Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the City of Richmond Hill's Committee of Adjustment Meeting on this 27th day of August 2026. At 7:00, I'd like to call the meeting to order and let me begin by reading our land acknowledgement statement. We are gathering on the lands that have been home to First Nations people from time immemorial. We acknowledge that what we now call Richmond Hill is on the treaty lands and territory of the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nations and the Mississauga and Chippewa nations of the Williams Treaty. We also recognize that we are on part of the traditional territories of the Huron-Wendat and the Huron-Wendat. We would also like to acknowledge all First Nations, Inuit, and Métis people from across North America, also known as Turtle Island, who now reside in the City of Richmond Hill. We are committed to rebuilding constructive and cooperative relationships. I would ask for the reading of the preamble, please. >> Good evening. In the event of an emergency, please exit this room. Outside of the double doors are two stairwell exits. The one on the right exits to the south side of the building, and the one on the far side of the elevators exits to the main lobby. Do not use the elevators or return to the building until directed. We ask all committee members, city staff, and members of the audience to please silence your cell phones. The Committee of Adjustment for the City of Richmond Hill has been appointed by Council to consider applications for minor variances and consent within the within the jurisdiction of the Planning Act. The chair will call the applicant to the podium to present their application, and will allow members of the public to comment. When members of the public approach the podium, please do so one person at a time. Please note the public deputation form beside the podium. Please clearly write your name and email address, and indicate on the form if you wish to be added to the notification list for the application you are speaking for. State your full name and address to the committee before speaking. When speaking, please address all comments through the chair. Once the committee makes a decision on an application, no further discussion is allowed inside Council Chambers. No one other than the applicant, the municipality, certain public bodies, and the minister will be allowed to appeal municipal decisions to the tribunal within 20 days of the making of the decision. All appeals and associated fees must be filed directly with the secretary-treasurer in accordance with the Planning Act. Thank you. >> Thank you. Our secretary-treasurer this evening is Courtney Collum. Assisting her is Aliya Timothy and from our planning department we have Melissa Giardinapapa. Do we have any conflicts of interest from our members this evening? No conflicts. Do we have any requests for adjournments or withdrawals? >> Through the chair, there are none. >> Thank you. In that case, I would like to call our first application 32 Richmond Street. That's MV-26-0018. Um staff is requesting a refusal. Please come to the counter and um state your name and address for the record and before you proceed, I'd just like to make a comment. >> My name is Mason. My name is last name is Sanglota. Owner of 32 Richmond Street is Echo. >> Okay. Thank you. Um before we get going on your presentation, um I do note that the municipality is requesting that this committee refuse this application this evening. Um the members have reviewed all the documentation and the letters of opposition. I would also like to point out that two departments, the engineering department as well as the parks department, are recommending that this committee defer this application. Uh so from my perspective, it's a non-starter. I'm not going to be able to support this application this evening until the issues with development engineering and parks are resolved. So your options would be a deferral or you can proceed and present um but I'm not sure that you'll get uh a desired outcome. So it's your choice. We can defer this application until the end of the year or sooner and I can leave it up to my members to decide whether there are any fees for that deferral. What would you like to do, sir? >> In this case, I will defer. >> Okay. Uh to the members, if I could have a motion for a deferral. Member Gosi. >> For you, Mr. Chair. I'm sorry, just need to go to the right page. Apologies. For you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to make a request to defer application MV-26-0018 at 32 Richmond. >> Uh with or without costs? >> Uh with uh costs at 25%. >> Okay. Moved by member Gosi, seconded by member Kalbas. All in favor. All in favor. Deferred, sir. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Our next application on tonight's agenda is located at 158 Garden Avenue. Request for approval from staff file CN-26-0009. Please state your name and address for the record, sir. >> Uh good evening. Uh it's Glenn Rubinoff from Rubinoff Design Group. I'm the agent for the owners. Uh 2 St. Clair Avenue West, Toronto, Ontario. >> Thank you. Please proceed. >> Uh this is an application for a lot severance. Um it's a through street um that uh uh between Garden and uh and uh Sorry. Um >> Winchester >> And we didn't Sorry, Winchester. And uh the the the proposal is to sever it through the middle, so it would be two lots. Um it's a you know, just from the if you're looking at the uh the map on the street, you can see most of the properties have uh a property on on each street. So, it's a pretty I think it's a fairly straightforward application. We have no associated minor variances related to the building itself. It's just simply the the the application for severance. Thank you. >> Thank you. Is there anyone from our audience that would like to speak to this application this evening? If so, please come forward. I see none. Is there any other further comments from our planning department? >> Through you, Mr. Chair, I have no comments. >> Okay, no comments from planning. And our members, any comments, questions, concerns? I see none. In that case, I would request a motion. Member Calvas. >> Uh good evening to you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to make a motion to approve application CN-26-0009 located 158 Garden Avenue, subject to the terms and conditions in the city staff report. >> Moved by member Calvas, seconded by member Gosse. All in favor? >> Unanimous approval, sir. >> Thank you. Our next application this evening is located at 36 Fergus Avenue. Request for approval file number CN-26-0005. It's you again. We know who you are now. Okay. Uh thank you. Good evening. This is an application for a uh uh a lot severance. It's a 50-ft lot. Um and my the request is to sever the lot into uh two uh two smaller lots. Um we have one which is at uh um Sorry, let me just pull up the variances. Uh they're slightly different sizes because we have a right-of-way and we worked with city uh planning to make sure that the side yards meet the requirements to minimize impact on adjacent properties. And there's a large right-of-way on the one side, so we made an adjustment to the two lots in order to uh work the plans out in such a way that it's compatible um in the in the uh in the way in which it was uh oriented. So, the left frontage on the um uh on the part unit B is uh 7.17 m frontage. Uh and the left frontage on uh on unit uh A would be the uh uh this 8.07 m 26 ft 26 and 1/2 ft. Um so, you know, we've there's several variances, but they are um you know, well, they are repeated through the old bylaw and the new bylaw. But, certainly the the it is compatible if you look at the area maps. You can see that there's several lots of of of you know, of that front edge of that of that um with um and some granted through the committee and some preexisting the bylaw. So, it it is a street with a variety of lot frontages. Um and uh we feel that uh working with staff, we were able to come up with a proposal that that uh meets the four tests of the Planning Act. