Okay. Over to you, Mr. Tosski. >> Wait for you to be taken out of the meeting. >> Yep. We will now hear application A1 132 2026 at 454 Rebecca and 109 Sagala Drive. Mr. Nelson as the agent. Anyone wants to speak to this application, please call 9058156095. >> Good evening, members of the committee. David Nelson, development consultant, acting on behalf of the owners of the subject property, the uh Orthodox Church of St. Peter and St. Paul. And the application before you this evening is under section 452 of the Planning Act, which is an application to permit uses within the dwelling known as 109 Sabella Drive. those uses being similar to the uses on the balance of the property that designated community use and is a place to worship. The property was purchased from the United Church u a few years ago and the uh group head met with town staff in December of 2025 at the pre-conultation meeting to u move forward with the uh use of the subject property. So we wanted to point out the four tests of 451 are not required. However, we must show conformity with official plan policies. Um, those policies have outlined uh both in my slideshow here, I think they're on slide number three, and again in the staff report and excuse me, the indication is that we have met the requirements of the official plan. The official plan does permit um the uh use of um or does permit places of worship uh of a scale less than um two um hectares in size within the low density residential designations. Um [clears throat] excuse me. the um previous owners of the property had proposed to separate the uh dwelling um at 109 Sibella from the balance of the site and and sell it off. So as a u means of achieving that they had applied for a severance application and a zoning bylaw amendment. The bylaw amendment was passed by council in March of 2021. Reszoned 109 Sabella from CU community use to RL2-0 which is a low density residential zone. The uh portion of the site zoned RL2 has subsequently been reszoned R2 under a more recent comprehensive review of low density areas south of Dundai Street. Next slide, please. I've outlined here some of the modifications uh under bylaw 2026 088 and it results in updates to requirements for sideyards, window walls, lot coverage, garage area and residential floor areas that are different than what was um applicable under the previous zoning bylaw. There are in is an introduction of height requirements based on roof slope, [snorts] new driveway setbacks, self landscaping requirements, minimum yards for additional resident uh densal units. I would point out that none of these um regulations that are in 2026 088 are applicable to the subject lance because there is a transition clause in the bylaw that specifically states that [snorts] for an existing uh building the applicable rules are found under the bylaw under which the building was constructed. So in this particular case, it's the old bylaw 1965-136, the original consolidated Oakville Township bylaw. Next slide, please. It contains the official plan policy. As I pointed out, this is the information that's also contained in the staff report. It points out that we do meet the requirements of the official plan and have therefore conformed with the uh requirement of section 452 to show that we meet the uh intention of the official plan. Next slide please. This is a slide showing the exist proposed first floor layout. Um this is a plan showing the use of existing kitchen. um and dining room and other facilities on that ground floor for multi-purpose uh rooms uh that we use for u study areas um meetings with clergy and uh members of the congregation and uh teaching facilities. Next slide please. [clears throat] Just indicates what I've stated showing the changes. Next slide please. Uh this is the second floor again showing changes uh to existing bedrooms and um other spaces on the second floor to accommodate more multi-purpose rooms for meetings etc. Next slide please. Again um showing what the changes are in multi-purpose as opposed to bedrooms. Next slide please. in our inclusion. [clears throat] Uh the alternative process to what we're doing this evening is for an application to a zoning bylaw to return the lands at 109 Sabella to a community use zone. We consider this as not necessary as we have addressed requirements that were put forward in the pre-conultation meeting in December 25. um those are indicated in the staff report and the conclusion there is that we have met those requirements. The committee of adjustment is empowered to hear applications under 6452 and this application does not state any lands but rather exercise authority already granted under the planning act. Ontario planning practice materials and tribunal decisions consistently state that a change to a legal non-conforming use may be permitted where the proposed uses are similar in nature or more compatible with surrounding uses and does not introduce adverse impacts. We've also noted through parking study that was done by Paradigm um transportation solutions that there is adequate parking on the total site. The church uses in this case are a community of young families and young professionals who would use the facilities for meeting with religious leaders for reading and religious education. We do not anticipate any adverse impacts to the community as the hours of operation at the