just start with saying that we have no concern with the let's call it the formal recommendation that's in the staff report uh and the conditions specific to a final approved site plan. No concern with that. So, the staff comments have a note on that second last page of all the what I'll call your town standard conditions that apply. And I would like to ask committee's approval to modify the last bullet only. So, the last bullet is the one on the timeline. I would ask tonight for a three-year time frame instead of the proposed two-year time frame. And bear with me for a minute and let me explain why. So, unlike other applications, and you've even heard in all of the ones before that are specific to live uh you know, in place site plans with you know maybe even concurrent permits. Um we these variances are a little bit different. So these, you know, well, we're not we're not pursuing a setback or coverage item on a site plan like that as a specific site plan. Our client's site plan application has been on pause with the town to resolve these parking matters and to kind of set um visitor and the commercial GFA parking rates that match truly what is uh you know demand uh as we as we know from those proxy sites. So the additional time that we're asking for is required to complete the necessary let's call it internal and town-f facing approvals. So if approved tonight and uh uh hope we are hoping this will be approved the client is going to be engaging the architect right away to reactivate the site development plans and once that's done and the owners can do the typical aligning plans of you know market conditions the usual then the Fulsome consulting team comes on board and will be engaged to provide a complete set of plans um for town review and approval. So with this extra first step which is client and and uh architect sort of you know starting up the site plans again and uh considering all the things that they need to do that's where you need the extra time. Um, you can appreciate that part of this is is is a little self-s serving in that I just don't want to have to come back again with a positive decision tonight to come back to you um requesting uh another variance application if for the only reason that we just ran out of a little bit of time. Um could we do this in two years? It's possible, but there's a lot to do. So, we'd rather we'd rather be safe and ask for three. And again uh you know it would just make the process give it enough time with all of this front-end lead design time that needs to happen. Then again they've got to get into the town site plan process and then you're going to get into permitting. So three years would work uh much better than the proposed two. I hope you guys find this a small and reasonable request in this circumstance. Um so that's it. I'll conclude with that. Thank Thank you for uh considering that. >> Thank you, Mr. Lochic. Um has anyone called with interest for this application? Madam Secretary, >> we've had no calls and no hands in the audience. >> Okay. Very well. Um questions. Mr. Towski. >> Thanks, Madam Chair. So, you indicated you're just about to start the site plan review process. Uh if I apologies if that's the way it came across. No, the applicant has been in for the site plan process for quite some time. Um but they put it on pause. It's market uncertainty. It's a lot of things going on right now and and before they wanted to restart the site plan process. Um they just wanted to uh set these parking rates and that will be part of think of that as ingredients in the hopper to reset uh particularly you know the underground parking levels as it matches the proposed residential units above. So, it's been through a wholesome round uh and review of comments. Um, and that's actually I believe and I know Rob is Rob is here as well. He could comment on it from town planning, but I believe it was through the zoning examiner's flag of how parking was being shown on those existing on plans in the site plan process. That's what triggered the wait, you can't the way it was being shown. it had to be sort of better represented through distinct variances for two different parking rates for the visitor and the commercial retail. So again, it will be uh reviving that site plan file with new drawings and just continuing and wrapping it up for approval. I hope that explains it. >> Your view all major items have been resolved and you would anticipate getting site plan approval rather quickly. >> That would be the hope. You know, it's the impossible question to ask. When are you going to get your approval? I I'm actually going the opposite way. I'm just gonna ask you the blind question. Do you think you can get a building permit within three years? >> Like that >> in the current market and it's high-rise, it's um >> maybe you need four. So, so I've spoken to the to the uh to the client about that and and again their feeling is they can get this done in in the three um agreed there's volatility right now but at the same time if I think about this client and other clients