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh I believe we're dealing with all three applications this evening. I don't think I mentioned MV-26-0014, MV-26-0015, I believe. So, we're dealing with all three of those applications. Correct? >> That's correct. >> Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone in our audience that would like to speak to these applications? If so, please come forward. I see none. Do we have any additional comments from our planning department? >> Through you, Mr. Chair, I have no comments. >> Thank you. And our members? Any comments? Yes, Member Payne, please proceed. >> Uh I'd like to bring the committee's attention to the letter from Ann and Casey Balon, which provide um additional information that was not really uh shown in the report that we received. Um I live generally in that area. I'm quite aware that Lake Wilcox was originally um a a holiday spot with lots of little tiny cottages. And so, this area in particular has lots of little tiny properties mixed in with some rather large properties. And as uh Mr. and Mrs. Ballance point out, there are a number of these um legal non-conforming properties in the area, and this is one of them. Um I think my main question is, why sever a property this small? Why not just build one house on the property if you want to redevelop it? >> Um thank you. Thank you for your question. Um >> Through you, Mr. Chair. Sorry. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. The the my clients looked at this property for quite some time and considered different options, but this you know, they looked at the realities of their of of what they wanted for themselves, but also affordability. We're not doing a lot of larger homes these days. We're finding people are just finding it's beginning to be with the cost of construction, with the uh with with the demand, I would say, for uh smaller homes. Um There it is a mix in the area, and I agree there there there are a variety of um uh different types of homes. I think that they just they did they didn't want the big house. They wanted to be able to live in one and and sell the other, and um and be able to stay in the neighborhood, and I think that's one of the reasons why we're here today. >> Okay. Thank you. Anything else? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Um through you to uh planning staff, we've had arguments in in uh a couple of the applications coming before us tonight about how uh proposed development is altering the fabric of the neighborhood. And I look at this and I'm thinking you're taking what was uh a non-conforming tiny property and making it even smaller. And I I I don't see how that is uh compatible with the neighborhood or improving the neighborhood. Um, I understand the need for affordability. You could build a semi-detached home on there. You could build a duplex on there. You could build another form of housing that does not require severance that way. And honestly, I had trouble finding a parking space on the street because there's so little uh space between driveways. So, I I I have trouble thinking how this can can can be um a good idea. >> Okay. Um >> Um, I'm not really asking you a question. I but uh did they consider um alternative types of housing that would give them what they're looking for but also pay attention to really what the official plan has in mind for this neighborhood? >> Well, we did have several discussions with the planning department about this about the the severance and we went back and forth several times and made adjustments to the plans so that they you know, were were something that would be functional and and attractive and but but also um adjacent to the property. Um, there is a variety of different lot sizes on the street. I understand um you know, there's there's some thoughts that get severed that are much wider and they create um you know, two two smaller but larger lots. But this was something that um the adjacent homes um across the road um uh there's there's there's this pattern on North Lake Road um on on on Moraine, there's just there's a variety of uh of of um of smaller homes that um I don't think it takes um um it it the patterns that that are that are on the street, I don't think it's disrupts the patterns. Um they've got a large lot next to them, but they've also got some very small lots next to them on the other side. Um and across the road, the same thing. Um you know, it is a kind of a a dead-end street here. Um but they but like I said, we we did uh consult with planning before we move forward with it with the intention to you know, to make sure that we were not coming into coming with an application that wouldn't be viewed in a positive way. So. >> Uh >> Sure, go ahead. >> Through you, Mr. Chair. >> Um >> Are you familiar with this letter uh dated August 26th from Anne and Casey Balon? >> Yes, I I I did have a read of it. >> So, if I could bring your attention to the fact that it's talking about how smaller lots of 25 ft and 30 ft frontage existed in the area when the Wilcox Lake community was part of Township of Whitchurch, County of York. Uh grandfathered into the Richmond Hill official plan. And then going down to the next paragraph, no new 25-ft frontage lots have been created by severance. Um So, this severance that you're proposing will create a parcel of 23.52 ft frontage, which is smaller even than the existing legal non-conforming 25-ft frontage lots, which are there because they were there before. >> Okay. There There There have been some um um some severances done. They're They're They're not all pre-existing. Um >> Well, if I could ask the planning representative, um is that statement correct? No new 25-ft frontage lots have been created by severance in that area? >> Through you, Mr. Chair, to member Payne. Um I don't have that information available, um but can be provided after the meeting. >> Mhm. >> Thank you. >> Anything else, member Payne? >> No, I can't support this >> Okay. >> application. >> Thank you. Any other questions, comments, concerns from our other members? Yes. >> Thank you. Thank you. Through you, Mr. Chair, just a couple questions to the applicant. Um I myself don't find myself in opposition to the consent itself. I think it's um as you can see on the map, it's reasonable within the fabric of the lots, whether they were legal non-conforming in past or recently severed through this committee. Um and I do I do have a question about the other variances that you're requesting, uh more specifically related to the um front yard setback, the interior side yards and the porch height which exceeds 4.5 m encroaching 2 m into the required frontyard setback. Do you have some further slides on this or could you please comment on those variances? >> Thank you. The we did have a discussion with planning about about some adjustments. Um I believe we adjusted uh we removed one of the variances with this application. Uh