place of worship and at 109 Sabella Drive will continue as at the present time. The building at 109 Sabella is used at the same time as the buildings at 454 Rebecca Street. We request that the committee approve our application under 452. And I've said here without conditions, but we have read the staff report and we are in um agreement with the proposed condition for a uh zoning occupancy certificate. Excuse me. That ends my presentation, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you, Mr. Nelson. Looks like we've got a case of back to the future here on this one. >> Yes. Committee members, any questions for Mr. Nelson? Mr. Dicki? >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> I actually lived in this neighborhood when I was a kid and was familiar with St. Paul Pearl's Church and um throughout the time the um minister and their his family lived in that house. When did that it seemed so Did that change? [snorts] Um, >> yes. Yes, it did. Uh, Mr. Dicki, uh, we had conversation with, um, a gentleman who was a member of that congregation. I met him on site one day in in April and he had indicated to me that early on um the ministry had indicated that preferred to live in their own dwellings and and so the this is one of the reasons that the church uh had indicated they wanted to sell off property. So the the that that building has either been occupied as by as as a residence for for the church uses, don't get me wrong, or it's been vacant. >> Correct. And it's been vacant as far as I know over the past couple of years. Uh when I was out there during the heavy snowfall, I guess it would been in February of of this uh year, I noticed that the driveway had not been plowed, nor had any of the sidewalks been shoveled. So, it was certainly vacant at that time. um looking [clears throat] through the um reports that were prepared for the resoning, I noted through the um EA that was done, they indicated in there that there were two residents in the building at that time, which is 2019. Yeah. I I just have a problem with looking at this and and looking at it as a similar use and to look at that particular building and say what was the use of the bu the building on the day that the zoning bylaw was passed. I'm I'm thinking it was it was used as a residential building for the clergy. I I get that. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying it wasn't it wasn't used for anybody else. and and even when you're mentioning about the residents, let's assume they were related to the church or whatever. But now we're turning around and we're going to you're going to turn it to a youth center and the wording of the variance is for a place of worship. Now, I don't know the definition of a place of worship and I apologize for not looking that up. Um, but I I'm just concerned by by allowing it to be used as a place of worship rather than using some other terminology, we're not opening it up to some other type of use that might be less desira. Not less desirable. I shouldn't quite say it like that. More of an impact on the neighbors. >> Comments. May I suggest instead of calling it a place of worship, uh as we know within a place of worship, there are a variety of abuses that take place and in most cases there are offices associated with the place of worship where the clergy and secretarial staff meet with congregants. And I think that is what we want to emphasize here. It's not using the um building at 109 Sibella as the actual place of worship, but using it for uses associated with the place of worship. >> Yeah, I can just jump in here, Mr. I want to be careful with your suggestion because that would uh not be in accordance with the wording of the variance. But if um perhaps I could ask Miss Buckerfield if you could weigh in on this discussion. Um I I don't want to put words in your mouth. The way I read your staff report was um far more broad than Mr. Dicki's um indicating. And and as I read it, the place of worship is a combination of all the aspects associated with it. and the staff were not looking at it specifically as this is what happened in the church proper and this is what happened in the uh mans perhaps you could enlighten us a little please >> uh through you chair uh thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to this item in reviewing this we were looking at it as the church property and how that use that whole property had been used for church uses and for the purposes of the church and that consent to sever the property had never occurred. Um and so from that perspective it seemed appropriate that that building could continue to be used for church purposes in association with that um church on the property. >> Thank you Dicki. Any follow-up question? >> Go ahead. Um, okay. I'm just putting this out for anybody's comment. Is it possible that we could put a condition? So, we approve this, but put a condition into the approval to say it could only be used for certain uses like say a youth center associated with the church or some wording like that just to limit the or offices or whatever else associated with the church. uh just to limit the the range of religious uses that it could be used for is that well I'm asking for everybody's contribution on that discussion and that idea >> I guess let me turn that question on you Mr. ridiculous because if the as staff has indicated