← Back to summary
Full Transcript
Variances: Seven Approved, Four Denied - Committee of Adjustment meeting of April 29, 2026 at 7 p.m.
Oakville · May 01, 2026
Uh, thank you very much. Good evening. Tonight's committee of adjustment hearing is being held under video conference and live streaming video on the town's live stream webpage at oakville.ca. This is a hearing to consider applications for minor variance and consents held under the authority of the planning act. Please keep in mind the intent of this process is to review the application that is before the committee, listen to the evidence, and then make a decision. This process is not intended to be used to resolve any concerns or disputes that may exist between the town individuals or organizations. If a request for a deferral is made, the com and the committee uh grants such a request, the applicant or authorized agent must contact the secretary treasur schedule a new hearing date. In order to conduct an effective and efficient electronic hearing, we have adopted the following process. If if you are watching the live stream on this hearing on oakville.ca CA and you wish to speak to an item on the agenda, you can call 9058156095. Again, that's 9058156095. The phone number is also posted on the screen below the live stream at oakville.ca. Staff will be standing by to take your call. When you call in, staff will ask your name, item number you wish to address, and your telephone number. Further instructions will be provided for you to call back to join the video conference. When the chair of the committee polls for interested parties, please uh press star six to unmute yourself. The applicant or agent will be given the opportunity to briefly explain to the committee the basis of the application and answer any questions that may arise. A maximum of 5 minutes will be provided for the for a presentation. You will need to state your full name and address for the record. Any submissions beyond the five minutes will be at the discretion of the committee. All delegations must also state their name, their full name I should say, and address for the record. A maximum of 5 minutes will be provided to make your presentation. All remarks and questions are to be directed to the chair. Any submissions beyond 5 minutes will be at the discretion of the committee. The applicant or agent will then be provided with a further five minutes to respond to the comments made by an interest any interested parties and answer any questions from the committee members. If the applicant or agent has any concerns found in the staff report, particularly with any proposed conditions, it is your opportunity to advise us. The matter will then be taken into committee for a decision. This will mark the end of all discussion. Any person desiring a notice of decision for uh an application must provide a written request, pre preferably through email to the secretary treasurer. Written notice of the committee's decision will be mailed not later than 10 days for minor variances and 15 days for consents to the applicant and or agent and any other person who filed a written request for such notice. The last day to appeal the decision to the Ontario Land Tri Tribunal will be noted on the decision. Only the applicant, specified persons, or public bodies may appeal the committee's decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal. In November 2022, Bill 23 legislation, the More Homes Built Faster Act, amended the Planning Act to remove appeal rights for members of the public. If no appeal is received within the prescribed time frame, the decision of the committee becomes final and binding. Secretary Treasurer will then notify the applicant and anyone who received a copy of the deci the decision through written correspondence. People participating in this hearing are to be courteous to and respectful of the members of the committee, town staff, and other people participating in this electronic hearing. Tonight's electronic hearing hearing is being video recorded and is available uh for future viewing at oakville.ca. Thank you. Um, do we have I see that we have regrets for for Sher McCale and uh member Michael Palowski. Um, do we have any declarations of pecuniary interest? I see none. Um, I would request any request for deferral or withdrawal of applications. Mr. Mr. Chair, I see one hand up and I will move the agent over. One moment, please. Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Uh, my name is Ryder Rawi from Professor Floor Plans Inc. I would like to defer application number 654384 Wsworth Street. We had uh staff not supporting the application and we had a chance to discuss yesterday briefly with the planner and seems that we are further apart and we need to do like couple of rounds maybe to obtain the staff blessing. So we would like to defer the application until we reach mutual uh understanding with the staff and bring it back to the committee. Okay. So that's uh CAVA um 65 of 2026 at 385 Wssworth Street. Um request for deferral to consult with staff on uh on a negative staff report. Um, all those in support of the motion in front of the committee. I have lost Miss Price off my screen. Oh, she's on the opposite screen. Okay, there we go. Thank you. Okay. Uh, thank you. Um, sir, your application has been deferred. You'll see the secretary treasurer with respect to a future date. Thank you. Have a wonderful day. Madame Secretary, Treasurer, any further request for deferral? Mr. Chair, there are no more hands up at this time. Okay. Um, thank you. So, we will commence our agenda items with uh with a consent uh agenda. Um um and that would be B26 um/6 uh property located at 275 third line. Uh, good evening, Mr. Dell. We are having a hard time hearing you this evening. I'm so sorry. There is an extra mute, and that is this little thing here. Sorry about that, Mr. Chair. Uh, thank you, sir. Would you be kind enough to give your name and address for the record, please? Certainly. My name is Nicholas Dell, 1370 Pure Ontario Street, Missaga. I am from Harperell and Associates. I am here tonight speaking as the authorized agent for the owners of 2753rd line. Mr. Chair. Okay. And this this item I should I should note for the record as as your presentation is noting that this is uh this consent application is uh accompanied by two minor variance applications for the resultant um parcels uh CAVA 51 and 52 of 2026. I'm assuming um Mr. Mr. Dell, we're going to hear a presentation with respect to all three matters. Through you, Mr. Chair, we are. I do note for out of respect for the committee's time, it is receiving a negative staff comment, so I will need the five minutes today. Absolutely, sir. Please. Okay, if you could begin your presentation. Thank you. Uh, so through you, Mr. Chair, again, my name is Nicholas Dell, and by way of introduction to the other committee members, I am a planning and land development consultant. My father was also a planning and land development consultant. Unfortunately, also was my grandfather. And so for the three generations I've been working um the past 12 years and since inheriting their goodwill, I have been given the pleasure of representing my clients at 2753rd line for the associated minor variances for a new lot that would be deficient on frontage. Uh that was the only variance we're seeking for this new lot creation. And if I can take you to the next slide, you'll see the agenda I have for this evening is to talk at length um of the about the site itself. U it has a very unique background. the prevailing and immediate context of this neighborhood when we measure the criteria for consents at the local, regional, and provincial level, provincial policy and legislative changes as well that we must be reviewing the measurement of criteria of compatibility through. And then I'll leave time for questions of the committee and and to respond to any comments from staff or members of the public. taking you to the next slide. I will show you, excuse me, um you will see a plan of survey as well as a um a breakdown of the lot area and frontage. And I'll just speak about it while staff pull that back up. Um there this is a very large lot. It's actually the largest lot in um the immediate and character area for the 1960 plan of subdivision. It's almost half an acre and it's it's the lot's uniqueness in terms of its size and its uniformity of shape that gives the most strength towards the argument um of supporting the application this evening that this is modest that this is gentle intensification that we're desperately calling for when it comes to inviting more families to live in Oakville. Um uh the existing site as you can see thank you for playing back up Jen uh is 1865.55 me square. It has an existing lot frontage also quite generous of 36.58 meters. And the proposed lot areas which you'll see um in a couple more slides on the consent application sketch is for 923.5 m square whereas 860 m square is required under the RL2-0 zone and for the retain lot it'll be 943 and 10 m square whereas 860 m required. The two variances as I mentioned before you are also attached to this consent uh for deficient frontage. Both lots would have an equal frontage, a uniform frontage of 18.29 m whereas 22.5 m are required. Following this slide, you'll see uh an immediate context and this is an analysis we undertook to try and find what is the base, what is the average, what is the predominant to use um local local policy language. What is the predominant size of lot and the average size of home in this neighborhood? Because not only do we want to match the lot fabric, meaning really even evenness of shape, we also want to make sure that the lot we do create can build a home of comparable size. And the lots we will create, which you'll see in the next slide, I'm still staying here for a moment, however. Oh, sorry. I have to be careful with my language. Could you please go back to the previous slide? Um, the average size of home in this neighborhood is about 2500 square f feet. Um, it's pretty modest. It's pretty, you know, really gentle, quiet, idyllic suburban neighborhood when it was constructed in the 1960s. And the average lot size is about 1,000 square meters. So, on this basis, you'll see what's unique about this lot. This would be, in my professional opinion, the only lot in this subdivision that would be a candidate for this type of gentle intensification. I would go so far as to suggest, I hope the committee agrees with me, that this is an underutilized lot by virtue of how large it is. So should this be approved, it would be my position uh for your comfort that this would not present a destabilization or a harmful precedent because there are no other lots of this size. This is almost half an acre which is a lot of land for just one family. And so following