I know that we adjusted the side yard setback to accommodate for some concerns that were raised. Um Um but a lot of it had to do the reason for the lot it's a 50-ft lot. It's not a it wasn't a 45-ft lot. A 50-ft lot one is slightly larger than the other because we're trying to accommodate it with having two similar sized homes. But there's a large right of way on one side. So we shifted it over just to allow for that right of way to obviously not to not to not to impact on that. Um but it resulted in a narrow side yard for the B house. Um frontyard um uh setback um there was um there was the porch height. That was the one I think. Was that you're talking about the cuz there was a a variance and we did make adjustments to they wanted to have a look but it's just it's just an enclosed or sorry not enclosed it's just a it's a covered porch but it's not an enclosure. Um but it was just related to uh the the the the the style of the home. But there was no, um, uh, um, it wasn't meant to, um, you know, overwhelm the street in any way. Um, the houses are set where they are, um, uh, and they have porches. Uh, I believe the porches were part of the part of the reason for the the variance. Um, and the porches, uh, extend out, um, uh, uh, well, 4 ft. So, it's a 4-ft porch. It's not a not a large porch, but I know that because it's covered, it it it was part of the setback, um, calculation. >> Okay, thank you. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Any other questions, comments, concerns? >> I just have a few, uh, comments to make. Uh, I would agree that there does appear to be a a mix of lot frontages in the area, um, and I would echo member Calbas's comments with respect to the fabric. Um, I don't particularly see an issue with that. I like your, uh, elevations. They they look appealing. Um, so, I'm sure the neighborhood to the community would like, uh, the look of of of the elevations on there. Of, uh, of note uh, is that both bylaws 256-88 and bylaw 93-25 are both asking for 15-m lot frontage, and you're requesting almost half of that lot frontage, and staff in every respect have indicated that they're satisfied with your applications as presented. So, those are my comments. If there isn't anything else, I would ask for a motion, please. Member Calabasas. >> Thank you to you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to make a motion for three applications numbered CN-26-0005, MV-26-0014, MV-26-0015 located at 36 Fergus Avenue, subject to the terms and conditions in the city staff reports. >> Be approved? >> Yes, be approved. >> Moved by member Calabasas, seconded by member Ghassemi. All in favor? Three opposed? One opposed. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. The next application on our agenda, located at 520 North Lake Road, application MV-26-0020, request from staff for approval. >> Yeah, I can >> Please state your name and address for the record. >> Yeah. Good evening. My name is Okay. My name is Aiping He and I I'm the owner of 520 North Lake Lane. And because my English is limited, so my husband will answer the question. Is that okay? >> My name is Yunfeng Liu, the husband of Aiping He. Yeah. The same address is 520 North Lake Lane. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. Would you like to present the application or do you would you like us just to proceed? >> Uh we we >> It's a It's a pretty simple uh uh a single-family house or which is a demolition older house. And So, uh we design a regular-size house. It's something like 2,000 sq ft house. It's modern and for our family living. So, we mostly the apply cuz the the land is quite a small. It's uh We cannot do anything, but we mostly the trying to like follow the the zoning by bylaw 93-35. And so, that's our design idea. Like we planning like this. All right. Okay. >> Okay. Is that everything? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Um >> You may have a seat. >> Okay. >> Is there anyone from our audience that would like to speak to this application? I see none. Do we have any additional comments from our planning department? >> Through you, Mr. Chair, I have no comments. >> No comments. And our members, any questions, comments, concerns? Yes, please proceed. >> Through you, Mr. Chair, to the Katie applicant. Um So, when did this lady purchase this property? >> Yeah. >> How long ago? >> Uh half years ago. >> Sorry? >> Half year Half years ago, is that right? It's We bought the property half year, almost half year. >> So, 6 months ago. >> Uh >> It's 3 years >> For April. >> April to >> April 21. >> 5 6 months or so. >> Yeah. >> So, you purchased this property. You saw the size of the property. >> Yeah. >> Uh presumably you got familiar with the bylaw requirements. And so, my question is why not design a house that adheres to the bylaws of the cities that you're uh hoping to live in um rather than submitting 17 variances >> Oh. >> to to achieve perhaps what what is your dream, but >> I >> That's why we have bylaw. >> Oh. This is this land. If follow the bylaw, it's even cannot build a like uh uh >> Then you need a bigger property, perhaps. >> Oh, this is uh cuz uh >> People in Richmond Hill I I thought anyway. >> Yeah, yeah. This is the financially even it's hard to say like we can buy a Yeah, we got to buy a million dollar land and build another nice house, but it's hard. Really hard. >> As a member of this >> Yeah. >> I find it troubling when people just assume >> Yeah. >> you know, you can you can buy a property in Richmond Hill and then and then you get a variance and you build right up to the extreme limits and there go the trees. There go the green grass. There goes the things that I don't know, I thought people valued. Anyway, I'm I'm >> Yeah, in our case that we really want a not too big big a house, just a livable house and a new house in our case. So, we trying to find a small lot. It's really hard cuz even normal size, like we say 50 by 120 lot in Richmond Hill, costs really a big amount. So, we bought this house. Oh, we we feel so lucky and we still can find a small lot to build a small tiny house comfortable for for ourself. That's what we thinking. And we do like when we buy the lot, we do know that the neighborhood house size it's like we are acceptable. Mostly like sub-2000 square foot house. And we thinking properties but mostly city can accept us to build a like similar size house. And that's why we we buy the lot. And even >> Okay. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Any other comments, questions, concerns? Yes, member Collings. >> Thank you. Through you, Mr. Chair, just wanted note um I mean the regular shape of the lot, I'm sure, has made development of this land very tricky and um through the official plan, city council has designated this to be a residential neighborhood. So, I'm quite pleased to see that you're coming forward and filling in the the plans. Uh obviously, your house is in comparison to the lot, it may seem like it's larger, but I see that you're trying to orient it towards um kind of the shape of the the diamond of the lot. So, I think that you're you're trying to uh mimic the the kind of the the streetscape of of the neighborhood. Uh so, with that said, uh although you're uh asking for some variances, I do think that they are reflective of the uh specific site that we're looking at here tonight. >> Thank you. Any other questions, comments? Uh um no. Okay, my only comment is under bylaw 9325, you're asking for seven variances. However, the first two variances are really a matter of record. This is a lot of record. Uh so, we're dealing with existing conditions and configurations. So, I just wanted to point that out. I don't have any >> Oh. >> concerns. Uh in that case, I would ask for a motion, please. Member Gassi. >> Through you, uh Through you, Mr. Chair. I would like to make a motion of approval for item 4.4 on today's agenda, Committee of Adjustments file 26-014, file MV-26-0020, 520 North Lake Road, subject to terms and conditions in the staff report. >> Moved by Member Gassi, seconded by Member Kalbous. All in favor? Three in favor, opposed? One opposed. Member >> You're approved. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. Have a good evening. The next item on the agenda, which I believe is the final item, located at 178 Mill Street. This is a request from staff to be refused, file numbers CN-26-0012, file MV-26-0024, and MV-26-00 25. Good evening. Please proceed. >> Good evening, uh Mr. Chair, members of the committee, staff, and the members of the public. Mr. Chair, uh before you to this evening, we have an application uh for severance with two associated variances uh split the property evenly down the middle. The property has a width of 21.4 m and the frontages, of course, are going to be a 50/50 split. Before I go out further, Mr. Chair, you do have three variances before you per each lot, one for lot frontage, and then you have two associated variances for the accessory structures at the rear. In discussions and upon review of the staff report, Mr. Chair, the owner would like to disregard or eliminate the two variances for the accessory structures. Leaving only before this committee tonight the variances for lot frontage. So, I just just want to start with that. So, I will not be speaking to the merits of the the two variances associated with the accessory structures. And Mr. Chair, I have provided your secretary treasurer with a PowerPoint presentation that I would like to commence with. My first statement, Mr. Chair, before I get into the PowerPoint is the application before you does signify one major issue, and that is a positive in that with the exception of the minor variance for lot frontage, every other development standard will be fully complied with for the proposed construction of the two new single detached dwellings. And I might also add, Mr. Chair, the lot area provisions, they in this instance, they are almost two and a half times the size of the minimum bylaw requirement. So, that's that's the other facet that I would like for this committee to to consider as I am presenting. Um Mr. Chair, in order to determine the the viability, the appropriateness of what we have before you, which is a reduction in lot frontage from 15 m down to 10.7, there are a number of facets that one has to look at. And the first one Courtney, if you can go to my lot fabric. Oh, I yeah, sorry. Uh Mr. Chair, oh no, you just passed it. So, Mr. Chair, one of the things that we did um and I wish it was a little bit uh larger for you guys to be able to see. Uh we've we've provided a lot area and lot frontage fa- fabric ex- uh summary. And what you will notice, and I will concentrate my efforts given what I said about the lot area, I will concentrate my efforts on the lot frontage. And so, Mr. Chair, as you heard from the previous applicant, one of the things noticeable, and you can look at that, and this is just a segment, and and and I did take a segment that is most representative relative to the subject lands. You could see the variety of the lot frontages. In this instance, Mr. Chair, the variety is very notable. It ranges from a low of 8 m up to 24 m. And you could see my legend to give you an idea. And Mr. Chair, I must add one dominant issue about the lot frontage. There is not one category that dominates this neighborhood. And I also want to hone in, and you could see it by the color, it's a light green, Mr. Chair, that directly abuts the subject lands to the east, and that is um Lawnwood Crescent. And Mr. Chair, you could see there are total about I think seven lots existing today directly abutting the subject lands that have frontages of 8 m to 11 m. So, Mr. Chair, I point that out because I keep hearing from staff about this word precedent. And member Payne brought up about precedent in the previous application. Mr. Chair, I don't think you need to concern yourself about precedents based on what we're requesting. The lot fabric in this area is there already. As part of that lot fabric, you have existing lots that are less in frontage than the subject property is proposing. So, those lots, Mr. Chair, combine to define what is the character of the area. So, that's what you have to consider, Mr. Chair, in terms of any precedents when you when you're evaluating the application before you. So, you've got an existing set of lots that are less in terms of what we're being asking tonight for the subject lands. The other perspective, Mr. Chair, is you got to look at the streetscape perspective. And that's what you evaluate lot frontage. Can the frontages that we're proposing coexist in a harmonious manner with the surrounding lot fabric? And Mr. Chair, I would like to depict that in an effort to answer you that question. So, yeah, can you please go to the streetscape perspective? It's later on. Keep going. Near It's near the end. No, keep going. These are all that staff put in there. Okay. So, that's the one. Can you bring it up, please? So, Mr. Chair, um that this is a depiction of what the streetscape is going to look like. And this is my second component in evaluating the request before you tonight. What I'm showing you is the subject lands with the proposed two single-detached dwellings. This is obviously facing Mill Street. And to the right is at the existing property at 184 and to the left at 172. So, Mr. Chair, my second point of evaluation, other than the lot fabric, is the streetscape. Can what you see in front of you, is that representative to say that the proposal before you with the two single-detached proposed coexist in a harmonious manner with the surrounding lot fabric? My answer is yes. It can. And I'm trying to demonstrate that to for your benefit and for your review. Um so, that's my second one. The third one, Mr. Chair, and uh Ella, can you just keep going? Is the Keep going. It's I want I want to show about the letters of support. And these are just um And I'll come back to this one, but um keep going. So, there. No, you got No, bring it down. Bring it down. Now, I just want to show uh the uh one more down. Go Yeah, yeah. Go backwards. Sorry. Right there. So, Mr. Chair, the owner went through the neighborhood. And what this map shows you is the location of the approximately 15 letters of support that the committee members, I believe, have already had in their possession. And I want to just point out one aspect of these letters of support, Mr. Chair. And just to just to put some perspective on it, I went through the frontages of these because I wanted to determine in my own mind, are these letters of support for from neighbors hoping that if the committee approves this tonight, they can come back and and do the same thing. Or is this a representation of good planning? So, Mr. Chair, what I did is and I don't have that here, but I can I can advise you, out of the 15, 75% of those frontages are between 15 m to 20 m. So, that means if if these people are signing up in order to come back, they're going to have a very