a place of worship is um many uses um actual religious service uh residents meetings um community um activities dealing with community groups um I from my understanding Mr. Nelson, that is what they are asking for is again I don't want to put words in Miss Nelson's but instead of having a community group meet in the uh hall of the church they would meet in this building. So I'm not sure putting you know conditioning it based on what Mr. Nelson's asking for. I'm not sure what we're preventing or what you're trying to prevent. Uh I see Miss Buckerfield has her hand up. >> Uh very chair, you can let um Mr. Dicki respond to your question first or I can jump in. >> Uh >> please go ahead. I I'm just >> get wanting to get some comments to get it in my head. Yeah, please go ahead. >> Absolutely. So, I just wanted to like that a place of worship is a defined term. And so, that when we're dealing with the zoning bylaw, it's most appropriate to deal with our defined terms. Um, and just for your knowledge, under zoning bylaw 2014014, it means premises used for the practice of religion and faith-based spiritual purposes wherein people assemble for religious worship, faith-based teaching, fellowship, and community social outreach. And I also wanted to flag that the building itself lends itself to small gatherings and meetings um just a few people at a time just based on the size. So I just wanted to provide that context for you as you can explore this further. >> Great. Thank you. Your point >> that the ability wouldn't accommodate anything much more is sort of answering my concerns. Yeah. So okay, thank you very much. I I've yeah I'm satisfied. Thank you. Okay. And I think um Miss Buckerbilt's response would also address Mr. Nelson's earlier I the suggestion on tweaking the wording. It does not appear that that would be necessary because all these uses that are being discussed were covered off in the definition of a place of worship. So I I believe it the variance as worded is correct as it stands. There any other questions for Mr. Nelson? I see none. Madam Secretary, Treasurer, has anyone called in to speak to this matter? >> We did have uh Mr. Abdal Malik who called in. I'll move him into the meeting. Good evening. Can we get your name and address, please? >> Looks like you're still muted. >> 145 Sibella Drive. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. So um I I see this uh this uh uh COA requisition is very valuable and reasonable because uh uh this is really in the in the uh continuous use of uh of this place for the service of the church and uh having it available uh will be very good support especially with the limited uh limited places for say admin for for a small like say uh couple service with with the uh clergy or with the priest that will help the community and help the youth a lot here. Uh having that available will open more uh opportunity to our youth and our uh our kids to uh to have more a chance for uh to be more happy and more comfortable using the facility uh for the uh for the service. uh that eventually we need to improve the over the uh outcome of the whole service to the community to serve everybody and uh I really uh support very much the uh process here. Thank you. >> Thank you for your presentation committee members. Any questions for the delegate? Okay, I see none. Madam Secretary, Treasurer, just ask one more time if anyone else has called in. >> We've had no more calls and no hands in the audience. >> Okay. Thank you. And I'll close the discussion. Remind the committee again, this is a section 452 application. So your considerations are similarity and compatibility of use, not the four tests. But I will look for a motion on this matter. Mr. Hard Castle. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um um uh having reviewed this uh the this application, having undertaken my site visit, um having um heard the uh conversation here this evening, um I am satisfied that uh the uh requested variance is uh consistent with the historic use of the site and it will not pose uh or result in adverse impacts on the surrounding properties and neighborhood. Accordingly, I'll put forward a motion of approval subject to the condition as it's stated by staff. Uh that being that the approval expires uh 2 years the date of the decision if a zoning certificate has not been issued for the proposed use. >> Thank you, Mr. Hardcastle. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion to approve. Okay, that is unanimous. Your application has been approved. >> Thank you very much, members of the committee. >> You're welcome. Have a good evening. >> Yeah, you too. Take care. >> Just pause a minute until Miss McCuel returns to the meeting. This miss I'll hand the chair back to Okay, here we go. The unmute will just on the brick. Application 133 of 2026 at 82 First Street. Again, that's application 133 of 2026 at 82 First Street. And we have Mr. Michael Barton as the agent. I will recognize that we have eight letters of objection, four of whom have uh made requests to speak to the committee. And those objection letters were from uh Miss Claudia Fullerton, Jacqueline Rice Wu, and Yin Woo. and Jstone of the Lakeside Residents Association, Miss Anita McKay, Jerry and Megan Denome, Mark and Vanessa Bar, Bruce and Penny Grierson, and Shelby Walker, and Lindsay Sparks. Okay, Miss