this slide, what you'll see is um a proposed building envelope. And on the next slide, if if you please, Jen, you can see what could be built here as of right, meaning we wouldn't need additional variances if someone were to come in. this is the type of home that they could comfortably build that has enough access that has enough servicing capacity as well part of the submission materials in your package. You'll also see it does meet the actual canopy coverage requirements. If we were to create a severed and retained lot of the areas and frontages presented tonight, we would actually still meet the 20% canopy coverage and be able to build a 4500 foot home. And so those fit in with the prevailing character of the neighborhood when it comes to the architectural build form and orientation and building setbacks. The f the next slide will actually take you to the prevailing character for the zone itself. And that's the RL2-Zone that we find ourselves in this evening. And I've added a distance that you could walk to each of these properties that show you that we would not be the smallest um in if we were to create this lot. We wouldn't be the smallest in terms of frontage. We wouldn't be the smallest in terms of area for lots that also have enjoy the same zoning. So this is another important facet to the measurement of of criteria for compatibility. Following this slide, you'll see um some important context from the local official plan. 11.1.8 is what helps us as planners guide intensification. It must be done gently, must be done with compatibility, which is a word I'm going to keep returning to tonight. Um because respectfully we have a small difference of opinion with staff. And I've highlighted and underscored the portion of this section that talked about area and frontage in compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. In the preceding slides, I mentioned to you that we're very close to the average and that we wouldn't therefore be destabilizing the neighborhood character should you see the application have merit this evening. The next slide is what my friends in the planning department at the town of Oakville are relying on specifically and that's with respect to section D. I will speak about D after speaking about A and B because those are the most pertinent and that talks about the built form of the envelope uh the height massing architectural character and the appropriate setbacks and orientation and separation distances. So I would I would paraphrase those adjectives to say what type of home would we be able to build here and is that compatible with the types of home that are there now? And my previous slide spoke to you uh and and illustrated that we could build quite a large home and that would be compatible and wouldn't therefore be creating lots that don't belong here in my professional opinion. And now to speak about D which I believe is the most important comment and staff are of course relying and hanging their hat on the the two words that I've italicized in in section D here 11.1.9D says where applicable the proposed loting pattern of development shall be compatible my emphasis with the predominant loting pattern of the surrounding neighborhood. It's a very important component to stabilize and protect Oakville. Um, but I do find in the staff comments there not all of the in instruments and and tools we use as planners are considered when it comes to the legislative changes and the call for housing. Gentle intensification of underutilized lots are still measured compatibility by virtue of the prevailing lot pattern and the existing zone provisions. It's it is okay if we're a little short as long as we have houses, canopy, servicing, and access that doesn't destabilize or set harmful domino effect. And that is a preference I know Oakville has long as long mentioned and deferred and deterred people from from investing or making applications. But respectfully, I do think this is a good case, especially when you look at it from the lens of recent legislation. And that takes me to my next slide. I won't read through all of these bills, but you can see a repeating pattern when it comes to all the language that the province is asking for of housing for more better, faster, good planning. And I do believe that this is important to consider uh when taking the balance of opinions the local, regional, and provincial level. I do believe this meets the intent of the zoning bylaw official plan. And I think it's desirable and minor. And I think because of how unique the lot itself is in terms of its shape, it's a very nice shape, very even rectangle. And how large it is. It's the only very large, nicely shaped lot in that subdivision. And I think for those reasons, with the balance of provincial calls for action, uh it this is this is a good application. This is good planning. And I think the committee should be compelled to agree with me. I will leave you with one phrase that my grandfather used to say, and that's related to sustainability. in and asking for more housing and that is the most sustainable form of fashion are the clothes already in your closet and and that is relates to land that is already within our urban area that's underutilized that could be recognized for gentle intensification and I believe that that's what this law is and that's what these applications present and so Mr. chair. The next slide is just uh to give you the opportunity to ask me any questions and I'd be happy to answer them. Thank you, Mr. Dell. Um I'll look to the committee for any questions at this point in time. Miss Price, sorry, you're on mute. the um chart that you showed with the different um lot sizes, none of those lots are on um third line and have you t taken into consideration that third line is a busy street and that the front having a larger frontage is important. Thank you for the question through you Mr. Chair. Absolutely. Um, we find ourselves on a lot not too far from a major intersection. That's true. Um, access and serviceability, I do believe, um, for especially for houses of this nature in this neighborhood, a lot of them have U-shaped driveways. A lot of them have hammerheads and so forth, so that they make sure that they're always forward moving traffic to get in and on and uh, and to and from third line. It is a busy street. Uh there is a queueing um impact and I do recognize that we don't have any conditions related to traffic um in our consent. Should the committee wish to add them, I'm confident we could get a a sighteline analysis and a traffic impact study to support from an expert that this would could be safely we could safely add one extra driveway. Okay. And have you I noticed too that you're um you haven't complied with the Halton or the livable Oakville official plans. What's your response to that with respect to frontage? Yes. So so through you, Mr. Chair, I respectfully I I think we do comply with the Halton official plan. Um where staff have downloaded it and their interpretation of compatibility is said if it doesn't comply with the local official plan, it doesn't comply with our plan. But this is an urban area in the Halton official plan and we have land needs and growth assessment targets and I think gentle intensification provided it's compatible with the neighborhood is what we present. So we we do have a slight difference of opinion staff and I and I measure compatibility through a variety of lenses at the regional and local and provincial level and staff are more jealously protecting the local official plans by virtue of what was being contemplated in the 1960s when the subdivision was created. So my my response to that would be that to quote our prime minister that nostalgia is not a strategy. I think this is a good candidate for gentle intensification and uh there are not other candidates in this neighborhood uh in this on the subdivision. Only this one has the right size and shape to meet the the test of compatibility despite requiring some variances that I believe are minor. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for your question. Um before I I I uh lobby for additional questions, um Mr. Dell, I know I note that that um in your presentation that you've scoped in on a specific area immediately at the corner. Um and I know that in the staff reports there is uh um um the draft sorry not the draft plan but the M plan um um for uh on the other side of third line and there was some commentary that spoke in a little bit more depth. So, as you're going on and and and speaking a little bit about um about looking to the future and and and your gentle intensification, but you you seem to gloss over or or or not provide a lot of detail about your analysis about the neighborhood, defining the neighborhood area and how you look at the analysis and differentiating between those properties that front onto the major roads, Rebecca and Third Line, versus those that are internal. And so your your analysis and maybe maybe you could uh maybe we could ask the the um secretary treasur to put the the the slide back up um and maybe you could walk us through a little bit of your analysis there so that we could understand it in a little bit more detail because I think that um looking at the nuance uh might be important to the committee members and might be uh might be important to some of the decision here. Thank you. understand a little bit more detail your your your analysis certainly. So I think you're referring to page four of my presentation slides for reference. Yes. So when measuring uh immediate and prevailing context I felt it was prudent to look at of course the frontage is on the Rebecca and third line. Those properties are reflected here in terms of the average frontage and areas of them. And when it came to uh properties internal to that, I focused more on the side of uh the east side um uh and the internal subdivision there because that would have been contemplated as part of the end plan. Um this was a regional road and arterial road dissects the site uh and its intersection. And so the end plan uh my understanding and assumption of that end plan was that that was the subdivision that was built and that created this lot. And so that's why I focus a little bit more on the immediate context to the east of of Rebecca. But I still of and third line, but I still of course take into account all the frontages of properties fronting onto that regional and major arterial rope as well. And we found that the average lot size, you know, granted committee, it is larger than what we are proposing in terms of its average, but not in terms of the architectural character and build form that we could create by creating this lot. And I don't think it destabilizes far beyond um the measure of a few hundred square feet that the lot would create. I don't believe that that