Transcript: Variances Approved Amid Opposition - Committee of Adjustment meeting of April 15, 2026 at 7 p.m. | Summary 739

Variances Approved Amid Opposition - Committee of Adjustment meeting of April 15, 2026 at 7 p.m.

Good evening everyone. Tonight's committee of adjustment hearing is being held by video conference and live streaming video on the town live stream web page at oakville.ca. This is a hearing to consider applications for minor variance and consent held under the authority of the planning act. Please keep in mind that the intent of this process is to review the application that is before the committee, listen to the evidence, and then make a decision. This process is not intended to be used to resolve any concerns or disputes that may exist between the town, individuals, or organizations. If a request for a deferral is made and the committee grants such a request, the applicant or authorized agent must contact the secretary, treasurer to schedule a new hearing date. In order to conduct an effective and efficient electronic hearing, we have adopted the following process. If you are watching the live stream of this hearing on oakville.ca and if 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 your screen below the live stream page at oakville.ca. Staff will be standing by to take your call. When you call in, staff will ask your name and 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, you'll have to press star six to unmute yourself. The applicant or agent will then be given the opportunity to briefly explain to the committee the basis of their application and answer any questions that may arise. A maximum of 5 minutes will be provided 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 full name and address for the record. A maximum of five minutes will be provided to make your 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 provide a response to comments made by interested parties and answer any questions from the committee member. If the applicant or agent has comments concerns found in staff report, particularly with any proposed conditions, this will be the opportunity to advise us. The matter will then be taken into committee for a decision and this will mark the end of all discussion. Any person desiring a notice of decision for an application must provide a written request, preferably through email, to the secretary treasurer. Written notice of the committee's decision will be mailed no later than 10 days for minor variance and five and 15 days for consent held to the applicant, agent, and any other person who has filed a written request for such notice. The last day to appeal the decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal will be noted on the decision. Only the applicant, specified 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 all appeal rights for members of the public. If no appeal is received within the prescribed time frame, the decision of the committee becomes final and binding. The secretary treasurer will then notify the applicant and anyone who has received a copy of 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 the other people participating in the electronic hearing. Tonight's electronic hearing is being video recorded and available to view uh at oakville.ca. Thank you. We have no regrets this evening. Um, declarations of interests. Mr. Talowski. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I'll once again reaffirm my previously stated conflict on application A035 2026 at 309 Boss. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Towski. Any others? I see none. Okay, Madame Secretary, if there's anyone in attendance that wishes to defer or withdraw an application, uh, please invite them in to speak. If you're interested in withdrawing or deferring an application, please raise your hand and the secretary treasurer will invite you in. We're showing two hands, Madam Secretary. The first one is Henri Priy um for 446 Tower Drive. Mr. Peri, are you with us? Yes. Yes. Sorry. Good evening. Um, my name my name is Henry Priy. I'm the uh applicant and the owner of uh 44 uh 446 Tower Drive application a/059/2026. I'm uh respectfully requesting a deferral of this application. Uh I received the planning uh report and uh uh I read it carefully and um I take it uh the their um concerns seriously. During this time I I prepared revised uh drawings responding to the specific concerns identified by planning staff in particular this elevation and uh from facade composition. Uh I've been in contact with the uh planner of the file and u um she has confirmed that the planning and urban design are willing to uh review the revised drawings following tonight's deferral uh deferral for this to process um the review of the uh um revised drawings. Okay, very good. Um members, all those in support of a deferral. Okay, the application has been deferred. You'll see the secretary treasur at your earliest convenience. Thank you so much. Have a great night. Thank you. Have a good night. Our second one is Jonathan for file uh A058 of 2026 at 548 Swan Drive. Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Sukowski. Chair, I'm I'm see having some audio issues, but I think I fixed it. Yeah, we can hear you now. Go ahead. So, Madam Chair, we are requesting a deferral to consult with planning based upon the comments received. Very well. Thank you. Uh all those in support of a deferral. Okay. the you'll be your application has been deferred then you'll um see the secretary treasur when you're ready. Thank you madam chair. Thank you committee. Have a good evening. You too. Okay that's all madam secretary treasurer. Right. Yes that's all. Okay, we'll go ahead and start with the first item of the agenda, which is application 002 of 2026, deferred from January the 21st at 246 Jones Street. I have Mr. Ted Lockton here as the agent. Okay. I think I uh unmuted myself. Can you hear me? Okay. Yes. Go ahead. Okay. Good evening. Uh I'm Ted Log from Bay View Design Group representing uh uh the owner at 246 Jones. Uh now, uh Madame Chair, just a a question. This uh I I'm assuming we're treating this as a uh as if uh this hadn't been heard before. Uh yes, absolutely. Just go ahead and do your presentation as we usually would. Okay, sounds great. Thanks. Thank you. Uh okay. So, so this uh application uh we asked for a deferral back in January to meet with staff uh and to come up with a proposal that would be agreeable to myself, the homeowner and staff. uh and as a result uh the the rendering on the screen is uh I guess the uh the agreed upon uh look and style of the house. So if we can go to the next slide please. Uh okay here's a a Greek Google street view image of uh of the subject property. uh our property is the one with the uh tree hoarding uh in the uh in the middle there. Uh the the proposal that we're looking for uh the house the house will be sort of in keeping with the size of the neighboring houses while while still keeping the minor variances to you know as minimum as we could. So if we can go to the next slide please. Uh the this is just uh just showing uh the reason we deferred from the January meeting. Uh uh when I was working with staff uh it came to our attention that the twotory window at the front uh uh needed banding across the front of it. And uh they also recommended splitting the door into two smaller garage doors instead of one large garage door. And if we can go to the next slide, please. So the site plan uh is more just for reference to show the massing of of our house compared to the neighbors houses. uh very much in keeping with uh with the neighborhood. And if we can go to the last slide, please, the next one. Uh so my my ask for the variance didn't change from January. Uh in terms of numbers except for a typo that I had uh on my drawings. Uh, so the the ask is for uh uh sorry I'm uh trying to uh make out the numbers there. There we go. Uh so the uh uh 39.8% 8% uh uh lot coverage where 35 is is allowable and the RFA lot ratio of 43.55% where 41% is allowable. And uh I guess that concludes what I have to say. So I'm available for any questions. Thank you Mr. Loxton. Any questions for Mr. Austin at this time? Um, okay. Has anyone called with interest for this application? Madam Secretary, we've had no calls and no hands showing. Okay, then uh we'll take a motion. Who would like to move a motion? Go ahead, Miss Price. Taking into account my previous site visit, the reports from the agent and staff, and there being no letters of opposition, I find the advi revised application to be minor in nature 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 also maintains and protects the character of the existing neighborhood and does not present unacceptable adverse impacts. Um, I appreciate the efforts made by the agent and staff to come up with a mut mut mutually agreeable design. In conclusion, I believe the four tests have been met and I recommend the application be approved subject to the following conditions. The dwelling being constructed in a general accordance with the submitted site plan dated February 4th, 2026 and elevation drawings dated February 5th, 2026. ands that the approval expires 2 years from the date that the decision of the building permit has not been issued with the proposed construction. Very well. Thank you. Is there uh discussion on this recommendation? I see none. All those in support. Okay. The application has been approved. None opposed. Thanks very much. Okay. Have a good evening. You too. Thanks. Yeah. application 032 of 2026 at 357 Satan Drive and that's again at 357 Satan Drive application 032 of 2026. I've got Mr. Richard Kosak as the agent. Good evening madame chairman members of the committee. Good evening. Go ahead Mr. COC. I'm Yeah. Richard Kak of New Age Design. Um I'm here as the agent of the owners at 357 Seat and Drive. We have two variances today. Um yeah, we can look at um slide four. So, our first variance is a grad's floor area. We're asking for 62.26 mters where 45 square meters is allowed. Um, it is a threecar garage, but it's a two street facing this street facing garages and a third is a tandem as you can see on the on the left side of the drawing, the three-car garage. Our variance number two is for lot coverage. Um we're asking for 27.96% where 25% is a max. Um that's all our variances. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. Thank you, Mr. Kosak. Any questions or items of clarification at this time? Okay, 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, thank you. Who would like to move a motion? Go ahead, Mr. Hart Castle. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, having undertaken my site visit and having reviewed the materials, um, including the written staff report, um, I am satisfied that the requested variances conform to the forest of the act. Accordingly, I'll put forward a motion of approval subject to two conditions. Those being that the dwelling be constructed in general accordance with the submitted site plan dated February 2nd, 2026, an elevation drawing submitted with the application, and that the approval will expire within two years of the date of the decision if a building permit has not been issued. Thank you. Is there discussion on this recommendation? I see none. All those in support. Okay. The application has been approved. None opposed. Thank you, Madam Chairman, members of the committee. Have a good evening. Okay. Application zero, application 33 of 2026 at 1410 Devon Road. And that's again application 33 of 2026 at 1410 Devon Road. Mr. Edwards, you'll be presenting. Good evening, Madam Chair. Can you hear me? Yes. Go ahead. Now, thank you, Madam Chair. Uh my name is Shane Edwards from Used Design Studio Limited uh located at 1A Konos Stoa Drive, Bmpton, Ontario, and we're the authorized agents representing the property owners for 1410 Devon Road, which is application number A033206. And I'll be speaking to uh the variance application this evening. Um the application is uh rather straightforward, so I'll try to keep my presentation brief. U we're requesting three variances, and I'll go through those right now. The first is a maximum RFA variance. So the maximum permitted RFA is 37% of the lot area and we're proposing 39.98% of the lot area. If I could please ask you to flip to page 10 of the supplied document. Thank you very much. Uh so at the top of the page there you'll see that there's a rendering. So, uh, with regards to the RFA, uh, the main, uh, design point was we tried to, uh, keep the massing, um, dimminuative, um, as could be seen from the street. So, you'll see that there are some areas over the garage at the right side that we've actually pushed back the massing. So by 2.31 mters and 2.98 m. We've also introduced some vertical architectural features and tried to keep them minimal as well as added a mix of materials to further break up the visual massing. We've also, as you can see at the left side there, there is an open or a high ceiling living area that we've actually reduced the roof line and brought that ceiling area down. So that's actually for two purposes. Number one, the seconds story roof, as you'll see, has been pushed back significantly. And we've also prevented the use of any upper volume of that living room to be used as future uh a future addition to the second story because that ceiling has been brought down uh that significantly. If you look also at the bottom of the page, you'll see that there is a rear great room that there's a left elevation uh there. You'll see that there's a rear great room where similar situation there's a high volume ceiling and we've done the same. We've brought down uh the uh ceiling rather rather significantly to match the front uh u higher volume living room and that again has served two purposes. One um that upper volume can't be used for any future second story uh development and we've also pushed the upper massing the upper roof further away from the side property line. Um the second variance is for lot coverage. So the maximum permitted lot coverage is 25%. Our proposed lot coverage is 29.14% which is a 4.14% overage or about 43.24 square meters. Uh most of this overage can be attributed to a rear singlestory covered porch in the rear yard and you can kind of see that in the uh lower elevation on the screen right now. Um so that lower um one-story covered porch and there's some second story uh projections over the ground story uh that attribute to most of that lot coverage overage about 2.77% of the 4.14 which is about 2/3. Um and obviously we believe that that lower um rear covered terrace is as it's central in the rear elevation it won't have any kind of visual or or direct impact to the neighbors whatsoever. Uh the third variance is for garage area. Maximum permitted is 45 square meters and we're proposing 46.51 square meters. Uh this is a difference of 1.51 square meters or about 16.25 square ft. And um as you can see in the uh rendering image there, it is a normal twocar garage from the street view. Um and that overage, the small overage can be attributed to just some storage space that's added to the rear and at the sides of when the vehicles are parked. Uh but from the street it'll appear as a normal two-car garage and the garage itself does meet all other required setbacks. Um uh with all that being said, we do believe that the variances uh meet the forward test of the planning act and we did review staff's report as well that um also uh confirm that they u share the same sentiments. Um if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer any questions from yourself or uh other committee members. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Other words, any questions or items of clarification with respect to this application? Okay. Has anyone called with interest for this application? Madam Secretary Treasurer, we've had no calls uh and we're showing no hands in the audience. Okay. Very well. We will uh take the matter into committee. Who would like to move a motion? Go ahead, Mr. Towski. Madam Chair, Madam Chair, we pleased to move that this application be approved as applied for finding that it meets the forecast of planning act. With respect to the three variances, I think they are all very well mitigated by what I'll call a very thoughtful design. I don't see any impact as a result of these variances. I would make that approval subject to two conditions. That the dwelling be constructed in general accordance with the site plan and elevation drawings dated January 22nd, 2025 and that the variance expires if a building permit hasn't been issued within two years of the decision. Very well. Thank you, Mr. Taskski. Is there discussion on this recommendation? I see none. All those in support. Okay. The application has been approved. None opposed. Thank you, Madam Chair, committee. Have a good evening. Have a good evening. Application 35 of 2026 at 309 Balsam Drive. Again, that's application 35 of 2026 at 309 Balsam Drive. I have Mr. Demch here as the agent. Good evening, members of the committee. Good evening. Go ahead, Mr. Deek. Uh, great. Um, thank you. Yes, my name is Paul Demek with Ptorianning and Management. I'm the planning consultant on behalf of the applicant for 309 Bolson Drive. Um, this dwelling, I'll just note, was previously constructed, uh, previously approved, sorry, in 2023, uh, which included variances at that time, uh, to permit, um, a number of, uh, deviations from the zoning bylaw. This included a total of three garages, an increase in the dwelling depth uh main wall percentage variance as well as an increase in the overall maximum dwelling height. Um a total of two variances are being sought this evening for the proposed addition uh which is an open air carport uh to the existing dwelling. You can see on the left uh side of this image. Um and they'll know that this dwelling is under construction. Um and the uh there's also a proposed uh reduction to the sideyard setback as well as a variance to the number of garages being for to permit this um to permit this carport. Next slide please. Uh so this is just an image showing um an aerial photograph and the immediate context and I'll note that this immediate context on Balsson Drive is comprised of of large lots with the east side of Balsson Drive having lots that are generally much larger in lot area and depth relative to the west side of Bom Drive. Uh the dwellings on the east side of Balsson Drive in the vicinity of the subject site are also generally further set back from the front lot line compared to the west side of the street uh with a variety of front yard setbacks that exist within this immediate context. Many of the dwellings in the immediate context also include recently reconstructed uh large dwellings. And I will also note that many of these large lots feature a range of sideyard setbacks within the neighborhood which do make up the character of the neighborhood um and specifically the east side of Balsam Drive. And I'd like to take you to the next slide uh to explain some of these setbacks. So an analysis was completed of the sideyard setbacks in the immediate neighborhood as well as as well as the sideyard setbacks that had been previously approved by the committee of adjustment in recent years. I'll know that this wholesome data is provided in the final two slides appended to this presentation uh for the benefit of the committee. However, I want to highlight a few of the key statistics which are shown on this particular slide. I'll note that the highlighted cells in green provide for the existing sideyard setbacks of the seven abuing properties on the east side of Balsam Drive uh which is between 253 and 327 Balsam Drive. I will note that none of these seven lots feature a zoning bylaw compliant sideyard setback on at least one side of the respective uh required sideyards. These setbacks are all deficient from the zoning bylaw requirements of 4.2 me sideyard setback requirements which make up the character of the neighborhood and the streetscape of dwellings on the east side of Balsson Drive. I'll further note that in the neighborhood sideyard setback analysis that I've prepared, a total of 57 properties were assessed in terms of examining their existing sideyard setbacks, all of the identical zone. 43 of these 59 properties have sideyard setbacks that do not comply with the bylaw requirements of 4.2 meters, which is 75% of the properties within this neighborhood. This is not an uncommon characteristic in the immediate context as well as the greater neighborhood. Next slide please. Uh so these are images of the dwelling which is currently under construction. I will note that the image on the right um is an overhead view of the dwelling and the southern sideyard provides for a 4.86 86 meter sideyard setback from the adjacent dwelling to the south while the northern sideyard um features a range of features a range of setbacks sorry um which range on this side from 4.3 m to 7.78 m uh well in excess of the bylaw requirements. Uh I will show this further on an upcoming slide. Uh this sideyard setback featur um features a unique condition with the neighboring property to the north which um as you can see has a garage located in the front yard of their existing dwelling uh which is a legal non-conforming condition. Next slide please. Uh so this is a site plan of the existing dwelling that was again previously approved as well as the location of the proposed 47 square meter open air carport addition which is highlighted in yellow. Uh this is located again at the northern sideyard of the existing dwelling where greater sideyard setbacks exist compared to the minimum bylaw requirements. Further, this carport is located beside again the existing twostory detach garage uh to the north uh which is again uh just to note located in the front yard of the adjacent uh dwelling and property to the north. Next slide please. Uh so I briefly just want to focus on this slide as it helps to illustrate the varied sideyard setbacks that are provided on this northern sideyard where the open air carport is proposed. So the green overlay provides for the portions of the dwelling and sideyard area which are greater than the minimum setback requirements of the bylaw being 4.2 m. The hatched area um is the location of the proposed open air carport and the yellow area is the only portion of the proposed carport addition which is proposed to extend into the required sideyard setback. I will note again that this carport interfaces immediately abudding the existing detached garage to the north and this neighbor has written a letter of support for the proposed variance which has been provided to the committee. And again, I just want to quickly go through the series of setbacks that I just noted. So, you can see just at the top of the screen, which is on the far eastern uh northeastern side of the dwelling. You can see there's a 4.3 meter uh sideyard setback. As we go down, the dwelling further cascades away from the adjacent sideyard to 5.8 m for the portion of the uh carport. Uh that does and that this the variance that is being requested to be reduced to 1.5 m. And then you can see the balance um of the uh setback to the existing dwelling is 7.78 m on the uh northern sideyard um closest to the western uh front wall of the dwelling. Next slide please. Uh so here are the existing front and rear elevations. Uh I'll just note on the front elevation you can see the proposed open air carport on the left side of the image. This carport uh features no walls and is a singlestory in height uh which assists in mitigating massing impacts and transitions appropriately to the neighbor to the north. Next slide, please. Uh just here's a section of the proposed carport in relation to the existing uh adjacent detach garage to the north. Again, in my opinion, it has been proportionally designed to be compatible with the adjacent build form. Next slide, please. And here is a rendering um of the proposed carport which further illustrates the massing being mitigated in terms of its singlestory design