Barton, Mr. Barton, go ahead. >> All right, thank you very much. Um, so yes, my name is Michael Barton. I'm the agent uh for the applicant. I provided this presentation um but it's uh I more wanted to have some visuals primarily to have available to discuss. I've read the comments from staff and uh from the eight objection letters that were provided. Um so just a couple of notes sort of as I get in uh to the presentation that I wanted to point out. So, first first off being um there's been quite a bit of work that's been done leading up to this point. The owners uh and I'll get into a little more detail, but the owners did uh meet on site with the heritage advisory committee uh took in uh the the comments they received there, revised the the plans and came up with a proposal that was considered to be uh relatively acceptable to the committee. and heritage staff had advised that their concerns from that perspective have been addressed. Um, some of the considerations to be discussed here when I get into the actual variance is the the lot itself is 25.91 m wide and there's a threshold when it comes to sideyard setbacks of 25 m. So in that case, you would have a different set of standards. The sideyards that would be require be required would actually be 1.8 8 m as opposed to 2.4. Um, if this lot was just 92 cm narrower. Um, so again, it's key because the the sideyards are directly tied to the width of the lot. And then in this case too, as as I'll discuss a bit more, the roof has been designed uh to look like a sloped roof from all sides from public realm from neighboring properties, but is technically a a semiflat roof. So again the standard becomes 9 m versus 10 m. So if we could go if we see here on the presentation we see the context map uh showing the property we are in the first and second uh heritage district uh but the the lot or the house itself is non-contributing. Um so again it is able to be removed. Uh again this next figure shows uh the the lot highlighted in its context of neighboring properties. Um, if we could go to the next slide, we'll see this is the a street view of the the current house that is is on the property, the one that would be removed. And just one moment here. So, as I mentioned, uh, the property is currently occupied. We see the dwelling there. This has a low density residential designation in the first and second street heritage conservation district uh and it's zoned uh it's under the new zoning and I believe it will be the first property in this area to be considered under the new bylaw. So it has the R3 zoning with the SP12. It was previously the RL3 uh with SP12. So the new zoning actually came into place while the proposal was being uh revised uh based on comments received from the heritage committee. So on the next slide um we could see the the side by side. So on the left side is the current zoning mapping if you the interactive mapping if you go on showing the previous zoning and then on the right is extract from uh the the new bylaw showing the change to the R3 zoning. If we go to the next slide please. Again in terms of this surrounding context. Uh same what I would say as a relative neighborhood is the lowdensity residential really the heritage conservation district and the R3 special provision 12 zoning. Um when we look at the neighbor context we can see that it's characterized by variable lots in terms of frontage depths areas and configurations. So that comes into play when we look at uh setbacks. For example, under the new zoning, the setback is based on an average of zoning. So in this case, the properties that are to the north and south have different setbacks. So then when we average that is where we end up with a situation uh where the uh the setback doesn't necessarily make mean that it's going to be consistent when you're walking along the street front. If we go to the next slide. So again, just in terms of moving through uh some of the dwellings that are in this neighborhood, uh the one that's to the south, 72 First Street, so we'll really get a sense, and I'm sure the committee's walked the neighborhood, but a sense of the variety of housing uh types, styles, and sizes that are in this neighborhood. So 72 First Street to the south. If we move to the next uh page, we'll see 88 First Street. So again, this property is immediately to the north. It's actually oriented so that it has the front uh entrance facing towards the subject property with its side elevation towards First Street. On the next page as one of the properties across the street, 77 First Street and then on the next page, 81 First Street. So these are the two uh immediately across the street from the property. Uh on the next page, we can we start seeing sort of this wider neighborhood that's on the street and in the in the conservation district. So 21st Street uh here. Then the next page is 31st Street. Again, seeing that that two that full twotory character and and that you know, we'll see the variability in size and character as we move along. Uh 37 First Street. Uh then next is 40 First Street. Then we move to 45 First Street. So again, these are some examples of what's in the neighborhood. Again, we we did see 88 uh the smaller one with a unique orientation. So again, in terms of an idea that there is a consistent built form, type or size in in this neighborhood. I think it's clear that we