challenging time trying to duplicate what we are trying to do in the subject lands. So, these letters of support, in my opinion, Mr. Chair, are genuine and that they feel, and I sorry for being so repetitive, they feel that the proposal in front of you would create a scenario that can coexist in a harmonious manner with the surrounding lot fabric. Um and then I don't know if you keep going. Then another important aspect, and it's it's referenced in the staff report, Mr. Chair, uh this committee is very much aware of the village core design guidelines. And and the staff is so consistent and so persistent when it comes to any form of development within the village core, that you have to go through and analyze and reanalyze these numerous design urban design related uh guidelines. And what I'm showing you, Mr. Chair, is we did that. We did that. And what you have in front of you is our summary to show you how we've complied with those standards. So, that's that's another explanation in there. Um So, if you can go back, and I want to raise this based on member Payne's comment on the previous application. Can you you know, go up? It's uh right there. So, this is a depiction, Mr. Chair. So, what I what we've done is on the left-hand side, we showed you what you could do if you build one house in compliance with the development standards. That's on the left side. And in my opinion, Mr. Chair, there are you know, you yes, you could do that. Of course, you can do that. But, I'm talking about again, harmony and how you could fit in. If you go to the right, that's what we have before you. And in my opinion, Mr. Chair, that depiction on the right is a more optimal use of the property. It does create uh a smaller, obviously, dwellings that in my opinion would be in keeping in a more optimal fashion with the surrounding lot fabric. Um And so, there's another uh if Can you go back? Uh just my final one. So, Mr. Chair, the owner in this case uh explored a number of uh options to to develop the property. And these are are the four options. And again, at the end, Mr. Chair, uh the option that was most optimal from a harmonious aspect to the surrounding character is what you have before you. Is the even divide of the split for two new single detached dwellings that are in full compliance with the development standards of Bylaw 9325 and including the the elimination of the two accessory structure variances this evening. Mr. Chair, those those are my comments and I will be glad to answer any questions. Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much. Well done. Thank you. Is there anyone from our audience that would like to speak to this application? If so, please come forward, state your name and address for the record, sir. Thank you. >> I'm going to try to get this all in in 5 minutes. Apologize if I go quickly through it. Good evening, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Paolo Volpe. I'm a homeowner at 165 Richmond right here in the Village Core. I'm here tonight because I believe this committee has an important decision to make, not simply about two houses, but about but what we are going to allow the Village Core to become. Let me be very clear from the beginning. I'm not against development. I'm not against responsible intensification. What I'm against is development that slowly, application by application, destroys the very character that makes this community special. We have to ask ourselves a simple question. At what point do we stop? Because if we continue allowing every application to push the boundary a little further, eventually there's no boundary left. I've stood before this city committee before when I spoke about 169 Richmond Street. That application was approved, approximately 12,000 square feet and four townhouses on an irregular lot about 54 feet wide with more than 20 mature trees removed and ultimately the loss of the entire tree canopy on that property. At that at the time I stood here because I was deeply concerned about what the decision would mean for the Village Core and tonight I'm standing here again. But this time I'm asking the committee to look at the the picture. Because what we are discussing on Mill Street is simply is not simply whether two houses can physically fit on a piece of land. The city's own planning staff have told you what is wrong with this proposal. The proposed lots would have 10.37 m of frontage compared to the existing 15. The Village Core Neighborhood Design Guidelines recommend a minimum of 12. And perhaps more most importantly, the city's own review found that there are no lots with frontages below 15 m along the immediate section of Mill Street. So, this is not just a number on a planning document. It is a fundamental change to the established pattern to the street. Planning staff has said these lots would be the smallest frontage on the section of Mill Street. That the differences would be visibly discernable and that they could erode and destabilize the character of the area. And I agree. And heritage and urban design staff have also recommended denial because these proposed frontages are inconsistent with the established Village Core streetscape. We should listen to that because once we destroy the character of a neighborhood, we don't get it back. The Village Core is not special because of one house. It is special because the relationship between the homes, the width of the lots, the setbacks, the mature trees, the landscaping, the open space, and the streetscape. That is what creates its identity. And I have to tell you something that concerns me deeply. Over the last year, I've watched more and more people sell their homes in Village Core. These are people who invested in the community, raised families here, built relationships here, and believed that the Village Core was something worth preserving. And I hear the same frustration. It doesn't feel like a village anymore. That should concern all of us. Because we keep hearing one word used to just to justify more and more. Density, density, density. Density at what cost? At what point does density become more important than the character of the community? At what point do we stop asking how many houses can we put on a property and start asking what kind of neighborhood are we leaving behind for the future? Because if every lot gets smaller, every building gets larger, mature trees disappear, and every variance pushes us further away from the established pattern, eventually we will wake up and realize that the village core we were supposed to protect is gone. And tonight you have the opportunity to prevent that. This proposal asks you to approve two lots that do not reflect the established lotting pattern of this portion of Mill Street. It requires significant variances. The proposed garages would increase from a permitted 40 square meters to 58.75. There's also outstanding concerns regarding the shared driveway and boundary trees. This is not one small variance. It's a series of departures that together change the character of the property and the street. So, I'm asking you respectfully, but very passionately, please do not look at this application in isolation. Look at what happens when decisions accumulate. 