as well as the planned landscaping and tree planting uh that is being proposed between the two respective properties. And so I just want to highlight uh for the committee a few key items for consideration in this application. The sideyard setback uh reductions that have been provided uh for other homes in this context are in many cases of a full uh wall or two stories in height. And the proposed uh setback in this instance features a single uh story carport which has no walls and is open air and single story in height and will not be enclosed which assists in mitigating its massing impacts. Uh the existing dwelling, I'll note, is set back 30 mters from the front yard, while the proposed carport is located 41 meters from the front yard uh to further mitigate potential massing impacts from a streetscape perspective. And the carport is located in the sideyard again, which features existing setbacks of over 7 mters and has demonstrated a series of setbacks which are in excess of the bylaw. I again want to note the neighbor has provided a letter of support uh which in my opinion is the only impacted neighbor by the proposed addition and as shown in the sideyard setback analysis data that I provided. I I'll note that the original house at this property being 309 Balsam had a sideyard setback in this location of 2.1 mters on the north side which was a full two stories in height which highlights that a reduced um setback is not a new condition for this lot and again as well as within the immediate neighborhood context. Um on this basis um in my opinion the development satisfies the four tests for minor var uh minor variance application under the planning act and I will also note that a no objection report has been provided from staff. Uh that concludes my presentation and I'd be happy to assist and answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Deek. Are there any questions items of clarification of Mr. Duck. Go ahead, Mr. D. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I'm usually pretty concerned about setbacks. In this case, I'm concerned here. You're asking for a 1.5 meter setback when the zoning bylaw requires a 4.2 meter setback. In my opinion, the the reason that we want such large setbacks in in these lots in in this zone is because the lots are quite wide. In your case, your lot is 47 m wide as I I have it written down. I hope that's correct. About 150 ft. Uh and I I mean my interpretation is the intent of the zoning bylaw is to allow a sufficient space between the house the house and the property lines or between the houses because the houses would be quite wide and quite massive in appearance. So that's the reason I I am concerned in this case about the setback. Now, if there's anything you can I've listened to your your your your presentation, but I'm still not convinced that this is appropriate or desirable. So, anything you'd like to add or emphasize, please do. Through you, Madam Chair, to member Dicki. Um, I appreciate the comment and I agree with the perspective on what the intent of the sideyard setback is. Obviously, it's intended to ensure that we mitigate uh massing impacts. we mitigate um and ensure that there's appropriate separation distance between adjacent properties. Um as I've provided in this presentation, there's a significant number of deviations to the sideyard setbacks. And in many of these instances, these are some of the largest lots objectively within the town of Oakville. And in many of these cases, um, the massing impacts is mitigated in some instances with design features where only portions of the dwelling perhaps will, uh, be reduced in terms of the sideyard setback requirement. And I would suggest to you that that is absolutely the case in this instance. Um, there are other instances where a full two-story dwelling may be um, featured on a reduced sideyard setback and that has also been provided in the data. Um however again in this instance it's a singlestory um carport garage feature which is an open air condition um and it appropriately mitigates massing impacts both in terms of its placement in this instance as well as ensuring that there's appropriate landscaping and it's designed adjacent to the adjacent garage to the north uh which has been supported by the neighbor in this instance who again is the only one being impacted. Okay. Any other questions or items of clarification? Okay, I see none. Has anyone called with interest for this opposition, Madam Secretary Treasurer? We've had no calls and no hands showing in the audience. Okay. Thank you. 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, the presentation by the owner's consultant, and the planning staff's report. Uh I am still of the opinion that this is not uh desirable or appropriate uh relative to the side setback. So, I put forth a motion that this application be denied. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Dick. Is there discussion on this recommendation? Go ahead, Mr. Hard Castle. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll just take a quick moment to uh reiterate or to iterate my concerns with respect uh to the proposal and uh uh I will support the um and advise that I'll support the recommendation on the floor. Okay. Um the motion is to deny. All those in support. Okay. All those opposed. Okay. And the chair will abstain. Uh the application has been denied. Thank you members. Good evening. Have a good evening. Application 39 of 2026 at 1275 North Surface Road West. Again, this is application 39 of 2026 at 1275 North Service Road West. I have Oz Kamal here as the agent. Can you hear me? Okay, now we can. Go ahead. Great. Thank you. Uh, good evening members of committee. My name is Oz Kamal. I'm a partner with MHBC planning. Um, thank you for bringing up the presentation. I'm here on I'm here today on behalf of our client Andisclair Corporation Center, Inc. for their property at 1275 North Service Road. Um, this minor variance is associated with an application for site plan approval that was originally submitted in December of 2024 with subsequent submissions made in August 2025 and January 2026. Uh comments from the town zoning department confirmed the required variance for the maximum front yard setback and confirmed that we comply with all other provisions of the bylaw. As such, we've submitted this application requesting to vary the maximum front yard setback regulation in the office employment zone. Next slide. The subject lands are located on the north side of North Service Road West and four and highway 403 just east of third line. Uh this site is part of a comprehensive employment area uh that consists of existing motor vehicle uses along North Service Road West consisting of um as you can see on the screen uh there's an Acura dealership, Mazda, Lexus, Audi, Volkswagen, and most recently uh the newly constructed Ground Grand Touring Automobiles um Oakville dealership which is s shown in the aqua blue color. Um we're located directly to the east of it. Um the overall lands are shown in the red outline. Um and the area of development is shown in the red dashed border. So out of that red outline, we're on the west side of our um property. Um what we're proposing is a two-story Genesis dealership. Um I there's probably some promotional um signage out there by the uh Raptor super fan who will be uh owning this dealership. um through the site plan application process the variance was raised as a requirement. Uh next slide please. So this is a zoomed in version uh of of um of our site of the previous slide to give you a better understanding of why we're asking for this variance. So the subject lands as well as the adjacent dealership are um within the E1 zone and that requires a minimum front yard of 3 meters and a maximum front yard of 17.5 meters and those are shown in yellow. Um now due to the subject lands proximity to highway 403 the Ministry of Transportation um also has a minimum 14 meter setback from the property line um and that's shown in the dashed black line. So instead of having a buffer of 3 m and 17 1.5 meters by which to locate the building, we now only have 14 and 17 1.5 meters, which creates a narrow pinch point in where you can locate the building. Um now what we're requesting is the this variance because when you factor in um the other items that are required uh for this application, they all have to be outside of that 14 meter setback. So they all have to be north of that line. So we needed the additional space to maintain a six meter fire route, maintain accessible parking spaces along as well as maintaining accessible parking spaces along the front of the building facing north service road west. So those required items through the site plan approve uh site plan approval required us to have the drive aisle plus accessible parking and enhanced walkway in front of the building necessitated the variance to go from the 17 and a half maximum to 32 m. And this is similar to the minor variance application for the Grand Touring automobile dealership who received a similar variance um back in I believe it was August 2022. Next slide please. So this is the site plan showing the existing office building um on the north uh which used to say travelers um on it. Um we are at the south end of the page with the new dealership. Um all other provisions of the bylaw are being met. Um we're again at the tail end of the site plan approval process subject to receiving um this variance approval. I believe we are in a position to be getting a site plan agreement. Um, we've also received clearances from Conservation Halton as well as the MTO. Uh, the variance is required to close out the site plan approval. Um, and and as noted, staff are currently working on the agreement and I believe we're hoping to see a draft of that next week. Uh, staff are also supportive of the application subject to the conditions which we are in agreement with. Um, the proposed development has been designed in coordination with uh the existing dealerships in the area that were recently approved as well as the immediate uh to the west of us, the Grand Touring Automobiles Oakville dealership uh to maintain that consistent street uh frontage within uh the established employment area. Uh next slide, please. Uh this variance for the 32 meter maximum front yard setback also accommodates the main wall proportion regulation in the bylaw that requires a minimum of 35% of the main walls oriented towards the front lot line to be located within the minimum and maximum front yards. So the increase in the maximum front yard uh will allow the compliance of both the maximum front yard and the min and the minimum main wall portion. Uh that concludes my presentation. Again, staff are supportive. Uh, happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kamal. Any questions? Mr. Kamal, items of clarification. I see none. Has anyone called with interest for this application? Madam Secretary, Treasurer, we've had no calls and no hands showing in the audience. Okay. Thank you. Who would like to move a motion? Go ahead, Miss Price. Taking into account my site visit the reports provided by the agent staff and conservation Halton and there being no letters of opposition, I believe the 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 the staff, the proposed development supports the economic growth within the employment area and does not present unacceptable adverse impact to the surrounding land uses. In conclusion, I believe the four tests have been met and I recommend the application be approved subject to the following conditions. That the motor vehicle dealership be constructed in accordance with the final approved site plan SP1523.006/1. 