see a variety if we're strictly speaking about scale and of of dwellings in the neighborhood. So the proposal is to remove the existing dwelling and construct a new twostory. There's been a lot of attention given to how to make that sensitive with the the built form character of the conservation district. Again, the applicant met on site with the uh the heritage committee on April 27th and made a number of revisions based on that meeting. As part of the proposal, there is an existing utility box that's located um sort of to this southeast corner of the property. So the the proposed driveway has been oriented. If we go to the next page, you'll see on the site plan, uh the driveway has been moved to that side of the property. And you can see at the bottom right corner where it juts out. That's to avoid the utility box and then also to provide um again to maintain a number of those trees that are in the front yard there today and the trees that are along the north property line. So, I know that north property line uh has come up uh some questions about the trees that are there. The applicant has had their arborist review uh the trees along the property line and would be willing to provide uh as as a condition uh the arborist report showing how those trees could be preserved and protected as uh as part of the development. So, if we go to the next page, we'll start seeing the elevations. Um these were in the package that were provided. Um but again if we just move through these. So moving to the next page as well uh we could see uh the front rear and side elevations the character of uh again really have see how that roof has slopes down that the flat roof component being towards the central section. So you really do need to look at a roof plan to understand where the flat uh sections are. Um if we just keep moving along we'll see more of the architectural elevations. Um again these are provided in the package. Uh so the next page the variances again we've we've seen them before us so they really speak to height uh front yard the interior sideyards and then the aggregate of the sideyards floor area ratio and lot coverage. So if I go to the next page it's speaking to the height we're we're asking for 88 cm while above what's allowed. So 9.88. Again I've mentioned this already. were were designed as a semiflat roof, but from all perspectives, if you're on the street looking at the house, this is going to be looking like a sloped roof. So, in that case, a 10 m height would be permitted as of right. There's a limited number of windows as we saw on the elevations on the north and south side. That's to help mitigate uh privacy and overlook to the neighboring properties. uh the second story is really incorporated into the roof line and that helps to bring down the overall massing uh of the dwelling. If we move to the next slide in terms of the front yard again this is really triggered by the averaging of the of the two lots. So again they're quite variable. So then you end up with a requirement of 13.28. Um, in this case though, 10.97, you know, in my opinion, relatively consistent with what we're seeing in the neighborhood and we're also able to provide the required amount of landscaping. Uh, the next slide is the interior. So, this is a key three here. So, the this is where I mentioned the if we were moving to a a lot that was 24.99 m wide versus 25.91, the standard would be 1.8 m. Uh so that northerly sideyard would actually comply and the southerntherly sideyard would only be over by uh 31. Uh and then the aggregate also changes within that. So it in terms of uh that consideration the intent is that as the narrower the lot gets the smaller the sideyards can be. So uh the the the engineer for the owner has also reviewed the drainage and confirmed that uh the sideyards provide would provide appropriate drainage and we could provide that as part of a condition of approval. Normally we'd be providing that uh as part of this this the the application that follows. Um on the next slide just in terms of floor area and lot coverage um the floor area one this is this was introduced through the new bylaw. So prior to the new bylaw coming in, floor error ratio was not a a regulation. So again, just in terms of one of the comments I read uh and one of the neighbors spoke to the idea that they live across the street and this will look like a very large house. Um floor area ratio is directly tied to the lot area and if this was a deeper lot, you could have the same house and the floor area ratio would go down and you wouldn't know notice any difference from the street. So it really is a while it is a metric of of density on the property in terms of whether the floor area ratio alone means that the house uh doesn't fit in with the neighborhood or or doesn't meet the character. My opinion is that's not the case. I think when we look at um uh the fact that landscaping is being met uh that we're we're you know all the other considerations and then I mentioned a lot coverage as well. Um, yes, we are asking for 44 square meters more than permitted, but that includes the uh front and rear covered porches that are both one-story in height and they have minimal contribution at that one-story height to the overall scale and massing of the dwelling. So, I believe if you take the rear covered porch off, it would actually then the