that I work with not just in Oakville but in the broader GTA maybe there's a feeling that things are bottoming out and that's not to say they're on the way up but at least it's not going to get worse. There's few signs that maybe some of the you know higher density market you know is is only you know is there's nothing worse coming but again that's just anecdotal from what we hear from clients you know developers and builders but uh three years we believe uh would suffice if you if committee believes that you know to be generous and to make it for all so be it I I would not object to that. Uh, I'm sure the owner would be like, "Well, we don't want to be, you know, burning up time for uh for four years, you know, renting uh renting a space for uh, you know, the model home. You know, we'd like to get it done sooner, but uh, appreciate appreciate the comments in that regard. >> Thank you." And maybe I could just ask Miss Sun, uh, there was no second condition listed here, but I believe there should be some form of time frame. And I would agree with the applicant that the two-year time frame with a high-rise in the current environment is probably not enough. Is the town supportive of three or more years for a condition? >> Just uh through you, Madam Chair, just to answer Mr. Towsk's question related to time frame, the original condition that I put in there tied it to final site plan approval. Final site plan approval typically has a two-year get a building permit type of time frame. uh we're looking at the ability now maybe to change that to a three-year. So the intent wasn't to put that specific condition in because it's tied into the final site plan approval and the way we're thinking about going for the future. However, if Mr. Luch and his client wants a three-year time frame, I have no problem with that. So essentially the the time frame tied to the site plan approval allows you that flexibility whether it takes two years or three years right if the second condition is not even put in there >> it would provide the further flexibility however I think Mr. Lucha's client would like to see something a little more definitive as a condition. Uh he has approached me on that and that that's the rationale behind it. I think it's covered by number one, but if they want specificity to a time frame, three years, uh the only caution I have on that, if there's a disconnect between final site plan approval and the committee's condition with three years, there may be the potential of having to come back and that was part of the reason why we didn't put it in in the first place. >> Okay. Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Madam Chair, Madam Chair, just I'm thinking tying it to site plan uh runs a foul of the discussion we had at the recent meeting with respect to previous decision on Burllo Drive where it was tied to an event, not a time frame. >> Yeah, >> I'm going to go back to my put out for consideration. Uh Mr. said they're looking at uh extending site plan to three years u reasonably having been there Mr. Losers may need the next year to get a site plan approval. So I I think tying it to site plan and site plan regulations but giving it a sperm date as um we discussed I think a four-year time frame would probably be a reasonable one to put on as a condition that the approval expires if building permit hasn't issued in four years. >> I'm fine with that. There a discussion Mr. Dicki? >> I I'm fine with the uh that type of a condition. I have a few questions on other issues. >> Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Dick. We haven't gone to the uh approval stage yet or motion stage yet. So, go ahead. >> Yeah. Um the concept of shared parking. the concept of shared parking. I I I I shall say I agree with that. I don't question that aspect. Um what I might ask either the planner or the agent are there other examples maybe one question be are there other examples of shared parking in highdensity areas in Oakville? And the other question might be if so or relative to whether whether there is or not. Are there instances in other highdensity areas in Oakville where the parking requirement for visitors and the parking requirement for commercial has been reduced um like I say because they're in high density areas where there'll be a greater expectation that people will be walking to these facilities and visitors. Well, I don't know about visitors, but definitely a fit of commercial. So, does either of you know if there's other examples in Oakville? Maybe I'll let Rob speak to sort of broader general townwide, but um the the site that was actually one of the two sites that was actually picked uh for the proxy data um so that's the the mint building, it actually had been before the committee of adjustment to reduce the visitor rate to 0.15 the >> Yeah. So there there you have an example of that's a mixeduse building with retail at grade and they have sort of a you know a co-mingling I know supply and again I'm sure you see applications before you all the time where um you know the the