006/01 to the satisfaction of the director of planning and development 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. Okay. Uh is there discussion on this recommendation? I see none all those in support. Okay. The application has been approved. Thank you. Have a good night. Good night. Okay. Application 41 of 2026 at 599 Chartwell Road. began it application 041 of 2026 at 599 Chartwell Road. I have Nancy Friday as the agent or Mr. Rick Malgen. Yes, I'm I'm I'm Rick Malgen. I'm the agent for the applicant tonight. Go ahead, Mr. Malgen. Yes, thank you. Um I'm Rick Melgen from SMDA Architects in in Oakville. Our address is 482 Subservice Road East. Um we are before the committee. uh this evening with it with with this project. It's it's a it's a it's a building known as a support house. Um it's located on the east side of Chartwell, south of um North Service Road and north of um of the the the the railroad tracks. Um we were this this facility has has been has has been operating in in this area uh since about the mid 1980s. We're here this evening because this is a legal non-conforming use and we're extending we're uh we're seeking permission to extend that use. Uh the background here is that we we were before this committee about two years ago with an original scope of work on this site. The original scope of work at that point was that uh we had been engaged to do improvements to the building. Um the uh the intention was to create some additional common spaces and to uh to improve the uh the life safety factors of the building with the addition of a of some new exit stairs and so on and also to uh to improve the barrierfree aspects of the building with a with a ramp and elevator. Uh so we we were before the the committee for that purpose two years ago. The the committee gave us their approval. Uh what has happened in the meantime is that some additional funds have become available through the the uh the uh region of Halton and we we're now in a position that we can add we can add additional rooms to this this facility. So this this this facility um this facility operates as a as a place that provides support to individuals who are either uh suffering homelessness or um or dealing with with issues of of substance abuse, addiction and so on. and they provide a very necessary um use in in in the in the in the community as indicated they've been doing this since the midnight 1980s very successfully. So we are before the committee uh then to ask for the that permission. So the the the scope of work you can see from the site plan I can explain the existing building is you can see that hatched area and then the dark areas on on the left and right the area on the left that uh that's an addition the purpose of which is to provide a new barrier free entrance to the building and also a new common room and a barrierfree washroom and the addition on the right the small one that's an exit stair that will come down from the upper story. So the the plan is to provide those those additions on the on the second on the main floor or like on the ground level and they come up and then we're proposing also to do an addition on on the third floor. It's mainly the third floor edition where we'll be able to provide the the uh the additional additional bedroom uh facilities. So um we uh as indicated we we believe that uh that this is a use that that's very necessary in the community and its present location which is in in E2 zone um is also really very optimal for for this for this this this kind of use. Uh it's never um never had any any issues from the standpoint of of concerns with the with the community and and so on. To our knowledge there's no no issues from the the local local business owners and so on. the the building functions very very well. So I'd be happy to answer any more questions but and uh would ask for your support for to allow this to go forward. Thank you Mr. Matalen. Is there any items of cl clarification or questions of Mr. Malgen? I see none. Uh let's have a motion then if has anyone called with interested this application. Madam Secretary, Treasure, we've had no calls and no hands showing in the audience. Okay. Thank you. Uh, who would like to move a motion? Go ahead, Mr. Towski. Madam Chair, Madam Chair, I'll move that this application be approved as applied for. I I find the uh variance um to be similar into the existing use and not any more intensive than the use being not any more intensive than the existing use or other permitted uses within the zone. I would uh note that there's no opposition. I'd also make that approval subject to the additions being constructed in general accordance with the site plan elevation drawing stated November 5th, 2025 and that the variance expires within two years of the building permit hasn't been issued. Thank you, Mr. Taski. Is there discussion on this recommendation? I see none. All those in support. Okay. The application has been approved. None opposed. Thank you, committee. Have a good evening. Good night. We have application 55 of 2026. um at 2229 Glenfield Road. Again, it's application 055 of 2026 at 2229 Glenfield Road. I have Mr. Salman Alahi as the agent. Yes, good afternoon. I am clear and loud enough. Yes, go ahead. Yes, my name is Salmani and I'm representing the application as an agent uh number A55-2026. Uh my name is Salmani. Office address 126 Bernham Road East, Unit A, Oakill, Ontario, L6X0X9. So the purpose of this application today is very minor in nature. The owner of the property is also present in my office if he would like to speak if required. Uh there is only one variance requested in this application which is uh below grade uncovered stairs on the left side yard. Uh the zoning allows uh 6 m setback from the below grade stairs to the property line. Uh we have only 48 m which is a reduction of.12 m setback. Uh the reason of this uh uh below grade stage on the sideyard is that there is a very small backyard of the property and homeowner would like to create a below grade entrance for the second unit. Uh we have gone through the report of the uh of the city. They are in favor. We have no objections on the recommendations. We have gone through the objections of the neighbors as well. If they have any concerns, we are ready to reply back or comment back. Uh this is the end of the presentation. If they have any other questions, feel free to ask. Okay, Mr. Alahi, I have a um letters of opposition on record here. Um has anyone called with interest for this application? Madam Secretary, ch treasurer? Yes, we're showing one hand up in the audience. Okay, go ahead. Charlie and Rosanna L prestige. Okay, go ahead. Sorry. Hi. Can you hear us? Yes. Go ahead. We can hear you. If you put your able to put your camera on, that'll be great as well. uh camera. Good evening. Okay. Good evening. Go ahead. Sure. Uh first I have some questions with regards to the presentation and also what was presented by the town in their report if that's okay just for clarification then I have our presentation and then finally some recommendations. So you let me know the order. This is all new to us. So would you like me to change your order? Let me know as we go. The first thing is um in the presentation given under general notes which was submitted and this the the schedule or the draft February 2026 under general notes there's a drawing and there's an error in the drawing. It reads 0.47 meters and it should read 0.48 and our concern is we don't want this to become an oops situation where people aren't abiding by the rules or the actual um measurements. So that's one thing. So I don't know if that requires a deferral. Secondly, a point of information and a question. Union Gas has not responded, although this impacts the gas line. It says no comments received. Is that no comments yet or is that um there's just no comments from Union Gas at all? And we can discuss that later. Uh keep going. Also, sorry. um letters of opposition. When we received or when it was posted through the committee of just adjustment through the chair and the uh secretary treasur, it said letters of opposition and it read five. In actuality, in sequence, there were seven letters of opposition. And we do have seven. We do have seven. Perfect. And there was an additional one posted after the April 10th date. So there's a total of eight. I just we received it. You need not worry about it. Okay. Perfect. Uh so now if it's okay with your permission madam chair I'd like to present uh start the presentation. Thank you. Go ahead and then we'll have some of these questions answered and there might be other questions and certainly I have recommendations or they may have recommendations along the way. I'd like to keep this as amicable as possible obviously. Um so good evening madam chair uh secretary treasure committee of adjustment members and our town staff members to the agent and to our neighbors all our neighbors who may be viewing and also to our next door neighbor. We are Charles and Rosanna Ley at 2233 Glenfield Road, Oakville. And we thank you for this opportunity to speak tonight and share our concerns and opposition to the variance before us tonight. We have been blessed to live in our home issue free for 26 years. And for me, it's been a lifetime in the town of Oakville. At the core, we feel that upholding bylaws is paramount in keeping to the integrity of our communities and maintaining the pre-sighted and predetermined official plan intended for our neighborhood in 1998 1999. We know that the province has added a margin for growth in supporting the current needs in Ontario. That's understood. But the variance is over and above that 10% allowance even by the province. We are not opposed to growth in Oakville, but we feel that is incumbent and the responsibility of the town to delineate moving forward in new builds going north or wherever they're going to expand that we leave room for side uh egress or side stairwells if that's really what the uh town is intending to do. So visav new construction and not current construction. Um we in Oakville pride ourselves uh on heritage homes, green spaces, window panes and glass are treated with great care and so is tree preservation. So we'd like to take this opportunity to preserve this designated lowdensity residential area and in the areas of safety, security, logistics and privacy issues. Our home is our haven and we're quite disruptive and uh disrupted by this and anxious with what this dictates for our community and our home. Our areas of concern in the letter as I said safety uh between the two houses we both have exposed gas meters, AC units, furnace, exhaust and so construction will be impacted also and we've submitted pictures to the town with all this as well. Um our concern under safety. Yes, thank you for acknowledging. Uh we also have an open we're discussing an open below grade stairwell that is quite massive in design at 11 ft uh 7 in bigger than the staircase of my house let's say and it's open facing to the street. There's no concern for the younger children or safety in that regard. The other thing is in the backyard we need complete clearance for my mom who's in a wheelchair and my dad in a walker. We don't want any anything encroached on our property. We take that also very seriously. We want people to have access because it is a passageway to the backyard. That's what it was intended for and that's what we'd like it to remain as. In addition, we're concerned for snow removal, especially this year. We had a lot of snow uh and snow clearance. We want to make sure that we have the ability to do that safely between the two houses and move it out without uh a below grade CR case. in security. We know that we've had, as uh Chief Tanner has been saying, a lot of break-ins in Oakville, and I just saw the mayor of G say it today, to stay vigilant between houses and backyards, and that's something that is of concern, too. We have an occurrence number listed for activity with our car in that area. So, we like less is more to us. Also, as so far as uh privacy and security, again, it's not an area for congregation or egress. It's an area for passageway to our front and backyards. When we look at logistics, we're looking at the disruption and damage that might take place to our adjacent interlock stairway and walk and hallway, excuse me. Also, the current landscape that we share