lot coverage would comply. Um, again, we've we there's been a number of design elements meant to help incorporate that second story height and massing into the roof line and to really bring that overall massing down. And then on the final page, I provided my opinion uh and gone through it in my in my report, but I think I've really hit the key points that the four tests are met. Um, you know, the highlights being that the house has really been designed with the intent of fitting in with the existing neighborhood character. I think a key element the two key elements are really the heritage aspects and then and then the scale of the house and I think u when you consider the the neighborhoods in its entirety um that that's met um each of the regulations in my opinion that the m the purpose and tenant are maintained especially when you consider um you know some of the elements I've mentioned about the size the width of the lot and flat roof versus sloped roof um again they're my opinion that they are minor and desirable they're going to allow for uh redevelopment of this property. The owner really taking efforts to not only try and design a house that fits in from the zoning perspective as much as possible, but also the heritage perspective. And I think that's that that's shown in the in the response that we received back. So with that, I think I' I'd welcome questions or clarification on uh on my presentation uh from the committee. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Wharton. Um, you you spoke about the uh engineer for the owner and I'm I'm just wondering staff made a comment that you are subject to the development engineering permit application but you haven't started it. Care to comment why because they seem to be adamant that that would have helped your case somehow. >> Well, typically it would be one we experience anyways it's normally condition of approval. going to be handling that after we go through the minor variance process. Um again we we had reviewed it with the engineer and the fact that this lot um is you know in a case if it was 25 m we would be able to have 1.8 m sideyards uh and then you'd have you know in that case that's considered wide enough to to be able to accommodate drainage. So the intent was that that process would be handled because we also have to do a heritage permit as well um as part of this. So it, you know, sort of handling those permits subsequent to the minor variance process. >> Okay. Thank you. Any comments or questions or items of clarification of Mr. Barton? >> Mr. Towski, go ahead. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. I I guess I'm surprised um in the face of complete neighborhood opposition and what I would say very well articulated staff report and opposition that you've chosen to proceed tonight. Um but that is your prerogative. Your presentation concerned me in that I heard a lot of ifs. if we went with a peaked roof, if the lot was deeper, if the lot was narrower, but none of these are the case. You have a lot of a certain size that it would appear that you're trying to overbuild. And when I look at the neighborhood, I see it characterized by significant separation between dwellings, larger setbacks, and you're trying to do the opposite is bring the dwelling closer to the street, make it taller, make it closer to the neighbor. um essentially put the neighbor to the north in a hole with both a reduced front yard setback and a reduced sideyard setback on a lot that requires larger setbacks. So I please help me understand how this is in any way desirable and I understand that your comments about heritage approval but heritage approval as you well know is not zoning approval and that's correct. I think um I guess just to start with that point last what I would say is typically my expectation would be if Heritage hadn't been consulted or if Heritage was not satisfied that would immediately strike this down as well. So it's simply pointing out that the you know the level of effort that was given to that exercise in in coming up with with a design. Um and again looking at this from the perspective of what it is a minor variance application. So we're looking at it not from the perspective of of conformity. It's it's it's the intent and purpose. So when I speak to uh for example the if we had a peak roof, what what I'm getting at is that um the purpose and intent of the zoning is that a peaked roof can be higher than a flat roof. Um when this dwelling looks like a peaked roof even though from a zoning perspective it's a flat roof. That's what I'm getting at. It's the purpose and intent of the zoning bylaw. What it versus strict conformity with the number. Um, same when it comes to uh sideyards. The the in my opinion, the intent and purpose of the bylaw is that if you have a narrower lot, you can have smaller sideyards. It's showing that based on that degradation in as you get narrower, you can have smaller sideyards. So in a situation where a lot is nearly falling into that lower threshold of sideyards and it has to have the same sideyards as a lot but significantly wider. It's considering that purpose and intent. Um from the perspective of the the set front yard, I think you mentioned the house to the north. It's actually closer to First Street than this house is. And then the house that's to the south is further back. So then you