make that that that um disqualifies this application as a good candidate um for for measuring context. Um when when you when you were looking at at defining your character area, um did you look at at defining in a little bit more detail um different characters that might be present within that area and and their role and purpose uh both you know um uh looking back and looking forward if you will uh as as the role and the acceptance of of of impact and planning can change over time. Thank you for the question. Um certainly it it's difficult um when you're talking about one subdivision plan that has different roads that it fronts on. Uh this one section of the subdivision is on a major arterial road. Um so those lots would have been subject to um a greater degree of traffic impact for example than the internal lots and circulation of those minor collector roads. But in terms of lot fabric size and build form they are consistent. So that's what I felt was um important for establishing the character area. They do have different treatments in terms of could you play hockey on the street um versus not. But I do find that the lot areas, frontages, and average homes are largely what inform uh my character analysis of the immedi immediate context. Um thank you, Mr. Dell. Um those that's the questions that I have and maybe I can I I'm going to have some questions of of of uh staff here at this point. Uh, I don't want to ignore Mr. Dicki here while I'm I'm I'm probing around a little bit, but I have similar questions of staff. So, staff was looking at the character um and appears to have looked at the character a little bit differently. Um, and I'd like to understand their definition of the character area and and and the different elements that might inform our consideration of appropriateness of of of lot frontage and size. Thank you. Yes. Um through you, Mr. Chair. The lots in the area were created um by a plan of subdivision quite some time ago, as you've seen in the image included in the in the staff report. Um and as a result, the established lot fabric was determined. And although the reduced frontages may be considered interior to the neighborhood, the wider lot frontages on third line form a part of the overall neighborhood character. In addition, the standard lot frontage along the west side of third line is 24.68 m and along the east side is a little larger at 27.58 m. So although the variance is for just over a 4 meter reduction from the bylaw for both lots, um it will really be presenting on the street as over a 6 m reduction for both lots. Um I would just add that the lot frontage proposed is actually more aligned with that required in the RL3 zone where the minimum lot frontage permitted is 18 m. I know that the submission materials identified a few properties with it similar lot frontages to those proposed, but these properties are not located within the immediate neighborhood as identified by the immediate neighborhood context plan submitted in association with the application. um instead they are generally abudding or situated in close proximity to the land zone RL3 which again permits that 18 meter lot frontage and reflects a different planned context and loing framework. So with that staff feel the proposed doesn't meet the loting pattern of the surrounding neighborhood along third line. Thank you very much. Um that that certainly helped answer my questions. Um uh Mr. Dicki, any questions or or sorry to the committee in general? My apologies to call you out specifically. Um, our town planner I think has answered my questions because I was really concerned about what the lot sizes were directly uh around our property. I don't know if the agent knows uh precisely as to whether the the actual the lots the adjacent lots or lots directly across the road are any different than those two averages that the um town planner mentioned. Uh, I'd be interested in that if you know. Um, certainly. Yes. Thank you. Thank you for the question. Three, Mr. Chair. If we could go back to that slide, uh, slide number four of my presentation titled the media context. Uh, and if you zoom in, uh, please on the subject lot, you'll see the two lots across the street are actually comparable in size to what we're proposing. Directly across the street. Yes. Thank you. So, we've got 970 to 970 roughly. And generally speaking, the internal smaller arterial uh frontage lots and the external lots on third line, they all have comparable frontage. They're all generally around the 22 mark or so, which is consistent with the zone. But there are lots that are smaller. There are lots that are have frontage smaller than ours as well, ali. And those lots across the street are going to look very similar to lots that would be proposed by this application. I hope that answers your question, sir. Well, the lots across the street are going to be smaller than the uh I mean, I'm sorry. Your subject lots are going to be smaller than lots across the street. I was just curious if those lots across the street are like the 22.5 m, which is the only set or something bigger. But you can't tell. Oh, I see what you're saying. Oh, you're talking just from frontages. You know what? Unfortunately, it's a little granular for you. I can certainly tell you them in my PDF that I have, but I don't if you can't see them yourself. I don't, you know, feel comfortable that committee couldn't see this information for themselves. Um, the frontages are what we're asking for a variance for. And that's that's true, but areas, if that was your question, they are comparable in area. No, no, it was frontage I was concerned about. I see. Okay. No, I'm sorry. I misunderstood your question. You're right. the the frontages across the street are are are um in the 19 and 20 range and the areas are slightly larger. Um so the project is across the street are 19 and 20 meters wide. So they're less than zoning bylaw or unless it's a diff different zone but it doesn't matter. It's Yes. Thank you. Um and what about the frontage for the the property to the south? Can you see that on your your plan? Yeah. Directly to the south of the subject property. Yes, certainly. Just a moment. I got to change my screen orientation here. Property directly to south is 22.2 meters. So that's like the zoning by. Okay. It's closer. Okay. Thank you. Very good, sir. Thank you for your question. Okay, I'll try that without my own mute. Um uh any additional questions before I go to uh members of the public that may be present with respect to the matter? Okay, we're going to go to um Madam Secretary, Treasure, any members of the public present with respect to this matter? Mr. Chair, we have no hands up uh from those in the audience and we have no calls that have come in. Okay. And at this point, I would note that there was a letter of opposition that was provided um adan and sorry Sadiq. Um uh I I I believe that um given that we had staff commentary, I think we give an opportunity to the applicant to respond to any matters that were raised uh that that would require uh response before we would go to um to uh a motion in committee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to uh finalize this presentation by simply thanking you for listening. Uh there's all of the discussion we've had is robust. Uh we want to make sure we're building and proving things that are reasonable. Um I do believe that you should be compelled to to agree with me in this application. And uh if I do get muted while you take it into committee, I just want to say thank you. Thank you, Mr. Dell. Um, with those comments being said, um, we I would, uh, well, we've heard these matters together. We're going to need require three motions to deal with the the first the consent and then the two individual variances. Do I have a motion from from uh, one of the committee members, Miss Price? Okay. Taking into consideration my site visit, the reports and staff and the agent as well as the letter of opposition, I find the consent application does not comply with the minimum lot frontage requirements of the zoning law bylaw 2014 014. Nor does it conform to the Halton and livable Oakville official plans. I therefore recommend the application be denied. Um, thank you, Miss Price. Uh, any discussion on the matter? With no discussion, um, for a vote? All those in support of the motion. Um, that was unanimous. Uh and uh uh so the motion is carried. Your application has been refused. Um Miss Price, can I ask you to carry on with uh with minor variance A051 of 2026? Uh okay. Um, taking into consideration my site visit, the reports from staff and the agent as well as the letter of opposition, I find the proposed variants do not maintain the general intent and purpose of the official plan and zoning bylaw and not are not minor in nature and are not desirable for the appropriate development of the subject lands. In conclusion, I believe the application does not meet the four tests of the planning act and I therefore recommend the application be denied. Um, any discussion? All those in support of the motion to deny. The application has been refused. Miss Price, can you carry us through with the third one 52? The same as I said before. Taking into consideration my site visit, the reports from staff and the agent as well as the letter of opposition, I find the proposed variances do not maintain the general intent and purpose of the official plan and zoning bylaw and are not minor in nature and are not desirable for the appropriate development of the subject lands. In conclusion, I believe the application does not meet the four tests of the planning act and I therefore recommend that the application be denied. Thank you again once again, Miss Price. Um I'm assuming there's no discussion on it and those in support of the motion on the floor. Okay. The uh application has been refused. Um Mr. Dell, thank you very much for uh attending this evening. Your applications have been refused. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks for the discussion. Good night and thank you to staff. Um carrying forward with the next items on the agenda. Um CAV um06 of 2026, a property located at 273 Karen Croft Road. Uh is the applicant or agent um available for a presentation? Oh, hello. No, good evening. Could I have your name and uh address for the record, please? Sorry, I didn't It was for two 220 273 Karen Croft Road, right? Yes. Yes. My name's uh my name is Carol Jyn. I'm the architect for the project at 2 273 Karen Croft Road. Okay. Um yes. Okay. Um we're here to uh basically uh to present our revised minor var variance application which was previously uh deferral to allow time to address staff comments and concerns particularly related to the uh the building massing. We recess the design and um uh came up uh meaningful revisions. Uh we eliminate three of the four variances including both sideyard reductions and the uh height uh increase to further address neighborhood concerns. The revised design provides a uh uh seldomly uh styard setback of a 3.78 meters which represents a meaningful improvement compared to the existing condition of the uh 2.9 meter. Therefore increasing the separation and reduced impact. And we also reduce the floor area ratio from 32 um.6% 6% to 31.9% resulting a more balanced bill form and reduce overall messing. So these changes significantly uh reduce proceeds and demonstrate a clear response uh to staff and KUP community feedback. So, the proposal is to demolish the existing dwelling and construct a new two-story single detached home approximately 4880 square meter square feet with a attached twocar garage. And the layout uh follows a traditional center hall configuration consistent with the established housing patterns in the neighborhood where with a formal rooms at the front and uh and more open uh spaces towards uh the rear. Um at the rear the uh large uh two story high grease room connects the kitchen and family area creating a strong relationship to the uh backyard uh while maintaining the compatible street presence. So the second floor including the four bedrooms and with on suite and basement provides a additional amenity space. So architecturally uh the design isops transitional approach uh using limestone and brick uh in the front uh and the facade is is um consistent with the streetscape and while allowing for more open expression at the at the back. Um see the most importantly the the massing has been carefully articulate through lower the roof line. You can see uh to the right the lower roof line uh above the garage. Um also the you know balance the proportions and and the material composition and we also have provided landscape landscape buffering including fencing and cedar hedges for privacy for the neighbors. Um the revised proposal has been reviewed by the uh planning staff. We and we have conclude concluded that the various is minor in nature. It maintains intent of official plan and zoning bylaw and it's compatible with character of the neighborhood. So we're aware I'm aware there's a a one opposition letter um uh from the neighbor uh it's uh located at the 296 uh Karen Croft and we respect the neighbor's concerns. However, the requested increase represent a modest 2.9% variation. The proposal meets all four tests under the planning act. Uh this is not over bill uh but a carefully revised and balanced proposal that responds to uh staff directions and maintains compatibility with surrounding neighborhood. Um furthermore also I submit a documents of re research that is uh um uh there's some uh precedence within the neighborhood uh for this type of uh uh variances being requested um similar approval have been uh granted in comparable situations. So in conclusion, we respectfully submitted proposal is minor in my opinion is minor uh in nature and is the desirable for appropriate development of the land and maintains intent both the official plan and zoning by law. So uh yeah I I think it satisfies four tests under the planning act. So thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you, Miss Jyn. Um, do I have any um questions or comments from the committee? Um, any um secretary, Madame Secretary, Treasur, anybody from the public who wishes to speak to this matter? Mr. Chair, we have uh no hands up from those in attendance and we've received no calls. Okay. Um, and and I note that uh the letter of opposition that was provided by Dwayne Henley and Maria Hush Hushod um was uh responded to um at least in general uh nature by uh uh by the applicant in their presentation. Um so at this point in time uh I don't have any questions. So, um, I'll go to the committee for, uh, a motion. Miss Price, you are quick tonight. Okay. Excuse me. Taking into account my previous visit, the reports provided by the agent and the staff and the one letter of opposition, I believe the revised application 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 mentioned by staff, the lower road ro roof line above the garage creates one story a one-story element which helps to maintain and protect the character of the existing neighborhood. In conclusion, I recommend the application be approved subject to the following conditions. That the drawing be constructed in general accordance with the submitted site plan dated and elevation drawings dated March 9th, 2026. and that the approval, excuse me, the approval expires two years from the date of the decision if a building permit has not been issued for the proposed construction. Thank you, Miss Price. Any discussion on the matter? Okay, those all those in support of the motion uh not opposed. Your application has been approved. Great. Thank you so much. Thank you. I'll just take a moment to remind people that might be listening in while we uh get our next uh item up. The phone number if you wish to call in is 9058156095. Uh our next item on the agenda is a uh 029 of 2026 uh deferred item for March 4th of 2026 for a property located at 1086 Montrose Aby Drive. Uh do we have the agent for the uh owner here? Yes, Mr. Chair, I'm here. Excellent. Um, I know that we had had a number of questions the last time I was here. We we we um asked you to go back and get some more information and come back and I see that staff the staff report has not substantively changed. So perhaps you can just walk us through the additional information the variances and the additional information so that we can uh you know um consider the matter. Not a problem sir. So, the information that um I I believe was missing the first time around is that there was there is an existing uh woodshed um it's it's sort of uh northwest if if you go if if you if you look at the top as north um that was not factored into the um overall overall site plan. Um my apologies for that. Um so we did go back and uh measure it and and place it on the site plan. Um there was also a comment um regarding site calculations um that was not on the uh March uh uh uh March hearing site plan. My apologies for that as well sir. we did go back and we added um all the site calculations which is that table that you see there uh right to the right of the site plan. Um and I believe that was that was it in terms of uh missing information that was uh you know that was flagged as an issue um in the March hearing. Thank you sir. Um any um questions from our committee members uh with respect to this matter. Mr. Dicki reluctantly raises his hand. Um I have a bit of a problem with this C. You know, there's there's two items here that I I think it it looks a little bit crowded from the street level. So, I'm I'm concerned that it's not minor. I I look at this and I say, you know, you've got height and you've got uh setback. And and you know, if if you've just been going for one of those, I might not have as much of a problem. But you're going for two of them. You're you're uh so from the from the street if it had been uh the 3.5 m away or or um I mean to to go one one foot I'm sorry.3 of a meter is substantially different than the 3.5. I even say in most cases an accessory building like that I think is 6 mters and you haven't even uh complied with that. So I have some major concerns. I'm seeing them now so I give you a chance to to to convince me otherwise. So go ahead please. Okay sir. Um well the um sorry if we can um I'm not sure who controls it. My apologies. the the site plan there. Um yeah, the secretary treasure can pull up the site plan. Yes, please. So, um the the existing outdoor uh outdoor shed is what what what was originally caused as the main concern. Um the homeowner uh you know it was it was built it was built without a permit without um you know it was it was a mistake on the homeowner. He wasn't aware um you know they're usually not not very savvy in terms of uh you know bylaw requirements and everything. So we we recognize that and um he did put a lot of time, effort, money into building this. Um obviously had he known he you know he was he was not complying with zoning um he would have you know he would have done it the right way. Uh we're trying to remedy that sir and um we're trying to do the right thing and go through the right avenues to you know to get this um um approved. Um in terms of your other concern about it seems crowded. Um we we've stood on the flankage side of the site. Um we've we've stood across the street. Um it for us uh uh respectfully it it doesn't feel that it's it's crowded. Um um you you really can only see the top of you know the roof portion of both um um of both structures. Um and um we we didn't feel that it would it would you know it would uh it would raise a concern that it was you know it was crowded. Sorry, I just look at the pictures I took when I uh when I was there and from the flankage cuz the second shed further back, it's it's got a setback that's at uh um it's got a greater setback. I think they're both the same height, are they not? From my f my photo here, it looks like they are. They're Yeah, they're very similar in height. Yes. The the bigger shed, the one that's more that's closer to the house is, I believe, a few inches higher. But yeah, for like in the grand scheme of things, yes, they're they're they're very close in height. and and your defense. No, you know, if he had if he had been aware of this and built it, you know, you to me it it doesn't matter. He I'm I'm viewing it if I mean, unfortunately, uh from I'm I'm looking at it from from as it's built. It's not like he came in beforehand and asked for this. Uh, so I'm I'm just looking at it to say um if he'd come in before and asked for this, he would have saved himself some possible expense of dealing with Yeah. So that's that's in another that's not a defense to me. I'm sorry. He he made a mistake and now he's coming in only to to uh you know comply or to get an exception to the zoning bylaw. Plain and simple. And I I'm sorry. I just I just don't like the looks of it. So, I I I just, you know, I just want to be upfront about that. So, thank you. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Dicki. Um uh any additional questions or comments from the committee before I go out? Okay. Um Madame Secretary, Treasurer, any um anybody from the public? Mr. Chair, there are no hands up from those in attendance and no calls have come in. Okay. Um at this point then I would go for a motion please Mr. Dicki. Thank you Mr. Sher chairman. Um as I said the uh the increase in height and the reduced sideyard setback in my mind are not minor in nature. Rather I feel that these elements have a a negative an adverse negative impact on the view from the street and therefore I als I think that this is not desirable or appropriate for the development of the property. Therefore, therefore I put forth a motion that this um these variances is applied for be denied. Any comments or discussion? Okay. And there is a motion for the application to be denied. All those in support of the motion. Uh the application has been denied. Um thank you very much sir. Okay. Thank you. Um the next application we have on our agenda is excuse me, excuse me. Um the next application on our agenda is um A047 of 2026 uh property located at 266 Jennings Crescent. Um matter that was deferred from our April 1st um hearing. I see that we have Mr. Castillo here. You please introduce yourself and provide your address for the record. Yes, good evening, Mr. Chairman. My name is uh member of the committee. My name is Gerardo Gastilo from Keystone Home Designs um here from um uh Keystone Home Designs. Um address 251 North Service Road, uh sweet 303. I'm here on behalf of the homeowner for 266, Jennings Cresant. Uh we did get deferred last time. Um it was my mistake. I didn't put the signs on time. Um there was a um a confusion there. Um uh so we're here for uh two minor variances for this proposal. Uh this is a corner lot so it's subject to more restrictive uh flankage and yard requirements which is uh part of the context for these variances. So on that um sip plan that you see in front of you um on the top side uh you you're going to see um a small porch which is the front porch and that's what we're requesting for the existing house. the whole house does comply with the with the setback. Um so the minimum setback is 3.5 meters and we're requesting 2.64. So the difference is 86 cm just for that one story um porch. If u if Jen can can uh slide down to I think is the slide probably number seven. Um you can see it better um on the yeah that one on the rendered the little porch on the right side. Um you can see it's a one-story porch and basically that small structure is the only thing that's encroaching. So that's one of the variances. Uh the second variance it's um regarding the the residential floor area. uh per minute is 41% uh we're proposing 43.92 for a difference of uh 29 292 uh which is about 21 square meters. Um again as you can see the design if if uh Jen can slide down to the to the other uh renders on the on the presentation you can see that we did um you know adjust the design to to um to add uh roof lines deeper hands durmers uh to to to help break down the scale of the building and the mass um and that way um you know it it will integrate with existing and evolving streetscape the whole street and area has been changing uh recently. A lot of new homes, a lot of large homes uh especially in the corners um of of of this street. There's some massive homes. I don't know if they went to committee, but there they look a lot bigger than this. So, um we feel that uh you know, just adding the uh it's about 21 square meters um to to make the space work uh for this family. Um it's it's minor in nature. So, uh I'm open for any questions. There was no comments from planning and from anybody else the last time and this time. So, um I'm open for any questions. Thank you, Mr. Castillo. Um any questions or comments from the committee? No questions or comments. Um any members of the public present with respect to this matter? Madam chair madam secretary treasurer Mr. Chair there are no hands up from those in attendance and we have received no calls. Okay thank you. So on that could I have a motion from the committee. Miss Price taking into consideration my site visit the reports provided by the agent and staff and there being no letters of opposition. I believe the application to be minor in nature and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the official plan and the zoning bylaw and just 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. The proposed setbacks and the one-story architectural elements help to break up the massing and scale of the proposed dwelling. In conclusion, I believe that the four tests of the planning act have been met and therefore I put forth a motion approving the application subject to the following conditions. Number one, that the dwelling be constructed in general accordance with the submitted site plan dated February 12th, 2026. North elevation and east elevation drawings dated January 10th, 2026. and south elevation and west elevation drawings dated January 17, 2026 and that the approval expires two years from the date of the decision if a building permit has not been issued for the proposed construction. Thank you, Miss Price. Um, do I have any discussion on the matter? Seeing none, uh, all those in support of the motion, your application has been approved. Uh, none opposed. Uh, thank you very much, Mr. Castillo. Thank you. Good evening. And our next item on the agenda is um 060 of 2026, a property located at 312 Dale Wood Drive. the agent when the available. I would note that there were two letters of opposition from a Diane Weir and a Katherine Leon uh and that the application that there are negative staff comments on the application. So, we're going to require uh a presentation. Uh could you introduce yourself and provide you with provide us with your address for the record, please? Yes. Good evening, uh, Mr. Chair and committee members. My name is Pamir Aik. Uh, address is 443 High Drive in Milton. Thank you. Would you take us through a presentation of your proposal? Yes. So, uh, I'd like to start off by, uh, mentioning that we have two, um, variances. One is for the building depth and, uh, one is for the board, uh, one is for the RFA. So the building depth is 21.37 m whereas 20 m is allowed. Um the building uh is visible from the side as this is a corner lot. But but it's important to point out that the building itself is 16.28 m. 16.2 8 m whereas 20 meters allowed. The part that extends this to the 21 is really um the a covered porch that is in in the rear of the property. Uh what is also important about this part is that we have that we are actually 13 m away from the curb on that same side. It's further away than the existing building. It's also further away from the um exist uh further away than the existing building from the front. And uh there's no walkway uh on either side. So uh it's it's substantially further away from the side and a little bit further away from the front. So um we have um uh if you don't mind uh skipping through the next few pages uh and go to page number I'll tell you which one. page number nine, please more. Yeah. So, uh would you be able to zoom in on that a little bit? Yeah. So um right here we have uh I'm showing a rendering for of the front of the property and you see a French look a little bit modernized. Uh and we have made some efforts to drop the roof um below the second floor. Uh you see it on the lower highlighted area. The um the roof is actually dropped by uh 1.5 uh no the roof the roof is actually dropped by 10 ft uh at the main entrance and 2 and 1/2 ft uh of a drop from the maxite at the part above the garage and then we have further dropped uh eve details and we have a projection of the garage that's pushed back. Um we have further dropped eaves at the garage and um uh these are some of the elements that we have accounted for uh in order uh which is which is in line with things that we have been advised in previous applications to take into account when designing this. uh we also have a horizontal band that goes across to break uh to break the massing and also uh there's the we made the intention of not having any side variances not having any um height variances. Um this was done on purpose uh while also breaking up the roof lines, dropping them having a um one and a half uh height feature at the front door as well. So uh then if you would uh if you don't mind skipping to the next pages uh you can skip one and go uh to the next. Yeah, that's a side view, but skip one. Okay, so um the planning staff actually mentioned that there are that there are no um houses in immediate neighborhood that are similar in massing. So this is this house is actually 288 Delwood Drive on the same street. It is uh there's only one house separating this one and uh and the subject property. Um there's there are no means to interrupt the massing. There's uh uh these walls are full height. There's no breakage in the massing um through dropping the roof or eve heights. The E height is actually higher than any average home. And uh also it has variances. If you scroll down a little bit on this page, you see that the variances asked for here are much more uh they're much higher as variance was approved for this. Now, if you don't mind going to the next page, please. Uh this is one uh that's also in the uh neighborhood. Um I I'm pointing this one out because it's very similar in style. Some of the same elements were uh accounted for here. dropped Eve heights. The roof and the second floor is within the attic space. Um uh but if you see the corner, there's nothing done on the corner um to break the massing. Uh also you'll see on this one that they have variances greater than ours and uh even added a height variance. This variance was also approved. If you go to the next page, please, we have another property. So, so this is essentially a neighborhood study I'm doing which uh in my opinion contradicts the the findings of the planning staff. Uh so this home here uh shows full height features everywhere. Walls that are u walls that are grant that are extending all the way up to the roof. There's minimal effort made to break the massing. the roof lines are not dropping and uh if you go to the next page um another example with variance is approved I spare going through the through too many details here uh one more page if you don't mind skipping one more this is another example also with variances approved this also has a height variance very similar in style no effort made to break the roof lines which with uh the massing which we have done. Uh one more page please. Uh this is another example very similar style here. We received advice on how to uh achieve a more favorable feedback from the planning staff. This is an application that I made myself and I uh spoke in front of the committee. I received this approval and we made the same efforts uh in our case except extended the means a little further uh in our case but somehow we received an unfavorable comments. Now if you skip to the next page, this parent was approved by the way. If you skip to the next page, you see 260 Dwood, which is also again on the same street, um this is this is not a new development. It's also not um it's also didn't go to V, but you see that there is has full story, full height, twotory uh walls. It's very blocky uh it's very blocky and has a massing that has no interruptions. And the one below is ex exactly across the street. Uh very tall wall