rationale works because of course of different peaks where for the purposes of site plan and the bylaw we will have defined parking for each kind of use. >> Well I realize that certainly I don't I hate to interrupt you. I'm okay with that whole concept. So, yeah, that's um I was just curious if if that's been practiced, shall we say, in other parts of town and and I'm just thinking, oh, either in the Pllemo node or the node north of Trafogar, Fogger and Dundas, I guess, is the other node, brand new node. I'm just curious. Uh >> well, Mint is right there. It's in the >> for you, Madam Chair. The two proxy sites that are in the uh parking justification study, 2430 Old Bronny Road and 2486 2490 Old Bronny Road are just up the road from the site. >> Okay. So they do they do have the uh the combination of the visitor and the retail together combined. >> Okay. And that is one of the things that the transportation engineer when he reviews the parking justification looks for similar proxy sites of what you're proposing. >> But it was just mentioned and correct me that the I don't know which property it was. One of the proxy sites has a a reduced uh visitor parking of of 0.15. Here we're asking for 0.1 spaces per um or per apartment is um which is substantially less. So that's why I was trying to say see is is that justified because we're we're talking shared parking on our subject property whereas the one that has the 0.15 doesn't have shared commercial visitors. They're separate components to the parking lot. That's what I wasn't clear on. Okay. Through you, uh, Madame Chair, uh, if you were to go to page seven of 13 of the parking justification, the visitor and the retail are together. The visitor is.11 visitor parking spaces per dwelling plus 7 retail for 2430 road. Um, and then the other one is 0.10 visitor visitor spaces per dwelling and zero retail. So, they are combined. It goes to Mr. Luchas's comment regarding peak period, the timing of those. Uh, and keep in mind, we're in a growth area. So, we're looking for less car dependency, more emphasis on walking, cycling, transit, and all those other types of modes of transportation other than the car. And the transportation engineer felt this was appropriate, and that's why the recommendation was put forward. Great. Thank you very much. Okay. Any other questions? I see none. So, who would like to move a motion? >> Go ahead, Miss Bright. Taking into account my site visit, the applicants submissions and presentation, and the comments from the town staff, I find the variance to be minor in nature and is in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the official plan and zoning bylaw and is desirable for the appropriate development of the land. The proposed development maintains and protects the character of the existing neighborhood and does not present unacceptable adverse impacts. I also note that there's no letters of opposition. The parking justification study together with the comments from the transportation engineering staff demonstrate the proposed reduced parking rates are appropriate and sufficient to accommodate the site's anticipated parking demand. In conclusion, I believe the four tests of the planning act have been met and I recommend the application be approved subject to the following conditions. that the development be constructed in general accordance with the final approved site plan to the satisfaction of the director of planning and development and that the approval expires four years from the date of the decision if a building permit has not been issued for the proposed construction. >> Thank you, Miss Price. Is there a discussion on this recommendation? I see none. All those in support. Okay, the application has been approved. None opposed. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, committee. And uh a shout out to town planning and CFA staff for support tonight as well. Thank you. >> Have a good night. Thank you. >> You, too. Okay. Application 071 of 2027 at 11:43 Chapelton Place. Again, that's application 71 of 2026 at 1143 Chapelton Place. >> Yes. Hello. Good evening. >> Good evening. Go ahead. >> Yes. Um, Mr. Chair and committee members, good evening. My name is Mazar Raja and I'm representing this application as agent. My office address is 8250 Lawson Road, Milton, Ontario. Yes, Mr. Chair, Miss Mr. SH uh we have proposed a below below grade entrance in the uh sorry below grade uh entrance in the exterior side yard which will be the main principal entrance for the second unit dwelling in the basement. Uh this below grade entrance structure is encroaching the exterior sideyard by 1.14 m. The required flankage is 3.5 m but with this entrance it going to be 2.6 m. A variance of 1.14 m is requested. Uh this variance is really m minor and uh this meets all the tests. Um this uh uh this it is according to the general intent of the official bylaws and the zoning bylaws, official plan and the zoning bylaws. Uh staff do not have any objection on this. I request you to approve this variance so that we can have uh approval of second unit dwelling in the basement successfully. Thank you very much. I'm open to answer any question if you have. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Raja. Who would uh does anyone have any questions, items of clarification? Has anyone called with interest for this application? Madam Secretary Treasure, >> we've had no calls and no hands in the audience. >> Okay, very well. Let's have a motion. Go ahead, Mr. Towski. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll move that this application be approved as applied for, finding that it meets the portest of planning act. I do not believe there'll be any impacts from this variance given the stairs are located in a flankage yard. There are still plenty of room to uh access the yard on that side of the property. I would also know that there's no community opposition. I would make that approval subject to two conditions. That the uncovered access stairwell below grade be constructed in general accordance with the submitted site plan dated March 18th, 2026. And that the approval expires two years from the decision if the building permit hasn't been issued. >> Thank you. Is there discussion on this recommendation? None. All those in support. Okay. The application has been approved. Okay. Yes, I see your hand, Miss Price. I was uh hesitant for a second. >> Your application has been approved. None opposed. Thank you. >> Thank you. Bye-bye. Have a good night. >> Good night. Application 72 of 2026 at 4, sorry, at 343 Douglas Avenue. Again, that's application 72 of 2026 at 343 Douglas Avenue. I have Mr. Michael Barton as the agent and I do have a letter of opposition from Miss Nancy Dau. Good evening. Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Go ahead, Mr. Barton. >> Uh, my name is Michael Barton. I'm the agent uh and the applicant on this application. Uh, the proposal is for demolition of the existing two-story dwelling and construction of a new two-story dwelling. Uh the front wall will be aligning with the front walls of the adjacent dwellings to the north and south seeking to provide consistency of transition to the public realm. Uh the garage is integrated into the ground floor. So the intent has been to not have the garage projecting from the front of the structure. Um I provided in my planning justification report photos of of a number of the homes in this area. So there's 16 figures showing the the built form design and character of this of this neighborhood and the the intent is being to design a dwelling that fits in with that character. It incorporates appropriate massing and scale relative to those nearby properties and the that massing and scale is mitigated by compliance with all the required setbacks. Maximum floor area ratio, maximum building height. Um there's also articulated built form shown in the design. Uh again, while there's we're seeking a variance related only to lot coverage, the front porch and and rear projections are contributing to that lock coverage, but they're ground floor level only and not contributing to the overall building mass. Uh the dwelling has been designed with considerable variation uh on both the ground and second floor and including the second floor into the roof line. Uh so as I mentioned the we're seeking only one variance the lock coverage 26.47%. Uh there there's a considerable amount of landscape that's going to be provided on this property. So the rear yard in particular uh that's proposed will be 15.01 meters which greatly exceeds the minimum requirement. We're also providing sideyards that meet exceed the minimum requirements and a front yard that exceeds the minimum requirement. There are boundary trees along the west property line uh that that that go basically along the entire property line that provide screening and buffering. Those are going to be fully maintained. There's no change to those through the proposal and there'll be no impact to uh street trees either. There is only one tree within the interior of the site towards the rear that's proposed to be removed and we would be working with staff through the site alteration permit process with respect to a replacement tree. Uh the the lock coverage is consistent with what we see for other approvals in the immediate surrounding area including up to 27.76%. in terms of the letter from the neighboring uh well not neighboring land owner from uh the member of the community at 328 Douglas. Uh so that's on the opposite side of the street and and up about four lots. Um so there's a note that this is going to represent a precedent in the neighborhood. Um again it's this is a neighborhood we've already seen these higher values approved for lot coverage and in many cases those were combined with other variances uh for floor area for example or reductions to sideyards. So in this case there are no other variances that are being requested that would be contributing to that that idea of overbuilding on the property. Um the we have uh as I mentioned all the trees uh along the boundary of the property and the street are being