with them has existing water drainage and we don't want that tampered with at all. Also, new construction on their part and cement might impact water drainage on our end or pools of water given the neighbors limited access or space. Again, we don't want any encroachment on our property and ours is of the wider uh if you look at the dimensions and the drawings or the wider side or the wider side uh given by our neighbor um or the town actually has presented those. Um, we also, you know, went out there and just took measurements. Very basic people don't know all this beautiful language that everyone's speaking, but we do want to say that in taking the measurement, they have a 48 cm open to them to access their backyard without encroaching on ours. And that's not even the width of a lawnmower. And so, we don't even know how they're going to get in their backyard without encroaching on ours. I know that's a them problem, but I don't want it to become an us problem. The houses on our street are of a significant size in proportion to lot sizes. They were built as bigger houses on smaller lots, not like the houses we saw in previous pictures. And um we want to say that they were built big already. So why are we making them bigger? There are no side doors to our garages or points of eress to the house. And that was intentional and that's by design and presided by the town of Oakville. So, we'd like to the the current usage of land to stay compatible with the current zoning bylaws. We're just asking that the bylaw be upheld. We're not asking for special favorites or allowances, but just that the bylaw is adhered to. If for privacy, our concern concern is that we have five southacing interior windows that face our neighbors. Um, and I just want to say that it inverse it sorry adversely impacts us in that our dining room and living room face on. We will be seeing them. I don't want anyone seeing me in my pajamas eating my waties. I like a little more privacy than that. That should not be a point of eress. It's a pass through passageway and I don't want to feel like I am being adversely impacted in how I'm living in my home or level of self-consciousness based on the frequency with which or someone this becomes someone else's dwelling entrance. We also have two bedroom windows that face the interior southside and we're concerned for noise there as it now presents someone else's point of egress and the proximity again um impedes. Sorry, I'll I'll just let that go. I just uh it it's just okay. Um I do want to say that let me just uh see my notes here. I apologize. Uh we have neighborly suggestions. I don't know if they're open if you're open to suggestions right now. If you have any questions for me for what I shared so far, but um the neighborly suggestion is that they consider the backyard. I know they said it's a small backyard, but it's much bigger than the sideyard. And that's just very basic. Um, and so we know that our neighbor is in real estate and development. He gives us his card. He works on permits and design and everything. So, I'm sure that he can think of and create something beautiful for the backyard that could be safe and speak to leaving the side yard as a point of passage through and not uh not a point of egress for another person. The other thing they could do is they have a front door enclosure um over their front door and to enter their main door they could access build a side door to access the garage and through the garage go through to what is available an interior staircase that they could partition off or do what they want or go through direct garage door entry that renders right to uh the basement. There's an existing stairwell. If at all that we have to go this route which we are 100% opposed to and we'll go through the following reasons. We are saying that uh if a fence I mean it does it get approved that it would be expected that there be a very very tall fence but in keeping with bylaws of course I think that's 66 at their expense at uh their expense for the shared property line right to where the garages are so right from the backyard to the front solid wood front wood construction and again no impact to our side at all that's not the intent we don't want that so um formally we are opposed to the above minor variance as are seven of our neighbors who uh have sent submitted letters and we are opposed because we feel that it fails to meet the test under the Ontario planning act planning act. Uh the variance is minor is not minor in nature uh because we're allowing now that 20%. The proposal does not maintain the general intended purpose of the zoning bylaw or maintain the neighborhood character. And finally, the v variance does is not desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land as it is a passing through and not a point of egress. Thank you. Um any questions from the members to Mr. and Mrs. Letti? I will get you those question answered. Um Okay. Thank you. The I'm looking um Mr. I'm looking at the the um the drawings and I see the 47 m that in the submitted drawings um can you clarify the calculation there is correct and it's yes I would like to clarify that we have multiple discussions with the committee members and with the planning staff uh we have submitted the revised drawing where it says that 48 m and that is what it is mentioned in uh uh in the report. So 48 is the correct one. 47 is basically the previous drawing. Maybe by mistake it came to you and if that is the if that is the case there's only 01 m uh difference in the drawing. So there are a couple of revisions happen uh in my report it is 48. Uh I apologize if it is 47 that is an override and there are couple of questions and raise by I'll give you a moment to respond. Just let me ask this question of the planner. Yes. Um Miss Hash Salah I have a question for you. the I'm I'm looking at the plans right now and correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm still seeing 47 on the plans that are attached to April 15th of 2026. Yeah, thank you, Madame Chair. The notice that was provided with the plans does state 0.48 and that's what we based assessed based on the notice that it was provided. Um, and with in terms of Gaz not having any comments, does that mean that they have no objection or they just haven't submitted their comments thus far? Um, I would say that given that we did provide them an opportunity to provide comments and if they don't have comments, it could mean that they have no objections. Um that's how just based on like typical practice that's usually means that they have no um objections. Um they do have a an amount of time to provide comments and if they do have any concerns they would provide those to um to the town. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Um members, do you have any questions of Mr. or Mrs. as well before I hand it over to Mr. Alahi to comment. Okay, I see none. Okay, Mr. Alahi, go ahead. Uh, thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I would like to clearly state that nobody is encroaching the neighbor's land. Whatever we are proposing is within the land of my owner. Okay. The left sideard setback is 1.51 m. Uh I would like to say one more thing is that if we go back and propose the stairs in the backyard then there's no need for us to come come to this committee and ask for the minor variance. We have explored all the options. There is a reason that why we are proposing it on the one of the side yard and uh this short of depth is basically triggering that minor variance application. So this is one point. The second point is that uh children's safety okay there is a below grade stairs and above that there is a hand rail which is a guard rail okay which prevents any grip of falling that is a standard practice it is in in the building u in the building permit application as well so there will be no problem it is as per the building code the next thing is that wheelchair access now wheelchair access if somebody is going into to the backyard. Okay, they can use either a right side yard or within the house. Since we are not encroaching any of the neighbors land as they are going now to the backyard in a wheelchair, they can easily go even if the belgade stair is over there. Right. The next point is that snow removal. There is plenty of snow accumulation space on the right side of the driveway to be accommodated as a snow removable place. Yes, on the sideyard right now if the there is a snow there is nobody over there. Somebody is cleaning it up most probably the current homeowner or the new homeowner. So if there is a snow in the side with the below grade definitely the homeowner is going to take care of it. And then there is a passageway uh this property have a right side yard okay which is 1.57 left side yard which is 1.51 m. So if there is a passageway requirement my client can easily use on the right side instead of a left side. If they wants to go to the backyard they can use their own patio door and they can use a sideyard. So it is quite wide enough even if it is a lawn mower issue they can go from the sideyard which is the right side they can go from within the house that that's not a big issue and uh backyard stairs as I said earlier that we have discussed this option with our client numerous times and we come up that if we propose that it is going to be a very clumsy kind of a basement apartment that is not going to be serving doing the purpose of uh my clients. So I believe that uh if there is a proposal that it is going to uh hinder the privacy of uh the neighbors, we are willing to accommodate a privac privacy screen which can basically uh fulfill the requirement but putting a complete uh fence over there uh I don't think so that we and my client would agree with that. And Mr. Ali, how do you plan to mitigate the whole construction seeing as though that the the the open space between you right now is not separated by any fencing or anything like that. uh madame normally this is happen that if there is a mutual sideyard and there's no fence okay the below grade stair is open okay there's no there's no division in between the two but as I said earlier that if there is a concern of a privacy on top of the guard rail we are willing to put a privacy screen so that it will not hinder that no my question is not to do with privacy my question to do is during the construction so that you don't impede their passageway on that on their side Uh madam madame during the construction they are going to be in their property it is a 1.51 m setback it is more than enough to do the construction there will be no problem over there and we have done numerous kind of constructions in the past that which is less than this sideyard sidebar I don't know with which what this comment is coming from that they are going to impede their uh property they can easily accommodate from the right side yard or they can come from the backyard or they can come from the sideyard. Yeah, but you're asking them to move to a different location and that in itself is not an acceptable argument, right? You if they choose to use that side for wheelchair access or for any other access, you cannot in any way, shape or means uh obstruct their access just because there's no fence between you. Do you get that? Like you can't just say that. No madam, we are not asking them to go to another sideyard. They are going to use their sideyard to access the backyard. You mean your client? Your client, my client. Okay. But my question is that I mean how it is impacting any other property nearby? The question is are we encroaching on their property? No, we are not encroaching anybody's property. Not even during the construction. Not even during the construction. Not even after the construction everything as for the drawing it is within our property. Okay. Well, you've heard how important that is to the neighbor. So, um yes. Uh has any does anyone else have any questions of the applicant or items of clarification? Um go ahead, Mr. Dicki. Just before you start, I I would like not