height. The main wall is very high. Minimal effort made to uh drop the uh to drop the um elements. You can tell that there's a there's a bit of a garage, but but it's not there's not much done. I think in comparison to ours, it's not um it doesn't compare. So you you can skip through the next uh pages. There's there's there are a lot more examples. I have 20 examples of these including variances that which have been approved um which are uh which are um all referenced in here. You can skip through them but um yeah uh so these are all in the immediate uh a few that are on the same street. Some one right across one that's just separated by one house. Um also I' I've mentioned the items that we uh the design features that we incorporated in order to uh respect the demands from the planning uh or the recommendations from the planning staff which were made in previous applications which helped us receive the approval. Um so uh at this point I pose a question to the planners what uh whether that was ignored. How is there uh a difference in judgment with this when we have uh very extreme examples in the neighborhood and uh and then also across the street how how those are factored in in the judgment of this. And uh with that being said, uh I would I'm happy well I I hope that we can receive uh maybe a change of hearts in the decision here and uh see if the planner can uh pinch in um after myself and I'm open to any questions from here onwards. Thank you. Uh thank you m Mr. Rafi. Um before I I hand it over to the committee members, I I I I'm going to ask a similar question that I that I started off the night asking about you you've you've you know um we we see in the south part of the of the town there being um nuances around defining character, defining neighborhood. Um and and I saw um as you went through your examples that there were pictures from places that started to get further and further away from the subject lands. Um you did a neighborhood study. Did you define a study area and a criteria for defining that that that area? Um well I I drove around the neighborhood starting off with the street itself. Uh I would I wouldn't be able to tell you an exact radius or anything like that or give you a map. Uh but it's it's within it's all within the Morrison uh area within the neighborhood. Uh most of which are very close and I try to highlight the ones that are similar in style that have like the stone and French chat look. Uh that's that's how I um that's that was my approach. Thank you. Thank you. Um I'm I'm going to just ask uh staff if they might have some comments with respect to there were a number of examples that were there and uh whether there there were any comments or or or commentary from staff with respect to the character um assessment that's been undertaken by Mr. Rafi. Yep. Um through you Mr. Chair. Um so a lot of the dwellings that Mr. Rafi showed in his presentation were, you know, uh, a kilometer or two away from the subject lands. And so when we do our immediate neighborhood context, we look at usually um, the street the dwelling is on as well as adjacent street. So in this case would be Cedar Bay. Um, in doing our analysis of the neighborhood, um, you know, we we looked at previous approvals in the neighborhood. Um there was one for 291 Dalewood, one for 288 Dalewood which which Mr. Rafi shared, uh one for 271 Dalewood, one for 263 Dalewood, um and one for 1317 Cedar Bridge. So there have been a lot of approvals and applications in the neighborhood. Um I would like to point out too that the abuing dwelling at 320 Dwood which is to the north um came into a uh committee of adjustment hearing on April 19th of 2016 um seeking variances for garage floor area and uh residential floor area um that in fact received a positive staff report but was denied by committee. Um again for reasons mentioned in my report that include some of the uh chosen architectural elements that enhance the massing and scale. Um for 288 Dalewood for example um the garage has been set um quite further back from the front main wall of the dwelling as well as the one-story front porch element. Um so within the comments themselves that I provided as part of my analysis and rationale for this particular proposal um did make mention to the fact that there were um some architectural and other design features that could be uh revised in order to have staff support. Um noting that when looking at um variances such as dwelling depth which I also made reference in my staff report that the dwelling itself is 16.28 28 m and that the depth is due to the covered porch at the rear. Um and even in terms of the residential floor area ratio which is 31.73 whereas 29% is required. There have been approvals for those similar numbers and at the magnitude of the variance. But when we look at our analysis we look at not only the actual magnitude and and the quantity of the number itself but also some of the other elements that go into minimizing mass and scale. So even within my staff report that was provided to Mr. Rafik and to committee and his public um there were things suggested such as the chimney elements being lowered um the front entryway being lowered to just one story in height instead of this one and a half extending the top to almost two full stories. um removing the the kind of dormer elements that kind of contribute to this third story expression um and and kind of the overall height perception of the facade as well as for the garage. The garage doors are quite tall and emphas further emphasize kind of the vertical elements of this proposal. Um, so there were um detailed directions and comments that aren't always provided in staff reports, but I felt it was important in this case because of the existing approvals in the area to help further reinforce staff's position on this particular proposal. Um, and noting that, um, there was, you know, there were no objections from staff in terms of the the variance magnitudes. Again, it was more um you know through the committee of adjustment process and through minor variance um if an applicant's going to be coming in to request um more than what's required or the maximum under the bylaw um we look for some of these mitigating um efforts to be done. So um and some of the other dwellings that Mr. Rafiki shared um didn't have committee of adjustment approvals and were built as of right. Um, and of course in this area, it's not a heritage uh conservation district, so there are no architectural controls if a building is constructed within the bylaw requirements. Um, so that was kind of a what I looked at in terms of my site visits were um, you know, the immediate neighborhood context of um, uh, Cedar, of Dalewood, of Cardinal Drive, of Hillhurst, and of Karen Croft. Um, so kind of just within the local streets themselves. and then again offering some opinions and advice to help um you know have the application get a successful outcome um were the applicant wanting to defer and to work with staff. I I laid out some of those points in advance of uh even meeting. Thank you, Mr. O'Hare. Um I don't think I have any questions um based upon that. Miss Price. Yes. I was just wondering um the ancient why none of these pictures were shown in your document. Like to me I feel I feel a bit blindsided because I haven't seen these pictures before and if we seen them we may have had a better chance to you know couldn't do a comparable comparison but just to throw all these homes in front of us when we haven't seen them before is makes it a bit difficult to make a decision. Um, you want to comment on that? Yes, please. I mean, well, good point. We had a deadline for uh submitting additional documents uh which was yesterday. So, this these documents were submitted yesterday. Uh so there there was a uh it was sent before the deadline. Uh I understand they may leave you just with one day to uh kind of review it but uh they they were submitted yesterday before the deadline. Okay. Did Mr. O'Hare Bryant Mr. O'Hara get to see them? Do you see them as well? Um through you Mr. Chair. No. Um to member Price's question. Uh no. This was the first time I have seen the uh presentation for this evening as well. Okay. We we received a deadline via email and we made sure to send them before the dead. We were working with the deadlines given by the town. Yeah. I if I might insert myself here, I wonder whether we're talking about uh a matter of of new information above and beyond where where the committee's doing some additional work, you know, in the days and the weeks leading up to this, if you will, and working towards a presentation deadline versus substantive materials to inform our position on the variances that are before it, which I I suggest I might think that member Price is thinking about when uh making those kinds of comments. about about having not having the materials. May I may I just comment on that quickly? So So again, good point. Um we I was actually pretty confident with this application and only after I received uh the planning staff was when I was surprised by it because all all um means of mitigating the massing etc which we undertook on previous applications and received approval we already did did incorporated those from the get-go and uh that's why I was pretty confident And I understand there's always something that they can be that can be added to here but uh I already listed like four or five items which are already taken care of uh and adding further items to there. There's always something further that can be added but at the end of the day I was confident with the application as uh as it was. M Mr. Rafi, did you avail yourself of the pre-conultation process that the town has available for committee member for committee ma matters? Um, is that a new program? I actually never heard of I I mean I I I would rely on staff, but it's been in place for some time to my knowledge, but uh Mr. O'Hare with his hand up could uh perhaps inform us with uh more clarity or specificity. Of course, through you, Mr. Sure. So, uh, Mr. Rafi, the town does provide an opportunity to meet with staff, um, before an application is made. Uh, it's through our pre-conultation meeting process. Um, there's a, uh, a fee associated with it, but it allows you to meet with planning staff, urban design staff, zoning staff, development engineering staff, um, and to go over with us what your proposal is. And there exists opportunity after that meeting um for some back and forth conversations um until there's a mutually agreeable uh decision for the application and then you know uh providing uh directions for for submitting to the CFA in order to have a uh a positive outcome and um and staff support behind it. So it's a nominal fee. It's not very expensive. It's for minor variances. um have to confirm with um our planning clerk, but