maintained with only the one being removed. So again we're not we're not seeing significant removment uh removal of trees to this proposal and there's going to be a large amount of open space provided to that large rear yard setback and uh side and front yard setbacks exceeding the requirements. Um, so I I've reviewed the staff report and accept the conditions that are recommended and agree with staff that the four tests are satisfied uh and and the proposals compatible with the area. I acknowledge the the requirement for site alteration. So that will address any concerns related to drainage uh grading and trees. So my opinion is that the four tests are met. I provided detailed analysis in my justification report, but in general with respect to the official plan, uh the proposal is going to preserve, enhance, and protect the neighborhood character that the dwellings been designed to meet and exceed all setback requirements that are that are providing appropriate transition uh to the neighboring dwellings in the public realm. We're not seeking any other variances in conjunction with the lock coverage that would generally uh result in masking scale and impact concerns. In terms of the zoning bylaw, the intent of regulating the lock coverage is really to make sure that uh there there's an appropriate amount of landscaped open space provided uh with spatial buffering and separation. Again, as I've mentioned, we're providing a large rear yard setback that that significantly exceeds the minimum requirement and also exceeding the other setback requirements. Uh the proposed dwelling is incorporating a number of design elements that help to uh to taper and scale the size of the dwelling. Uh and again, not we're not combining this lot coverage with any other variances. Um, in terms of minor, my opinion is that the this the requested relief is not going to adversely impact the character of the neighborhood or result in in scale and massing that would adversely impact uh the public realm or or neighborhood properties and is consistent with other approvals in the neighborhood. And then finally, uh this variance is appropriate for development of this property. It's going to enhance the the uh the character of the property in a manner that's compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent uses. We're seeing a an increase that's appropriate uh for and consistent with other approvals in the neighborhood and mitigated through uh design features and overall scaling and mass that that is appropriate for the neighborhood character. Uh so with that, I'd welcome any questions of the committee. >> Thank you, Mr. Martin. Any questions or items of clarification? Okay, I see none. Um, has Miss uh Dubo raised her hand to speak to the matter, Madam Secretary Treasurer? >> No, I do not see her in the audience, nor have we had any phone calls. Thank you. >> Okay, very well. Let's have a motion. >> Go ahead, Miss Price. You are muted. >> Sorry. Taking into account my site visit, the applicant submissions and presentation, the comments from the town staff and letter and the one letter of opposition, I find the variance to be minor in nature and is in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the official plan and zoning bylaw and is desirable for the appropriate development of the land. The proposed develop maintains and protects the character of the existing neighborhood and does not present unacceptable adverse impacts. I also note there are no letters. Sorry, there was one letter of opposition. The variety of material and articulation and roof height variability have helped minimize the masking and scale of the proposed dwelling. In conclusion, I believe the four tests of the planning act have been met and I recommend the application be approve approved subject to the following conditions. that the dwelling be constructed in general accordance with the submitted site plan and elevation drawings dated m March 27th, 2026 and that the approval expires 2 years from the date of the decision if a building permit has not been issued with the proposed construction. >> Thank you, Miss Bryce. Is there a discussion on this recommendation? I see none. All those in support. Okay. The application has been approved. None opposed. >> Thank you. Good evening. >> Have a good evening. Application 73 of 2026. uh 236 Watson Avenue. Again, that's application 073 of 2026 at 236 Watson Avenue. You have Mr. Rick Matalan as the agent. >> Yes. Uh can you can you hear me? This is Rick Melg from SMDA Architect Limited in Oakville. Go ahead, Mr. Matelgen. >> Thank you. Yes, I'm Rick Matelgen from SMDA Architect 7 in Oakville. Our address is 482 South Service Road East, Sweet 118, and I am here this evening on behalf of our clients at 236 Watson Avenue in Oakell. I see there's a bunch of yellow dots on there. Um, if I could ask you to zoom in a little bit on that, it might might make it clearer. Um we're be before you you this evening um in in in regard to a proposed addition you you can see where the the location of of the addition