to forget to read uh into record uh the people that we've received letters of opposition from. We have from uh Roberto A, Joe and Lorine Manion, Janette Ce, Mr. and Mrs. Letti who just presented, Ario and Zenada Ayala Theu and Kathleen Shapiro and Cal and Susan Trojan. Okay, go ahead, Mr. Dicki, Madam Chair. Uh, yes. Uh, who's who's calling me? Oh, go ahead, Mr. I thought someone else was calling me. I'm sorry. I'm I'm hearing voices now. Go ahead. Um, this is again some questions just to clarify maybe with the town planner with the consultant. this situation that the plans and everything in the documents show four decimal 47 m whereas the variance is asking for a 48 meter. I I just did you say there's revised plans that we haven't seen someone we have we have submitted the revised plans okay and uh in the in the letter they mentioned that please mention this 48 m we have revised the drawings and we have accepted the draft as 48 m uh maybe there is an old drawing which came in forward which is 7 m and if that is the case we are ready to fix it up. If it is required, I can send you the revised drawings. I can send the revised drawings back to the committee of adjustment. Um, uh, to the town planner, uh, have you received these re revised plans? I thought you said you hadn't received them. Do you, Madam Chair? We've, uh, not received the re revised plans that indicated 0.48. We've assessed it based on the notice that was provided with the plans. Um, and that's how the assessment was made. Okay. Thank you. Okay. But the plans show 47 is what we were saying and they've been modified as of February 7th of 2026. So, we don't have anything that says 48 is what we're saying. Madam Secretary, Treasurer, did you receive anything with that update? Madam, can I connect can I clarify one thing? Just give me a moment. Did where did you submit it? Mr. Alahi, we submitted to the committee of minor adjustment to Okay, so give me a moment then. Yes, madame secretary treasur. Did you receive revised plans from Mr. Alahi? No, we we didn't receive revised plans. We have the original plans that were sent um on I believe February 7th or around that date. Okay. So there seems to be a disconnect here. Okay. Um thank you. Can I say something? Go ahead Mr. Li. Okay. So if you look at the drawings and the site plan which is drawing number 8-01 47 m distance mentioned from the proposed walkway to the property line and 48 m distance mentioned from the below grade stairs to the property line. So I think that is maybe the confusion. Are you looking at A1 A01? Yes ma'am. A-01. If I look the left side yard.47 m distance mentioned from the proposed walkway to the property line and 48 m distance mentioned from the below grade state which is the minor variance application to the property line. I don't know. Mr. Dicki, are you seeing it? Because I'm not. No, I'm not seeing it. Okay. I I'm plain it simple, sir, to the consultant. I When we approve something, we say it's conditional upon the plan submitted. Your plans submitted do not show or show something other and and less than what you're asking for in your variant. So, right away, I would be not asking to deny that just for that reason alone. you have you would have the opportunity to ask for a deferral and correct those plans so your plans and your application coincide with each other. All right, there's my first thing right away. But I have more problems with your property. I have a problem just like the neighbor said and I went out and measured my own lawnmower and my lawnmower is 22 to 24 in wide. So, I see from my point of view that, and I don't know what other equipment you might want to pull back there, but I'm sure you're going to cut your grass. And in order to cut your grass, you have to you have to uh uh trespass on your neighbor's property. I look through your application. It doesn't say that you have an easement. And and and you folks could correct me if I'm wrong, but it you don't have an easement. This is not a mutual sideyard. This is individual sideyards and like the neighbors said they could put a fence right down to the front wall and that will mean that you they have lots they I assume they have enough room on their side. I don't want to get into that but but you will you will be uh you won't have enough room to get back there. The other thing that usually gets commented upon and didn't seem to happen this time and maybe I'll ask the town planner about this. Oftentimes the fire department comment and their concerns are if there's a fire and we have to get back in the backyard with these guys that have big tanks on them and hoses over their back and whatever else. They want a sufficient amount of room. And I don't think in my past recollection from some of their comments before that particular amount I think it's 1.7 whatever is left over there is not is not wide enough for them to get through. I think they generally look for 2 feet of width to get through. So that alone in other words I would not approve this until I heard from the fire department to say that it's okay. I don't know why they didn't comment here, but that's my opinion as to someone who hasn't commented to say what the to address the problem. So, um I don't see why you can't p put this in the backyard. Uh that would that would solve all the all the concerns of the neighbors, the concerns if there's any from the fire department, etc. So, any comments? Thank you. Adam, you would like me to answer the concerns? Yes, please go ahead. Uh Madame Dicki, uh sorry uh uh about that. As I said earlier in my presentation, the right side yard of this property is 1.57 m which is even if the windows wells they are constructed over there we have more than 3 ft 3 in of space which can easily accommodate any lawn mower going into the backyard. Plus these plans they are going to submit it to the building permit application. If any fire department they have a concern they would definitely raise at that point since we haven't received any comments from any fire department I believe that they will be in acceptance. If they will have an objection that definitely we are going to address this issue. My concern is not this that uh the lawn mower cannot go in the backyard. This property has two sideyards one on the right one on the left which is more than 1.2 2 m and we are not basically compromising any kind of a fire boot or any kind of any access to the backyard. So with respect to the design this can be either in a backyard below grade stairs or in one of the sideyard u I mean my client decided to proceed with the sideyard that's one of the reason that's why we are here with the committee backyard is very small and that's not that is not functional in our opinion. Okay thank you any other questions or comments from committee members um Mr. Letti and and and Miss M Missi, we we've heard you. We've heard everything that you've had to say. Now, it's the time for the committee to have their discussion and make their decision. So, I thank you for your submission. Um um and the planner has something to say. Go ahead, Miss Hajala. Thank you. Um just want to clarify my staff's understanding that fire has been circulated and they have provided comments. Um they don't have any concerns with the proposal um as the other side could be utilized. Okay. Thank you for that clarification so that uh Mr. Dicki's understanding of where the fire department uh stands. Okay. Um, any other questions, comments? Okay, you have your hand up so many times. It's I I just don't see what else you can add to the discussion. It's our chance now to have this discussion. Okay. Okay. Sorry. It's okay. Thank you. Um, I mean, I'll allow it. Go ahead. If you if you have something uh to say, go ahead. But they're just questions from what was presented. Um there there was some mention about April drawings. I don't think we've seen those. So you Well, we're in the same ballpark. Oh, okay. Okay. Just because we haven't received them either. And the reference I was making was to the A-06 document. So I know you were referencing a different document. I was like a 06 also shows the 0.7. That's I just wanted to say the drawing that I was citing. Um and in addition uh they mentioned a privacy screen. Yeah. No, no encroachment. Again, my mom is 100% wheelchair bound and I don't have on the other side, I only have grass. She cannot I cannot wheel her. My dad's in a walker. That's 100% non-negotiable for me. No one can encroach on our property ever type thing is my feeling. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Um we'll take the matter into Madame Secretary. Has anyone else called with interest for this application? We're showing no more hands and we've had no calls. Okay, very well. We'll take the matter into committee. 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, the building elevations, and my site visit and the neighbors concerns and also together together with the presentation by the owner's consultant and the standing the uh planning staff's report. I still feel that this is not desirable or appropriate. I do not uh I have no desire to approve something when the plans do not match the the the numbers on the plans do not match what the variance is is is saying. Uh so I put forth a motion to deny this application. Thank you Mr. Dicki. Is there a discussion on this recommendation? Go ahead, Mr. Hart Castle. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um I think um maybe I should have spoken up a little bit earlier, but I I think that there's been a bit of a miscommunication around um what the plans show and what they don't show. Um in the contested sideyard, there is an existing setback of 1.51 m and there is a dimension that indicates that 1.03 03 m will be the width of the um proposed um stairs. That leaves the 048 and as the applicant spoke to the 47 is the distance between the sidewalk and the side property line. So you can see a s proposed walkway that extends along the side of the from the from the garage, sorry, the driveway back towards the staircase. And it is actually a little bit um wider than the actual wall for the um uh staircase to the basement. So I don't believe that the numbers are inconsistent here. Um, so I would like to highlight that in terms of just reading the um, uh, the drawings. At least that's the way I see them and I believe that's what the applicant was attempting to say uh, in their commentary. In terms of obtaining access to the rear yard, I believe that maintenance and other requirements can be achieved through the opposite sideyard. It is not uncommon within uh modern homes to provide one sideyard that is greater than the other sideyard and provided that u lawnmowers and other equipment can be brought in. I don't believe that that um that that with the opposite side yard providing the 1.57 meters notwithstanding the encroachments of the uh window wells um that it continues to be functional and I don't believe I have seen anything within the materials that are provided or spoken to that spoke to the encroachment of any um works into the neighbors yards. I do hear the concerns of the neighbors. They are it is a substandard sideyard but I do believe that any requirements can be provided on the applicant side in terms of encroachment or or sorry in terms of fencing or screening and I don't believe that there has been any proposal here to put any works into the yard of the abuing property owner. Um, I believe that that there is a very limited amount of space here to accommodate for uh drainage, but without having heard anything from our engineering folks, I would rely on on their knowledge and understanding that drainage would be appropriately addressed as part of the permitting process. So based upon our review of the the setbacks, I do not have uh uh I do not share the same concerns as um as uh Mr. Dicki does with respect to this and I I won't be supporting the motion on the floor. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Hartle. Anyone else? Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Tosski. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um I I tend to read the drawings the same way um Mr. Hardcastle, although it's unfortunate that it is confusing and it's gotten through to this point. Um if the committee were to find favor with this, I think that confusion can be rectified by changing the condition to um have uh instruction of accordance with site plan elevations the satisfaction of the director of planning that you can require clarity be put into the drawings. Um w with respect to the application itself u I I acknowledge eight letters of opposition um I think seven of them for the most part speak to not wanting basement apartments and not to the variance. I I do acknowledge that the um the neighbors here tonight have spoken very clearly and thoroughly about the actual variance in front of us. Uh I think um I think we can't lose sight of we're dealing with 12 cm 4.7 in as the variance. Um, I'm not convinced the there's going to be any greater impact or lesser impact to neighbors if the stairs are in the rear yard versus the sideyard. The traffic still is going to go down that sideyard. Similarly, we've not had any concerns from fire. Fire when they have a concern, they have written specific comments. uh they have also written some comments in the past generally saying as long as one side has access that they're satisfied and I think in this case there is the potential for the access for not only fire but the lawnmowers um to come on the other side. So I madam chair I'm I'm I'm not convinced that there is a significant impact being created by allowing just a 4.7 in variance in this matter. It doesn't change the permitted use of the property. There will be access stairs in some nature with traffic down sideyard. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. So, the motion before us is to deny all those in support. Okay. All those opposed. Okay. And the chair abstains. The um motion to deny has failed. Who would like to offer an alternative motion? Go ahead, Mr. Towski. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I'm going to move that this application be approved as applied for, finding that it does meet the four Teslas planning act. A minor variance in this sideyard access is still provided. There is no encroachment being suggested on the neighboring property. As I stated, it's unfortunate the confusion in the plans, but I if the application were to be denied, you wouldn't need a deferral. I don't believe it's worth deferring or 01 meter clarification. So, Madam Chair, I would make the move approval of the application with two conditions. one that the uncovered stairs be constructed in general accordance with the site plan and elevation drawings. I'm sorry. Um in accordance with revised site plan and elevation drawings to the satisfaction of the director of planning and development and that the approval expires in two years if a building permit has not been issued. And I chair I would again note the opposition. I think previously spoke to those matters. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Taski. So, the motion uh to approve, all those in support. Okay. All those opposed. Okay. And the chair abstains. So, the mo um the application has been approved. Thank you very much. Okay. Have a good evening. Have a good evening. Thank you. Good evening. Okay. Application 056 of 2026 at 392 Lakeshore Road. Again, that's application 56 2026 at 392 Lakeshore Road West. And I have Alexander Merritt as the agent. Go ahead, Mr. Merritt. Uh, good evening, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Alex Merritt with Stonehore Residential Design and I am acting as the agent of the owners of 392 Lakes Shore Road West. Um, we are requesting a single variance tonight to permit an accessory building height of 6.71 meters where 4.0 meters is permitted. Um, the proposed accessory building maintains the intent of the zoning bylaw. It does not create overlook or massing concerns and the building is appropriately set back from all lot lines. Um, planning staff have has reviewed the application uh and confirmed that it satisfies the four tests under the planning act and have noted that no adverse impacts are anticipated and that the proposal is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. We feel that the intent of the official plan is maintained through the appropriate sighting of generous rear yard separation and the architectural consistency with the existing dwelling. Um, it's in our view that the v variance is minor in nature inappropriate for the intended uh intended for the use of the property. Um, I'd be happy to answer any questions. Hey, thank you, Mr. Mayer. Any questions of Mr. Merritt or items of clarification? Did you have your hand up, Mr. Dicki? Yeah, go ahead. Um, just to clarify, you said there's no overlook, but I see three uh dormer windows. So, I realize that there's no window dormer window looking north, but there's a dormer window looking east. And to me, that would be overlook. Am I reading this wrong? Um, through you, Madam Chair. Uh, thank you for the question, uh, Council Member Dicki. Um, the overlook that you're referring to facing the east side faces a very large undeveloped property. Um, it's not overlooking anyone's, um, use of that property. Currently, um, the closest overlook it would have would be, I think, the adjacent Pebble Ridge development, which is about 170 or so feet away. Um the overlook in our opinion doesn't actually have any impact on the neighbors as we see it. Well, if um the property behind you develops like the property of Peber Pebble Ridge does, then there will be overlook. Now, I know that's that's not pie in the sky, but I mean that could could it could happen. It might not happen for for decades and decades. My concern is if you get rid of that back dormer then you don't have over. But let me just back up a little bit there on that before I go into before I finish that. My real concern, not real concern, my question would be maybe to yourself or to the town planner, could this be used as an accessory residential unit? Um through you, Madam Chair. Uh, in regards to your question, we don't have any intention of that. There's no plumbing, um, no kitchen, no bedrooms. The second story level is intended to be storage. Uh, it's a loft level with with, um, sloped ceilings. The intention is for storage of seasonal furniture, tools, uh, maintenance equipment, uh, materials that kind of support the upkeep of a large property. Um, keeping these in a dedicated structure in our opinion is cleaner, safer, and more appropriate than storing them in the house or outdoors. There's a bathroom on the ground floor. You said there's no plumbing. Am I looking am I again reading something wrong? There's plumbing there. Pardon me. There's no plumbing for kitchen. It's that that bathroom is intended to serve the backyard with uh a potential uh future pool. Okay. Plain and simple. I don't have a problem with what you're saying as long as it's used for storage. I have a problem with the rear window overlooking the east side if if there's a potential for it to be an accessory residential unit. That That's it. And I and I realize what you're saying. It isn't intended to that for that, but I did notice that there there's a twocar garage at the house, the main house. It's a brand new house. It's a perfect, don't get me wrong, it's perfect for a res an accessory residential. Don't don't get me wrong there. And I have no problem with that except that window. Well, I think I'll I'll I'll keep my motion closed there. I made my point. That's it. Thank you. Okay. Any other comments or questions, items of clarification? Has anyone called with interest for this application? Madam Secretary Treasurer, we've had no calls and no hands in the audience. Okay. Very well. Let's take a motion. Go ahead and start cast. Thank you, Madame Chair. Um having undertaken my site visit and having reviewed the materials um including the written staff report having heard the presentation and the conversation here I am satisfied that the requested v variance conforms to the four tests of the act I think that uh that uh uh that the impacts will be minimal particularly in in lie of the proposed use of the building and limitations and additional processes. that would be required if there were to be some future conversion of the building. So, I'm going to put forward a motion of approval. I'll find um um finding that the the um proposed conformance of the four testes of the act. Um that motion will be subject to two conditions that those being that the uh accessory structure be constructed in general coordinance with the submitted site plan dated December 3rd 2025 and the elevation drawings dated December 3rd 2025 um and that the approval expire was within two years of the date of the decision if a building permit has not been issued. Thank you Mr. Hark. Is there discussion on this recommendation? I see none. All those in support. Okay. And the application has been approved. None opposed. Thank you. Good evening. Have a good evening. Okay. Um application 57 of 2026 at 246 Albian Avenue. Again, that's application 057 of 220 2026 at 246 Albian Avenue. I have me Mr. David Kurthers as the agent. Go ahead. Good evening. Uh, Madam Chairman and members of the committee. My name is David Kthers from Kthers and Associates of 505 York Boulevard in Hamilton, Ontario. And I'm here as the agent on behalf of the owners to ask for approval under subsection 45 of the planning act for the two variances as outlined in the consolidated report. I've read through the planning staff report which includes the following. The planning staff's no objection to the development. The no objections from the region or other outside agencies. I've also read through development engineering's condition that a site all permit will be required. I've also read the the letter of opposition from the neighbor and would just like to clarify and answer um the neighbor's question as follows. Um the neighbor is is worried about how close the two dwellings will be once construction, but our main house uh is actually located uh further away from the property than the the current house is. We are proposing a sideyard setback of 4.79 in this area and the the 3.31 setback is actually just for the small portion of the exit stairs. So we still have over 10 ft from the edge of the uh let's call it the basement walk upstairs to the side of the property. Um and I believe at least 32 feet between the two buildings if there was any fire concerns. And again, this is just based on uh the irregular uh shape of the lot, how it comes down at a at a triangle at the back. And we did our our best to to accommodate the majority of uh the project. As part of our application, I have provided a justification report outlining our ideas and reasoning uh behind our variance requests, and I'll just touch on them as follows. Um, do the variances meet the four testing and and intent and purpose of the the zoning bylaw? Um, the minor variances will help facilitate a new custom home project that is consistent and compatible with the existing community built form character. The majority of the development was carefully designed to stay within the parameters of the zoning bylaw, including lot coverage, gross floor area, height, and house setbacks. The variances requested today, in our opinion, represent a minor departure for what is currently permitted, and there is no combination of any other variances that will result in the overbuilding on this subject property. Variance one, the we're asking for a garage area of 75.04 square meters where a maximum of 56 m is required. Met squared is required. The zoning intent of limiting the garage area is to prevent the garage from vis visually dominating the dwelling facade with multiple garage doors. In our case, there is only one standard double car garage door from the street and the third space is in tandem. So there will be no impact on driveway width or the streetscape. The