uh it's about uh $6 to $800 or so and that provides you um multiple rounds of reubmissions and of discussions with us to find that happy uh medium and I can reach out to you after this if you'd like to provide you with the contact information um you know should you wish to proceed with that uh moving forward. Again, it's totally voluntary. just helps um you know kind of go over some of these issues beforehand. Um and then it's an a service the town started offering um at the beginning of 2025. So it is still fairly new. Okay. Yeah, that explains it because I looked into this a while ago having done so many I thought it should be enough training but but obviously uh this would be a great opportunity. It's an easy justification for owner. It would be great. It would be great to uh incor well incorporate this for future applications definitely. But I but I still am I still think that a lot of the uh items that were mentioned in previous applications uh to which I attended in the past uh were given and incorporated on this one um which which now I'm repeating myself but uh I I'll leave it at that for this uh matter. Thank you again Mr. Rafi. Um uh I'm going to just move along with with the uh with the hearing here. See if there's any additional um comments or or points of discussion amongst the committee before I check to see if there are any members of the public given that there were a couple of letters of opposition. There may be people u present in the audience. No additional comments. Um, on that I'll go uh to the secretary treasurer to see if there are any uh hands up or um members in attendance or or public in attendance. Mr. Chair, we have no hands up from those in attendance and we have received no calls. Okay. Um so we're back. We've we've we've had a um had a robust conversation with respect to this. We've heard lots of information with respect to the context of of the area. And so I'll be looking for uh sorry in the context of the uh application and the variances at hand. So I'll be looking for a motion from uh one of our committee members. Miss Price reluctantly puts her hands hand up. Taking into consideration my site visit, the reports from staff and the agent and the two letters of opposition, I find the application does not maintain the general intent and purpose of the official plan and zoning bylaw and is not minor in nature and is not desirable for the appropriate development of the subject lands. The combined architectural features result in a dwelling that appears larger and more vertically prominent than other homes in the area. In conclusion, I believe the four tests of the planning act have not been met and I therefore put forth a motion that the application be denied. Um, thank you, Miss Price. Um, any discussion on the matter? Seeing none, uh those in support of the motion on the ta on the floor. Um your application has been denied. Um thank you for your time this evening. You have you have a good night. Thank you. Um just a quick thing, will uh the planner reach out with an email and share the direction on how to reach out about the consultation? If that if you could do that, that'd be greatly appreciated. Yeah. For you, Mr. Chair. I can do that for yourself, Mr. Rafik. Okay. Amazing. Thanks so much. Have a good night. Thank you both. Okay. Um, next item on our agenda is A062 of 2026 for a site located at 463 Candler Drive, Candler Road, I should say. Um, I see Mr. Gardano is here. Could I have your name, which apparently I already know, and address for the record, please? Absolutely. Good evening, Mr. Chair, committee members. Peter Jano, David Small Designs, 1405 Cornwall Road. That's unit 4 in Oakville, and we're the project designers and the authorized agent. Thank you. Would you would you be kind enough to take us through a uh a brief presentation on on this matter and then uh see where that takes us? Absolutely. Um would I ask can I ask madam secretary treasurer to advance to slide six the site development plan on my presentation please? Um one more oh sorry one back slide six. Um this application was previously presented to the committee on November the 12th of 2025 um where it was not approved. At that time members noted that the proposal was very close but shared concerns particularly regarding massing as outlined by planning staff comments. So following that um hearing uh we arranged a meeting um pre-conultation visit and we worked closely with planning staff to address those concerns. As a result we reduce the number of variances from 3 to two. Um you'll see them on the list over there. It's it's RFA and the front yard setback on on the screen. Um and um what we did is we made some meaningful revisions to the building massing particularly along the rear and left side. Um planning staff currently current report clearly outlines these improvements and is supportive of our revised proposal. In terms of context for RFA, similar approvals exist in the immediate area. The adjacent neighbors at 459 were recently approved with the residential floor area of just over 47%. Uh just across the street at 452. It was approved in 2016 at 49.89%. Um our request is consistent with this established pattern. Uh slide number eight please. Um, and you'll see on slide number eight that the 3D front elevation, it shows that we've removed the front pier projection that was previously included as a variance, that variance has now been removed. Slide number nine, please. This view illustrates the front right corner elevation. While there are no changes to the right side, you can see the articulation and stepping on the front that help to reduce the perceived massing. Uh, next slide, please. Uh the most significant revisions occurred on the rear and left side. The ground floor family room space has been reduced from a two-story volume to a modest taller singlestory space uh 13 ft ceiling. This change substantially reduced the overall massing while still maintaining functional interior space. Uh next slide please. Um here you'll see a similar view as the left side elevation. Now you can see that the um it demonstrates the reduced height and the removal of the pure projection resulting in a more compatible relationship with the adjacent property. Um so with all of this the planning staff had concluded that the revised application satisfies the four tests of the planning act including conformity with urban design guidelines for stable residential communities. Um no concerns were raised by other reviewing departments. So in closing, we believe the two remaining variances to be minor appropriate will not create adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Thank you for your time and consideration at this time. I'd be glad to answer any questions. Thank you, sir. Uh I have no questions myself. I see uh Ms. Price has got her hand up. Uh uh your questions, Miss Price. Yes. Um when I was read reading the report, conservation Halton um had some concerns about the um the drawings being different from the minor variance application. I was just wondering if that's been addressed. Yeah. Through you, Mr. Chair, uh to member Price. Um yes. So we what we're doing we submitted and at the time of of making the application previously we had conservation halton we we had an approval we had a a permit based on that design. So we are now in in the process of submitting this revised application with that um we're making we've already made a submission to conservation Halton and that's uh what they expect to see with the revised proposal. It effectively doesn't even though it's a revised submission, it really doesn't affect the footprint or any other elements in the um in the property. We don't expect it to be any different than what we had originally received as a as a permit approval for from CH conservation Halton. Um so we're it's it's going to be part of the next part of the procedure. Um it's awaiting this approval. They talk about um I guess in the the paragraphs that they have about flood proofing measures being taken into effect or to be put into effect, Mr. Chair. Yes, it'll effectively we we crossed that bridge in the last design. We we're basically we're only working with massing and height above the grade level. we're we're going to maintain what we had previously uh been approved with and and certainly we have no concerns that we'll um we'll have approval from them based on what we had previous discussions with. Okay. Thank you. Uh thank you, Miss Price. Uh any additional um questions, comments on this? Seeing none, I'll go to um Madame Secretary Treasure. See if there are any members of the public present with respect to this matter. Mr. Chair, there are no hands up from those in attendance and no calls have have come in. Okay. Thank you so much. So, I will go back to the committee members um for a motion. Mr. Dicki, based on my review of the owner's application, the site plans, the building elevations, my site visit, the presentation by the owner's consultant, and the planning staff's report. I am satisfied that the variances are minor in nature and conforms to the four tests under the planning act. And I put forth a motion that the application as applied for be uh be approved subject to the conditions that um sorry that the dwelling be constructed in just a sec. Yes. The dwelling be constructed in general general accordance with the submitted site plan dated February 11th, 2026. the front and side elevation drawings dated March 2nd, 2026 and the rear and left side elevation drawings dated March 5th, 2026 and that the approval expires 2 years from the date of the decision if a building permit has not been issued for the proposed construction. Thank you, sir. Any discussion on the matter? Seeing none, all those in support of the motion to approve. None opposed. Your application has been approved. Wonderful. Thanks for your time and have a good evening and you too. Thanks. Uh moving on to our next application A063 at 2026. uh property located at 257 Wooddale Avenue. I see a familiar face here. Could you introduce yourself uh and give your address for the record, please? Yes. My name is Curtis Vanculan of Hugh Design Studio 1A Konosoga Drive in Bmpton, Ontario. I'm here before you representing the application in front of you. uh we're asking for two variances uh both of which we feel are minor in nature. The first is the RFA variance and the second is a lot coverage variance. I'll start with the lock coverage variance. Uh we are asking for an overage of 1.2%. And the most of that is comprised and actually the all of the overage is comprised of um the law coverage due to the rear covered porch. Uh the rear covered porch which you'll see in the next couple of slides will be a one-story covered porch. Um it comprises 3.2% of the law coverage. So a good portion of that overage is actually