is uh by the by the hatched area. Thank you. Uh by by the hatched area is on on on the site there. So what you're seeing is you're seeing Watson Avenue on the right hand side of the uh drawing. The rear yard of our plans property is is is on the left and you can see that we're proposing one small addition that's that's at at the front of the property. um a larger addition uh that's on the south side toward the rear. And then very at the very back behind the the swimming pool there, there's an existing um shed building. And we're we're proposing to convert that to a cabana. And to make that happen, we're doing a small addition to the shed. You can see that dark hatched area there. And then and then a a cabana roof that comes forward from that going toward the pool. So this is an existing building. It's approximately uh 20 years old. Um we've designed uh we've we've designed these additions and some modifications to the roof uh very much in keeping with the with the character of the existing building the impact of the additions from the street will actually be very very uh very uh very very minimal and and certainly as I indicated keeping with the existing existing character and um and um siding conditions and windows and so on very little is changing from from that standpoint. I'm here this evening to ask for one variance in regard to um lot coverage. The um zoning bylaw in this in in this in this case allows 19% and we're asking for 26% um coverage. Of that 26% I'll point out that 3.9% is composed of of porches. The small front porch, existing rear porch, and the proposed um porch that we're putting or deck or covering feature that we're putting onto that cabana. So, uh, taking taking all all of those things together, the the fact that the appearance of the the building is not being changed changed significantly and the fact that so much of the variance that we're asking for is is porches. We we believe that that that the variances are minor in nature and or the variance is minor in nature uh meets the four tests. Uh, we note that uh staff are in support and that there's no concerns from the community and um would ask for your support and be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Matan. Are there any questions or items of clarification? I see none. Has anyone called with interest for this application? Madam Secretary Treasur, >> we've had no calls and no nobody in the audience with their hands up. >> Okay. Thank you. Who would like to move a motion? Go ahead, Mr. Dicki. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. uh based upon my review of the owner's application, the site plans and building elevations, my site visit, the presentation by the owner's consultant in the planning staff report. I'm satisfied that the variance is minor in nature and conforms to the four tests under the planning act. And I put forth the motion that the application is applied for be approved subject to the conditions that the accessory building and additions to the existing detached building be constructed in general accordance with the submitted submitted site plan and elevation drawings of revision number four dated February 27th, 2026 and that the approval expires two years from the date of the decision if a building permit has not been issued for the proposed construction. >> Perfect. Thank you, Mr. Dicki. Is there discussion on this recommendation? I see none. All those in support here. The application has been approved and none opposed. >> Thank you very much. Thank you. Good night. Okay. Application 074 of 2026 at 473 Bellwood Avenue. Again, that's application 74 of 2026 at 473 Bellwood Avenue. I have Mr. Timothy Baduk here as the agent and I note we have 10 letters of support. Oh, Mr. Wil. >> Good evening. Good evening, Madam Chair. >> You did a a changeover on me. >> Yes, I've been doing that lately, too. Um uh good evening, Madam Chair and the committee. My name is John Wilmont with Wilmont and Strickland. Um our address is 594 Chartwell Road, Sweet 3 Oakville. Uh and we're representing the owners of 473 Bellwood Avenue. Uh the project uh before you involves the demolition of uh the existing dwelling and construction of a new two-story home. Uh the supporting documentation documentation we submitted uh outlines our justification for the three variances required and uh uh how the proposal is consistent with the official plan and livable Oakville uh maintains uh the neighborhood character and meets the four tests. Uh I see you've uh got my first figure up. Thank you. Uh I just wanted to point out that we have received uh I counted nine uh letters of support. So maybe one came in uh uh afterwards but uh you can see our clients have approached all the neighbors and uh with success. We're not aware of any uh opposition to the uh proposal. Uh you go to figure two please. Um an image of the house uh property zoned RL 3.0. 