169 Richmond Street was one decision. Tonight is another. And the next application will point to the decisions that become before it. That is how precedent is created. One exception becomes another exception, and eventually that what was once considered exceptional now becomes the normal. This is how the village disappears. Chair and members of the committee, you have the authority to draw the line tonight. Let's make a decision that is not simply about how much we can build. Let's make a decision about what is worth protecting. I respectfully ask you to refuse the proposed consent and associated minor variances. Please protect the established character of Mill Street. Please protect the village core. And please remember the decisions that you make tonight will shape this community looks like for generations. I want to leave you with this. A community is not destroyed in one decision. It is surrendered one decision at a time. Tonight you have a choice. You can approve another exception and allow boundary to move again. Or you can say enough is enough. Let's protect what remains of Village core because once the village is gone, no amount of planning can bring it back. And I want to say this respectfully. I know that Susan Payne said before on the previous application she doesn't understand and it frustrates her and how people can come into Richmond Hill and you know, just maximize the lot size. But I want to remind you it's the three of you that approve everything that goes through. Susan Payne is the only one that actually stands up and tries to protect the core in my opinion and I want to say that respectfully. My second point is I know the gentleman before me talked about you know, the 8-meter frontage at Lawn Court to try to say that oh, those are you know, small uh uh small um widths. You can't you can't compare Lawn Court which is in a cul-de-sac and hidden. Nobody sees that. That's already a mess to begin with. That's why they're small lots. You can't dab you've already damaged Richmond Hill. Why why take a chance with with Mill Street? Um And the other point about how 15 people on the property. I'll give you an example. 169 Richmond Street, the guy was so nice. He brought all these gifts and he said I'd love a letter support. I was naive. I said here. I said to my wife write a quick letter. We support it and not till I found out all the ramifications that he was building 12,000 square feet in a townhouse that I came and I started fighting. I built a website. I had over 300 people from the community that wanted to decline. You passed it. So my point is why don't you it's it's very different when a homeowner goes door-to-door and ask you of course you're going to say yes, I approve it. You guys should do a survey on Mill Street independently and see how many people approve to have those two small lots on the property. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. Is there anyone else from our audience that would like to speak to this application? >> I'm here. >> Please state your name and address for the record. >> Uh resident Ashi on behalf of my parents at 178 Mill Street. >> Okay. >> Mr. Chair, members of the committee, thanks for your time this evening. My name is Reza. I'm licensed engineer, construction manager with 20 years experience in large-scale design-build projects, hospitals, stadiums, courthouses, you name it. But tonight I want to speak to you as a son, not as a professional. My mom and dad are there, Abby and Faye. They've been the owners of 178 Mill Street for the last 10 years. They're also small business owners. There's They have a small business on Young Street called Dadashi Art Gallery. You might have seen it. It's a black sign, gold letters, just south of Major Mac. The intention with this uh severance is for my sister, who's there with her family, to live on the adjacent lot. And these are the kinds of multi-generational communities that we encourage with communities and counselors across the province on our projects. My dad's 68, my mom's 66, and they're at their, you know, I'd say they're over the retirement age. We're trying to get them to retire. We're working on that. And uh they're at a stage in their life where they want to be close to a hospital. Mackenzie Health is down the road from them. They can't build one giant house. They're not They're also not new to the community. They've been running a business, paying taxes, and being neighbors for over 12 years. What's telling about their community involvement is the amazing support we've received from their neighbors. It's been awesome, and they're not made up letters. It's not how it works. We got a few people who didn't want us to support it, and we respected it. These are the people in the immediate If you go to the If you're able to show the letters of support, they're in the immediate area on Mill Street. And those are the folks that want my parents to stay. What we're asking for tonight from you all is a home that works for them for their next phase of life in the community that they want to stay in. Thanks very much. >> Thank you. Is there anyone else from our audience that would like to speak to this application? I see no more. Uh yeah yes, sir. >> May I speak to that comment? >> Um Be be quick, please. Yes, come on. >> I was just going to say I want to respect their needs, but at the end of the day it's like the the previous person that said I wanted to to build a house so that I can afford, you know, you to live in the area. >> Um But when does affordability, like affordability cannot become a justification for ignoring everything around it? If we're only looking at individual needs, look at the bigger community. >> Thank you. >> Okay, I don't think there are any other comments from our audience. Um oh, okay. Any additional comments from our planning department? >> Through you, Mr. Chair, I have no comments. >> Thank you. And our members, comments, questions, concerns? >> Uh through you, the chair, if I may interrupt before you proceed to committee comments. >> Yes. >> I do want to point out that in accordance with our rules of practice and procedure, rule 6.4, the committee will not consider amendments to an application during the meeting in which the application is being considered. >> Uh are you referring to >> The removal of the variances. >> The removal of all the variances? >> Noted by the agent, yes. >> Okay. So so we are not to consider those comments that >> You are not to consider. You consider the application as it was presented to you. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh having said that, are are you aware, sir, of what what our secretary-treasurer just noted? >> I am, Mr. Chair, and that's fine. You've You've heard our opinion about those two variances, but obviously we would have to follow in accordance with the procedures. >> Okay, thank you. We're going to hear from our other members, and and then we can discuss moving forward. Yes, any other questions, comments? Yes. Member Gotham, please proceed. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to make a comment. Uh the gentleman wearing the black t-shirt, um it's an interesting position to sit here and be selected by by the city council to ask to adjudicate all these files and to review all of this information. This week's this week's agenda, just to give you an idea, I had to review 146 pages, okay? And just to let you know how much I care about this, right? I'm compensated $150. I read 146 pages. So, I just want to let you know that I'm a resident of Richmond Hill, too, right? I came to the high school here. Um I live in the community. I've been living here for, you know, 17 years. It's very challenging to be able to balance the needs of the homeowner versus the needs of the community. And sometimes those clash quite violently, as you can imagine, right? Um all of us take on this responsibility very seriously. And there's reasons why we make decisions. Often times, the public may not be completely aware of that because they're representing one side of the equation, right? Where, you know, in my particular case, I can speak and I'm sure it's like this for our uh um for the other committee members. We're always trying to come up with the most amicable solution, right? We want everybody to be happy if possible. Sometimes that can't happen, right? So, that being said, I'll just make my comment on this on this application. Um I think it was a very well-presented application. Uh I can clearly see that you've done a lot of analysis to try and present to us what you feel um is in your opinion the best choice for this property. Um you even showed us that you've considered some alternative configurations of the lot, right? Uh which is fantastic. Thank you for doing that. I think that's very helpful. The challenge that I'm having with that is the reason why you're doing that all of those different types of configurations, you know, and and trying to analyze those permutations is because fundamentally you're trying to put two properties, or sorry, two houses on two different properties that are too small. And you're trying to figure out a way to do that in such a way that it'll be amicable to the committee and to the city. Unfortunately, I can't support this application because I just think it fundamentally, right, is not minor in nature. You do meet, you know, a you know, all of one, you know, of the conditions uh set forth by the city for the city core. Uh but one of the most important ones is is the one that you're missing, right? So, whether or not you're removing some variances from this application, so even if we were to defer it so that you could remove those variances and come back to the committee, I still wouldn't support the application. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any other questions, comments, concerns from our members, other members? Member Payne, any comments? >> I'd like to thank Mr. Volpe for his presentation. I'd also like to thank the applicant for your presentation. Um I have to say that uh I believe in defending and looking after the guidelines city has laid out for special areas of the city and this is a special area and it's got special requirements. And uh I can't support this application. >> Thank you. Any comments from member Caldas? Thank you. >> Thank you. Through you, Mr. Chair. I'll be brief. I just want to note that we often have applications in front of this committee um and there is a large outpouring of descendants or lack of support for applications and uh in those cases we often have our hands tied. There are no neighborhood design guidelines for many areas of the city of Richmond Hill. In this case, there is a Village Core Neighborhood Design Guideline that stands firmly on the lot frontage and the city staff have recommended to refuse this application on that basis. Uh so although I uh thank the applicant and the owners of the of the property to to come forward with the application, I I will be voting with the um the direction of city staff. >> Thank you. Um okay. I I have a couple of comments. Uh uh one one to the applicant uh if you don't mind uh coming forward and I I um recognize that engineering had a concern with respect to the driveways that were going between these dwellings and I know you mentioned uh some possible changes, but have you have you looked into it addressing the concerns of the engineering department with respect to driveway access and >> Uh Mr. Chair, it's my understanding that this came directly to the applicant and owner and I believe that he's already satisfactorily addressed it um with uh engineering's acknowledgement. That's my understanding. >> Okay. Thank you for that. Um My other comments would that you seem to have support from the community. Um you've demonstrated with respect to the streetscape that you can make this development uh fit into the community harmoniously. I think you did did a good job with the elevations. Uh and particularly if you look at the roof lines, you've tried to grab from the house on either side and bring those features into your elevations. So, I do believe they can fit in in terms of uh the streetscape. Um and where I run into a bit of a problem is is when we see an application, for example, such as 36 Fergus, which was item 4.3, uh 15-m property that the applicant is looking to divide in half and requesting a variance for frontage of a 15-m lot to 7.99 m and 7.1 m, which is almost half. And that parent bylaw is asking for 15-m frontages. And this particular application that that you've presented, the bylaw is also 15 m, uh both bylaws. And you're asking for 10.37 and 10.37, which is quite a bit larger than 8 m. Um so, I I can't sit here on a technical basis and say that these are our small lots if I were to draw any kind of comparison to a 15-m zoned lot in Old Bridget that they're asking for 8 m and 7 m and getting approved by staff on every count. They yet this application um is telling us to um to refuse it. So, I don't particularly have a problem with this application. Uh however, you do have the other members that are not in favor of it. Um so, you're going to have to deal with that outcome. Anyway, having said that, if I could get a motion from our members. Member Gossin. >> Through you, Mr. Chair. Uh I would like to make a motion to refuse item 4.5 on today's agenda, Committee of Adjustment, file number 26 015, application number CN 26 0012 MV-26-0024, MV-26-0025 at 178 Mill Street. >> Thank you. That's a motion to deny the application, uh seconded by Member Payne. All in favor? Opposed? Thank you, sir. All right. Um I I think they're >> Sir, might I just say one last thing? >> Very good. >> I brought my daughter here just so you know, she could see and how if you believe in something, you should fight for it. Um but I also am man enough I wanted to apologize for that comment. It was off the cuff. It wasn't part of it. I was shaking when I said it. I shouldn't have disrespected you three. Yeah. you it's tough for you guys. I guess I look at 169 Richmond Street and every day like it's an empty parking lot. >> Yeah, we we will remember that. >> Thank you, sir. >> Thank you, sir. >> Have a good evening. >> Oh, and there's there's four of us. One of us is missing, so >> Yeah. >> we'll just let him know when he gets back. >> Thank you. >> Thanks. Thank you. >> We'll wait for new business. >> Uh you ready to hear new business? >> Uh >> Everyone ready? >> Sure. >> Um through the chair, we do have a new business item, a request for a refund for consent applications CN 260014 and CN 260015 for 491 Elgin Mills Road. Uh you we have provided you the correspondence from the applicant. >> Correct. Yes. >> The city has recommended a 75% refund for each of those two applications based on the work completed, which included intake, preliminary zoning review, and planning review. >> Okay. >> And the applicant does not agree with this assessment and would like the committee to hear uh what they feel they should be refunded, which I believe is 100%. >> Okay. Did Uh want to come forward and state your case? I think we do have your uh letter and summary. >> Yeah, great. Uh good evening. So, my name is Marco Rotondo. I'm the agent for the owner for the subject property. Uh so, I won't belabor it. Like I