additional internal space will be used for internal household storage that is appropriate for the development and also maintains the intent of the bylaw. It is our opinion that there'll be uh no negative impacts on the adjacent properties due to this requested variance and therefore in our opinion is minor in nature. U this variance to the proposed uh encroachment of the access stairs below grade is 89 m into the sideyard where a maximum of zero is permitted. The intent of uh regulating projections and encroachments of below grade access stairs is to allow for proper drainage and not to restrict access and to allow for adequate landscaping and open space. In our case, the below grade access stairs located in the sideyard project to further than 089 meters than the maximum requirement. Numerically, this number might not seem minor in nature, but taking into account the regular side property line and a large side yard setback of 3.31 m, there is more than adequate space for drainage, landscaping, and open space along the side of the property. It is our opinion that there will be no negative impacts on the adjacent properties due to this requested variance, and in our opinion, it is minor in nature. So in conclusion, as described above, the we believe the the requested variances will allow for reinvestment to occur on the subject lands in a manner that is compatible and in keeping with the current streetscape of the neighborhood. We believe that the application is minor nature and appropriate for the development of the lands and maintains the the general intent and purpose of the official plan and zoning bylaw. my opinion that these variances satisfy the four tests of section 451 of the planning act and represent good design. Thank you very much and I'm happy to answer any questions. Okay, any questions or items of clarification on Mr. Prothers at this time? Yeah, I see none. Has anyone called with interest for this application? Madam Secretary, Treasurer. Yes, we have one hand showing. One moment. It is Yan. Um, I'll move them into the meeting. One moment. Can you speak up, Ian? You have to unmute yourself. Yeah. Can you hear me now? Yes. Go ahead. Sorry. Thank you. Good evening. Yeah, we are the immediate labor of the project. So we submit our concern before and we we we we get the feedback just now from de m David. Uh so we are just still concerned about the uh limited space between the d the two divings after the new project. So because we have a very crowd and community in our street, we all have a big space between the greenings. So it uh I'm not sure if if the new project processed. So maybe it's not the same space like the other other community other other houses. So maybe I'm not sure. I I I think it's not a good good choice. So it maybe make me my the the the market price of my house decreased. So I I know. Okay. Uh I I gave some supplement uh because uh our English is not good. Uh we have uh write a written uh objection. Uh we got your objection letter. We did. We received it. Now uh I give an addition. Uh uh we are really uh worried about this space. Uh our my my swimming pool the machine is uh on the side neighbor to the the proposed uh uh building. Uh in summer evening uh night uh the pump machine is quite loud. Uh if if the the new building uh open entrance on this side, uh I really worry about uh when the new neighbor uh move in, they will have some uh some loud problem. If if further uh narrow the the space that's uh this the new addition I think of uh that's all. Okay. Um I think Mr. Kther's already answered that but I'll let him comment about the spacing again between the two homes. through you, Madam Chair. If I can have the um just the survey pulled up so I can just uh show explain to them with a visual what we're doing. Yeah. Town staff will bring it up for you. Thank you. It should be the um those might be the house plans. Is there um a survey? Should be a survey attached. No. there. If you wouldn't mind zooming in on the stair location on the right side of the house. Just zoom in maybe just a little little more if that would be great. Just Yeah, a bit more. Okay. Uh, and just down a little bit. No, the other way. A little bit more there. Okay. So, yep, that's great. Thank you very much. As you can see, the light gray line on the right hand side represents the the location of the current house. Uh, you'll see a number 91.09. 09 and then there's a light gray with some hatching that kind of comes down the side. That's the existing house location as it sits right now. So the house the side of the house is much further back. It's at least a meter even further back. So the majority of this development is further back and than the existing house. The area that we're discussing the variance tonight is the hinge point at the 3.31 meters. It's at the corner of the stairs. So, it's not on the entire entirety of the property. It's just at this small location. And then you can see the lot line feathers out and at the bottom of the stairs it's 4.15 where the the the distance is um like we're actually providing 4.9 at that location. So there they're I understand the concerns from the neighbor, but I would say that our proposal uh from a house location is a is a gives them from a neighbor they were concerned about the the value of their home and from from a neighborhood perspective. We're actually improving the sideyard setback along the entire set of the property, just not at the the one location is what we're asking for the minor variance at the corner of the stairs. And even at that corner of the stairs, there's still 10 ft between the stairs and the fence and 32 feet from your edge of your house to those stairs. I hope that explains it. And if there's any other further questions, I'm happy to answer. Okay, thank you Mr. Kthers. Okay, so we've clarified that, right? Like it's 4.9 m and only that small portion is 3.31 m. So now you understand the difference. Any other questions or items of clarification of the applicant before we take the matter into committee? Okay, I see none. All right. Who would like to move a motion? Go ahead, Miss Price. Taking into consideration the reports by the agent and staff and the one letter of opposition, I find the proposed application to be minor in nature and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the official plan and zoning bylaw and desirable for the appropriate development of the land. The proposed development maintains and protects the character of the existing neighborhood and does not present unex unacceptable adverse impacts. In conclusion, I believe the four tests have been met and I recommend the application be approved subject to the following conditions. the dwelling be constructed in general accordance with the submitted site grading and servicing plan dated March 6, 2026 and elevation drawings dated March 2nd, 2026 and that the approval expires 2 years from the date of the decision if the building permit has not been issued for the proposed construction. Thank you, Miss Price. Is there discussion on this recommendation? I see none. All those in support. Okay, the application has been approved. None opposed. Okay, have a good night. Thank you. Um, application 061 of 2026, uh, 21 Pebble Ridge Place. Again, that's application 061 of 2026 at 21 Pebble Ridge Place. We have a letter of support from a Matthew Aino and we have a letter of opposition from an Adel Alali. And we have Mr. Darren Danger, sorry, Danner Darren Sander Smith. I apologize for that. No problem. My tongue got the best of me. It's late. I understand. Uh, good evening, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Darren Sanger Smith at Structured Creations. I'm the agent for Frank and Pam Appa, 21 Pebble Ridge. I'm here before you to seek relief on four very minor variances. Um, I'll go through them very quickly for you. The first two relate to a large long uh narrow window well that we are proposing along the east side. The property is taken up on the uh or sorry on the west side. The property is taken up on the east side in the rear by patios and a um reverse grade driveway. So the majority of the living space space in the basement is taken up along the west side. So we have accommodated some very large windows to let some natural light down into those spaces. And as such um instead of having a series of long or very short 6 foot or 1.8 m uh maximum window wells along that wall, we amalgamated it into one long window well which requires a variance due to uh its overall length uh and obviously being greater than the 1.8 m. Uh with that variance, we've also attached a variance for depth in that and that's really just to allow some access due to the size of the windows and the operating of those windows for access out. Uh the second variance is for a set of stairs that encroaches into the sideyard setback. Um due to the nature of the property and it's quite consistent along the back of the property on the two adjacent uh uh properties, uh there's quite a a high terrace at the back and and therefore we need some stairs that are going to uh take us down into the uh below grade and then this particular stairs takes us down into a belowra storage room that we're using for seasonal storage, pool equipment and such. Um the final variance is for um the positioning of the front yard setback. Um we are going for a setback um and have pushed the building back. Uh we feel partly to align with the house immediately to the west, but also because of the pieshaped lot, we didn't want to squeeze the narrowness of the property at the very front in conjunction with the reverse great driveway and the easement. it made sense to us to push the property, widen the face of the building to give it a little bit more presence like the remaining houses in the neighborhood and as such required a variance. Might be noted that these four variances um were all part of the initial variance application that we had back in November. Unfortunately, they were not caught by the planner at the time, but were picked up by the building department as we were going through the building permit process. We have had all of the approvals with the region. We've had all the approvals with conservation. We've had our development engineering approvals to deal with grading and drainage and no one has any issues with the encroachments of the stairs and the in the uh the window wells. Um so I feel that these are minor in nature. Um and look to your uh assistance if you have any questions. I'm open to any commentary. Thank you very much. Great. Thank you, Mr. Sanders Smith. Uh, who has questions or items of clarification? Yeah, I see none. Has anyone called with interest for this application? M Secretary Treasurer, we have had no calls and no hands showing in the audience. Okay, very well. Who would like to move a motion? Go ahead, Mr. Dicki. Thank you, Madam Chair. Based on my review of the owner's application, the site plans, the building elevations, my site visit together with the presentation by the owner's consultant and the stand the planning staff's report. I am satisfied that the variances are minor in nature and conform to the four tests of the planning act. And I put forth a motion that the application is applied for be approved subject to the conditions that um subject to condition that the dwelling be constructed in general accordance with the submitted site plan dated March 11th, 2026 and the elevation drawings dated March 5th, 2026 and The and the approval expires two years from the date of the decision if a building per permit has not been issued for the proposed construction. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Dicki. Is there discussion on this recommendation? See none. All those in support. Okay. The application has been approved. None opposed. Thank you very much. Have a great evening. Have a good evening. Okay. Uh we have minutes to confirm for April the 1st. Thank you, Miss Price. And motion to adjourn. Thank you, Mr. Hercastle. We are adjourned at 9:06.

Full Transcript