0 under the zoning bylaw and is uh within an established lowdensity residential neighborhood where many homes have been rebuilt or substantially renovated uh over the past 25 years. Um the application requests three variances. One is the residential floor area uh 46.8% where 41 is permitted. uh the garage area 56.94 where 45 meters is permitted and uh front yard setback uh of 7.7 uh where 8.96 is required. Um as bit of background uh we held a pre-conultation meeting with staff on March 11th of this year. Uh the design was generally wellreceived and staff recommended reducing the floor area and uh reviewing the front facade composition to align with livable Oakville. Uh in response, we we did revise the design um including a 1% reduction in the uh the floor area and scaling back of the chimney feature on the front uh facade. uh the chimney or uh sim similar architectural features can be found um on the front or flankage elevations uh in uh a lot of the neighborhood houses uh both original and redeveloped houses. Um the uh just to talk about variance number one. Um so the modest increase in Florida supports a functional uh family home with four bedrooms uh with conventional living spaces. The rooms remain modest in size. Uh the design minimizes uh perceived massing through the gable roof forms and a setback central roof element that has a dormer uh in it to break up um u the facade. Uh the proposal respects the maximum height and provides sideyard setbacks that exceed minimums uh except for minor pinch points uh which are right at the the uh required setback. Um and that's primarily due to the pel parallelogram shape of the lot. Um in variance to the garage area the additional garage area is not uh really visible from the street. Uh it appears like a twotory conventional uh garage uh as you see from the the image. Um the additional garage area is uh some some storage and and a workspace uh to the rear uh located behind the parking spaces. Um and so uh I submit there's no adverse impact on streetscape of this increased area. Um town staff have also indicated at the pre-conult uhation meeting that they commonly support this type of increase. Uh they don't oppose that. Um we go to figure three the next setback detail. This might be the most complicated uh uh variance. Um and as you can see that um the reduced front yard setback is uh requested primarily to avoid encroaching into the tree protection zone at the rear. That's not on this figure. Uh but there is a a private tree that uh we've tried to avoid uh uh uh injury. Um so we'd like to push the house forward just a little bit. Um the uh um under the uh the zoning uh the setback is actually measured to the porch line that is uh 6 m uh back um from the edge or the overhang. So there's a curved overhang and uh there's a dimension there. Um it's uh basically sort of the tangent of the furthermost point. That's where the actual setback is is taken from. Um the uh can see that the main wall um projects just uh 43 um mters uh beyond what the allowable uh is and um um the uh the chimney uh feature uh projects a little bit in front of that. And I also like to point out that the um uh the main wall of the the uh living room feature and and uh where the fireplace is located is in line with uh what the um potential front yard setback would be of the neighboring property um if it was developed. And uh given the trend that that's a that's a likelihood. Um the uh the garage also is set back to the um to the required setback. So you can see that on the diagram as well. Anyway, um just wanted to quickly talk if we can go back to the rendering figure two. And you can see just uh behind the tree in the in the image um that the uh the staff had uh question about that chimney feature um and about its massing. Um and uh we have reduced the height um by 2 ft and the depth of it uh another 6 in just to lessen that uh impact. Um staff supported that so they were uh pleased with it. Um I I believe and um the uh the overall u design of the house uh proposes compatible materials and forms and reflects an established pattern of ongoing reinvestment on Belwood Avenue. Um so for these reasons I I believe the variances are minor uh they're desirable uh for the appropriate development of the land and maintain the intent and purpose of both the official plan and the zoning bylaw. Hence meeting the four tests. Uh so we respectfully request the committee approve the application and uh I'd be happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you Mr. Omar. Any questions items of clarification? I see none. Um given the letters of sports, has anyone called with anyone uh with any concerns or interest to speak to the application? Madam Secretary Treasure, >> we've had no calls and no showing hands in the audience. >> Okay. Thank you. We'll take the matter into committee. Who would like to move a motion? >> Go ahead, Mr. Tasks. >> Madam Chair, I'll be pleased to move approval of this application as applied for finding that it meets the test of the planning act. I believe any potential impact of the variances will be mitigated by a very appropriate design on this dwelling. I would also note a very impressive level of support from the community with 10 letters. I would make that approval subject to two conditions that twotory dwelling be constructed in general accordance with the site plan elevation drawings dated March 27th, 2026 and that the approval expires in two years if a building permit is not. >> Thank you. Is there a discussion on this recommendation? I see none. All those in support. Okay. The application has been approved. None opposed. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. >> Have a good evening. >> Good evening. application uh 075 of 2026 at um 1067 Truman Avenue. Again, that application 75 of 2026 at 167 Truman Avenue. I've got Mr. Ventura here as the agent. >> Hello. Good evening. Can you hear me? >> Yes. Go ahead. >> Um, hi. My name is Daniel Ventur and I'm here today on behalf of the owner of the 106,000 Turman Avenue in support of this minor variance application. Uh first I'd like to thank you the committee for the time and consideration and also I'd like to highlight the the city staff who provide the positive and constructive recommendations during the reconultation meeting. This allowed us to refine the design and better align planning objectives before coming here to um next slide please. Uh so that that's just uh showing the existing um household that has a a garage in the in the front area of the house. Um I just put this in the slide to show the existing. Uh next slide please. So the intention of this uh is just to create a new room uh on the second floor on the of the garage. Uh so for that once we submitted the plans for the the approval of permit so it triggered three uh conditions that was not in compliance with the the zoning. Um so I'm going to pass through the three variances that you are asking for. Uh next slide please. So the first one is uh the garage uh once we were developing the design for the the the second floor uh instead of having these joist in lever we we just created a new wall and didn't make sense that that area was there empty so automatically that garage increased uh the area of 2.91 square m and the garage originally had already the 45 square meter that is permitted by the by law. So it created this first uh variance that we are asking for to be accepted. Uh next slide please. So the second variance that we're asking um is that regarding the the projection that in the bylaw of today as soon as you as everybody knows as soon as you do a development and existing uh house you need to comply with the new uh by laws and now the B level exceed 1.5 m only and this garage was away beyond a little bit 10 mters. before they they could implement this 1.5 limitation. Um that's the second request that we are not really extending the existing garage but it's not in compliance already uh with the preview permits when it was built. Um there's of course there's a little bit of extent I have maybe half a meter. Um so and the third next slide please. The third variance that we are asking for to be accepted um is the flow area uh that it's extending uh from the maximum allow is 35 and we are asking to be accepted at 38.67. So these are the three u minor variances that um in our opinion is requested satisfy all the the four requirements and test under the planning act and we respectfully request the committee to support and approve the application. If you have any question here to answer questions they may have. >> Thank you Mr. Vero. Any questions or items of clarifications at this time? I see none. Has anyone called with interest for this application? Madam Secretary Treasurer, >> we've had no calls and no hands in the audience. >> Okay. And we'll take the matter into committee. Who would like to move a motion? >> Go ahead, Miss Price. Taking into account my site visit, the applicant submissions and presentation, and the comments from the town staff, I find the variance to be minor in nature and is in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the official plan and zoning bylaw and is desirable for the appropriate development of the land. The proposed development maintains and protects the character of the existing neighborhood and does not present unacceptable adverse impacts. I note there is no letters of opposition or support. In conclusion, I believe the four tests of the planning act have been met and recommend a application be approved subject to the following condition. That the dwelling be constructed in general accordance with the submitted site plan dated April 12th, 2026. North and West elevation drawings dated February 8th, 2026 and south elevation drawings dated December 9th, 2025. And second, that the approval expires 2 years from the date of the decision if a building permit has not been issued for the proposed construction. >> Okay. Thank you. Is there discussion on this recommendation? See none. All those in support. Okay. The application has been approved and none opposed. Thank you. Have a good night. >> Thank you. Have a good night, too. >> Okay, we have minutes to confirm uh for April the 29th. Miss Price, thank you. And motion to adjourn. Miss Christ, thank you. At 9:41