half of that costory covered porch. So, the bulk of the dwelling actually complies to the lot coverage. Um, I wanted to stick to the site plan. Uh, if if staff could zoom in slightly on the building footprint just a little bit. Um, I just wanted to draw comparisons between the neighboring dwellings. You can see the footprints of the neighboring dwellings top and bottom of screen. Yep. uh the the length of the wall along the right hand side and the left hand side of the dwelling. When you look at both the top and the bottom, if staff could scroll down just slightly. Uh there we go. The the portions of the house that actually abut the property lines are very comparable to the surrounding massing the surrounding neighboring dwellings. Uh and we took great care in stepping back the massing of the dwelling beyond the built forms on either side of it. Um and that is part of the requirements um of the the the obviously the urban design guidelines and part of our reasoning in the the RFA overage. If we can go staff, go down to the eighth or ninth page. I think it was eighth page, please. On this page, you'll see that rear porch in the bottom watercolored rendering. Uh the rear cover porch is single story. It's a little higher than a single story, as you can see. um has a bit of an elevated ceiling allowing for ample living space and entertaining space underneath. Uh we've taken a lot of effort to reduce the massing of the second uh sorry the second story which which uh is stepped in quite a bit. the roof shape over top of the great room. Uh I did in sort of a gable fashion towards the side, but that really pushes down the overall massing of of the house over top of that area that has a twotory space inside of it, which is not quite twotory because it's vated and the eve is quite dropped. So, it's more like a story and a half going up to a vault in the middle. If staff could go to the next page, actually one more page and zoom in. We outlined a couple points in our cover letter which I want to uh stop on for a second. We can even go to the next page. Sorry, staff. Um, so articulation of the ele el the envelope is is quite a concern of ours when we're doing a lot of these designs. We've done so many of them. We've worked with staff on so many of them. Uh we know quite well what they're looking for. Uh so we really try to articulate those facades, those roof lines and the in the massing so that it goes in and out and it doesn't sort of impose too much on the neighboring properties. Um so I just wanted to take a lot of care and and and attention on that with you guys tonight. Um I did note that there was one letter that was sent in or or an email rather. uh it referenced the RFA in terms of overlook and uh overdevelopment. We feel that we we have done a lot of uh a lot of techniques in order to mitigate the massing and the impact on the surrounding uh environment. And when the letters come in from neighbors speaking to drainage, um, town of Oakville is one of the the uh trickier ones to get the lot grading and drainage certificates from. There's a lot of on-site retention that is employed in the site grading engineering approval process. Uh, so it's it's a very strict process that is all done through engineering. So I just wanted to touch on that and reassure everyone that that's that's going to be done in this case. said it always has to be done and we follow those steps with great care. So, in closing, we feel that this this application meets the four tests and the town's urban design guidelines and I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. Uh, thank you. Um, any questions from committee? Seeing no questions, I'm going to go and see if there's any members of the public present with respect to the matter. Mr. Chair, no one has their hand up that's in attendance and we've received no calls. Okay. I will then take it back to the committee for a motion. Mr. Dicki. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um yeah, based upon my review of the owner's application, the site plans and building plans, the presentation by the owner, and the planning staff's report, I am satisfied that the variances are minor in nature and conform to the four tests under the planning act. And I put forth a motion that the application as applied for be approved subject to to the conditions that the dwelling be constructed in general accordance with the submitted site plan and elevation drawings dated 0309 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. Any discussion on the matter? Seeing none, all those in support of the motion to approve. Your application has been approved. Thank you all. Have a great night. Thank you. You too. Okay. Um the next and last item on our agenda for this evening uh is A064. Uh I've lost my p place. Um A64 of 2026. Um a site located at uh 235 Vilma Drive. I will give the phone number again for our last item 9058156095 in case anybody wants to call in with respect to this last matter. Do we have the agent? Yep, Mr. Chair. He's uh just coming in now. One moment. Excellent. Sorry. Can you hear me? We can hear you, sir. Okay, great. Thank you. Um, good evening everyone. U, Mr. Chair and, uh, and committee, could I have your name and address for the record? And if you're uh on a computer and you've got video capability, we'd love to see you. Yeah. Excellent. Um, hi everyone. Uh my name is Tony Tini with Architect Design Consultants uh 67 Marbella Road in Vaughn and today we're looking at uh a proposal for 235 uh Velma Drive in Oakville. Um so there's two variances that um that have uh have uh surfaced. One is the the rear yard setback at uh 6.5 m. We're we're requesting a rear yard setback of 6.5. And basically what's what's occurring is due to the shape of the um of the lot and the easement at the back. Uh it's sort of causing the the building to be squished in uh in the in in the in the footprint. So, uh, we've sort of elongated it and, um, and made it more, uh, uh, longer in the front with, uh, with respect to curb appeal. Uh, so that's triggered the the setback in the back. But, uh, if you zoom in, you'll see that the garage is already the existing garage is already at that setback. Um, yeah. So you see the dotted line showing that the garage basically at the at the same setback currently. Um also we're trying to keep in line with the the neighbor on the left hand side. Uh so with the the with that restriction in the front and the restriction in the back that's the variance that we're asking. Uh so we feel that that that's pretty minor uh in in in relationship to the site and the uh zoning. Uh the second one is the height restriction and again due to the nature of the of the style of the house it's long it uh it's difficult to get the roof at uh at 9 m. So, we're asking for 9.5 meters uh which allows for a nicer uh uh a nicer roof line from the road uh instead of being squished, which a lot of these new homes uh seem to be going with. Uh we're trying to at least get some some roof uh from from uh visible from the road. Um if you go to the rendering, you'll see sort of the concept I believe it's the there it is. There. So, we're we're trying to sort of create different shapes and different forms uh keep create an interest from from the street and uh and and try to maintain that roof line. Also, due to the the way the city um calculates the established grade, uh this lot kind of drops off on one side and it makes it a little little bit more difficult to to get the uh the established grade at the same level as others on the street. So, we feel that that uh the the 9.5 m is is really just just a a minor request and it actually improves on the overall look of the house. Um other than that, um if anyone has any questions, that's that's all I really have to uh say. This is this is a Thank you, sir. This is a bit of a challenging lot. uh it is between shape and configuration with a partial through lot kind of thing. Uh it's kind of interesting. I'd uh um certainly like to hear if if our committee members have any questions with respect to this uh um knowing um some of our members have uh a lot of familiarity with the technical details of these kinds of lots. Anyways, but I'm not seeing any questions. Okay. Oh, Mr. Dicki. Okay. I was I I might have been prompting you a little bit. I apologize. On the last item, maybe I'm I I don't know if I missed it when I read the uh various documents. I know it's a drainage ement. Is it is it a a pipe underground pipe or is there some type of above ground channel or whatever? I I believe the easement is uh a storm storm drainage uh easement. It's not it's not below ground. It it's just the um uh it's it's like a culvert. Uh it's just graded. It's a grading a graded easement like a swale going through. Exactly. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Right. Yeah. Um yeah, I never went around the backside to see it if I could have, but um Okay. Thank you. I just was It's quite wide. I was quite curious as to what it was then. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Um, madame madam secretary treasurer, any members of the public present or hands up? Mr. Chair, we have no hands up and we have received no calls. Okay. And I would note that there were no letters received on this matter. So why don't I take this back to the committee for a motion? Ms. Price. Taking into account my site visit, the reports provided by staff and the agent and there being no letters of opposition, I find the application is 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. Sorry. The proposed develop maintains and protects the character of the existing neighborhood and does not present unacceptable adverse impacts. The lowered roof lines, stepbacks from the first to second story and mixture materials and the singlestory elements help to pro maintain and protect the character of the existing neighborhood and do not present unacceptable adverse impacts. In conclusion, I believe the the application meets the four tests of the planning act and put forth a motion approving the application subject to the following conditions. That the dwelling be constructed in general accordance with the submitted site plan and elevation drawings dated January 1st, 2026, and that the approval expires two years from the date of the decision if a building permit has not been issued for the proposed construction. Thank you, Miss Price. Any discussion on the matter? Seeing none, all those in support of the motion to approve. Your application has been approved. Thank you very much. Thank you. Have a great night. You have a good night. Um, Madame Chair, confir Sorry. Um um madam secretary treasurer uh confirmation or sorry can I have a confirmation of minutes from the meeting of April 15 2026. Uh Miss Price um and motion for adjournment. Miss Price you are on fire tonight again.