think the letter we sent in was pretty detailed. Um so, I I've taken you guys have read that. But yeah, essentially we're just asking for what we feel is fair here. We were told, you know, we asked for directions from the city because a lot of the times we don't know, so we ask for procedure. How do we go forward? We're happy to continue doing business with the city. We are told exactly and I've provided the emails of how we should proceed. And then only after intake and what was mentioned here, they just turned around and went, "No, actually we only need to submit one application and the other two don't need to come for another couple of years minimum. Um, so I mean I I think you know, if they had told us right off the you know, when we don't know, we ask and if the city had told us, "No, you just need to do one and the remaining two will come during construction, during the foundation stage." We said, "No problem." We would have made that one application and I wouldn't be here today. >> Right. >> Um, so for us to get penalized by 25% which is over $3,000 in this case because we're doing exactly what we were told by the city. Don't think that's fair. We've already poured or my client's already poured a significant amount of money into the zoning bylaw amendment which has been over a year and a half we've been working on that and we plan to continue doing business. It's not the first time he's done developments in Richmond Hill. We want to continue doing business. We think this is very reasonable to ask for our money back. It wasn't our mistake. So I'll kind of I'll leave it there. If there's any questions. >> Yep. Thank you. I understand that. I got to Yeah, I do have a couple questions for you. So I understand it was a pre-consultation meeting with staff, correct? >> Uh, so there was a pre-consultation meeting over a year and a half ago for the zoning bylaw amendment. >> Correct. Was there a fee for that? >> Uh, there I believe Uh, that's a good question. I don't I actually don't recall. It was a year and a half ago. I don't recall if there was a fee for the >> Okay. My understanding of pre-consultation meetings there is a fee anyway, so >> I'm sure there is, yeah. >> I paid a fee for the pre-con. >> Any fees that were due up until this point have been paid, especially with respect to the zoning bylaw amendment which was approved in June of this year. >> Okay. >> This is a separate kind of separate matter. It's like the next step after the zoning bylaw amendment was approved. >> Eventually, you're going to have to apply and you're going to have to pay full pop again for >> Eventually, yes, but once the structures are built. >> Correct. That's typically how it's done with a townhouse block or a semi-detached. You need to wait for the foundation to be in before you can determine where that lot line is. So, I I think a you know, a small error has been made in in telling you that you needed >> If I may though, not to cut you off. I apologize. Our initial email or correspondence to the city, we actually requested we asked you, "Do we proceed with a consent or would we like to proceed with >> It's all in your email. >> Which was email for the foundations. Which we asked that specifically. >> Correct. That's what I'm referring to. Everything is laid out in the emails there and it's and and and it's fairly straightforward to follow. I don't have a problem with a 100% refund. We're not talking about a lot of money and you're going to have to pay 100% of the fees in the future. >> I'd be happy to do it. >> So, mistakes happen sometimes. No one's perfect and I don't have a problem with it, but I'd like to hear from my members if they have any comments, questions, concerns. If not, then we can get a motion on on this particular applications. >> Yes, through you Mr. Chair. Um I think I I find trouble in the magnitude that you've placed on city staff to act on your behalf as planners. Uh so, I'm not sure if you have a planner on staff at at your design firm or if you had one with you at the pre-consultation meeting if you required one further on. I do believe it would be their responsibility to consult you. I don't think necessarily city staff have a responsibility to to every applicant to advise them on everything. And in my perspective, uh 25% seems reasonable for the work that the city staff had done. So, I would be voting in favor of the 25% um, for the city and 75 to refund. >> Thank you for that. And and she is true with that. The onus is always on the applicant and their planner to do their homework when it comes to this and not rely on on the advice of staff. We've seen this before, so that is Any other comments from our members before we move to a motion? Yes, member Gossen. >> Um, Mr. Derezi and Mr. Miss Calabasas, um, I think both make it very good points. I'm torn on who to support, to be honest with you. So, I'm just going to do the obvious and I'm going to say I believe we should do a 12.5% fee and refund half um, the amount back or Sorry, I think that works out to what, 87.5% refund? >> Sorry. >> Instead of the 25, he's suggesting we we we cut the >> the refund to 12.5. >> 12.5. >> Thank you for that. Um, do we have any comments? Yes. >> All right. >> Okay. Go ahead. >> When I read Courtney Cullum's response to this gentleman, she says, "Thank you for your email. Three separate consent applications would be required." She does not say when. And whether there's one now and two later, but honestly, her response is not incorrect. Three separate applications are required. >> I I would I would dispute that simply because they're proposing to build a semi-detached unit and those consents are not required to be filed until the foundations have been constructed. >> Which we offered at the initial reach out to the city in writing. >> In any case. >> Yeah. >> That that's just the way I read it. >> I understand. Thank you. Okay. Perhaps we can get a motion. Member Calabasas. >> Through you, Mr. Chair. I would like to make a motion to provide a 75% refund to the applicant. >> Motion for 75% refund to the applicant moved by member Calabasas, seconded by member Paine. All in favor. 75%. You got it. Otherwise, there's going to be a big dispute. We're going to have to do this over and over and over. Thank you. >> And minutes. >> Yes, let's um any comments on the minutes? Concerns so that we can adopt them if they're fine. If Um did did everybody receive the updated? >> Yes. >> Okay, good. >> So it would be the adoption uh of the revised minutes. >> Okay. Could I get a motion to adopt the revised minutes, please? Member Calabasas. >> Make a motion to adopt the revised minutes from the August 6th meeting. >> Thank you. Moved by member Calabasas, seconded by member Gussey. All in favor. Four in favor. Thank you. And now we will need a motion to adjourn. >> Uh through you, Mr. Chair. Just a quick note on the agenda, there's a minor error. Uh just wanted to flag it for staff on page three uh 146 of the agenda. Um kind of halfway down, there's a requirement and a variance and they line up exactly. I do believe they're not following the staff report, but the staff report does have the correct variance and requirement. >> So, the agenda needs to be corrected. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you for that. >> Noted and I will the correction will be made. >> Thank you. Otherwise, I'd like to make a motion to adjourn tonight's meeting. >> Motion to adjourn by member Calvo, seconded by member Payne. All in favor.