end up with that averaging that's that's an issue. So um again it it's just looking at I think it's quite a a diverse neighborhood in terms of where buildings sit. Um and I think that's why the averaging comes in versus you know lining it up with the dwelling that's right next door to it. So the question about using ifs, it's not so much vaguery or it it's speaking to purpose and intent of the bylaw and how things that you could work with the consideration, you know, the owners is seeking to try and accommodate a home. Again, as as I'm sure the committee hears all the time, you know, homes are generally larger than they used to be when these homes would have been built at at the time. And and it's looking at how that can fit in the context. So, so that that's how I'm coming at from that perspective. Now, in terms of desiraability, um, again, I think it's it's it's needing in my opinion to look at this from the perspective of the four tests versus looking at it from the perspectives of just numbers, for example, of, you know, how far it's it is from the height requirement or how far it is. It's it's looking at from the perspective of does that result in a you know adverse situation relative to the character of the neighborhood or is allowing 9 point and a house that's 9.88 m high with a roof that looks peaked worse than having a completely flat cube 9 meter building you know in terms of how it fits in with the neighborhood for example. So that's that's I guess just to clarify the questions you had about you know my use of if or or things that don't actually exist on the property >> and I acknowledge the building to the north is closer to the street that it has a unique orientation where its front is essentially facing the side and that's where my concern desiraability when you have that existing orientation and you're trying to move the house closer to both the street and the property line. And I I would I guess argue that the intent of the difference in height with a flat roof and a peak roof is that if you had an actual peaked roof at higher, you would have a significantly different massing to the building. And it's not just as simple to say, well, we could have nine if we had the peak roof. You'd have a very different building. And if I if you had put a peak roof on it. So I think that is where I'm going with the intent on the height. It's not just to be able to say if we did a peak roof, we could do it because you'd have a very different massing in my view. Thank you. >> Any other questions? Okay. Well, we have several uh people who have uh asked to speak to the committee. Um I'll just before I invite um them to speak, I just want you to bear in mind that um we have read the eight letters of object objections and the ones that have been submitted. And if you could just be mindful not to repeat the same points. um over and over, but try to be wise with your five minutes to bring to the committee your concerns and related impacts that you feel affect you. With that said, Madame Secretary, um who would like to start first? Uh please raise your hand if you want to address the committee. Yes, Madam Chair. We're going to start with Lindsay Sparks. She has her hand up. One moment, please. I'll move her into the meeting. >> Thank you. Good evening. Can you hear me? Okay. >> Yes. Go ahead, Miss Sparks. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, good evening, chair and members of the committee. Um, my name is Lindsay Sparks. myself along with my wife Shelby Walker, the homeowners of 86 First Street. So, we're immediately north of the subject property at 82 First Street, but not 88 First Street. So, I think just to have everyone's bearings here, there's actually a house behind 88 First Street as well. That wasn't in the report. So, we're on the flag lot to the west of the subject site. I don't know if there's a picture or an aerial that can be brought up, but um with my arburest report just so everyone's aware of what house I am speaking from because I don't think it has been brought up or even noted this evening. I know we have several uh that were submitted, but they might not be at the towns um and the like for the um >> I see >> the um the staff because if things have been submitted before 4:00 of this afternoon, then they don't go up. >> Yeah, it would be in the arborist report with the aerial, but that's okay. Like we >> Yeah, those we have. Those we have. I'm looking at it right now. Yeah, I'm behind 88 First Street, right, where the a bit larger home on the larger lot behind it through the laneway. Um, but our front yard faces directly into 82 First Street's essentially backyard and entire back view of their home. Okay. >> Um, are we going to pull it up or should I just continue on? >> Um, I don't know if town staff can bring it up. It's part of the um the arborist report with the letters of objection. >> It's okay. Why don't we I think everyone >> you can continue and if they can enough of the of the bearings here. So like our our concerns, you know, we respect the committee to refuse the application consistent with the recommendation of the the town's consolidated comment report. Um our main three issues with the seven variances that are are asked for tonight are the the reduced north sideyard setback, increased building height. Um the potential the the potential impact on the mature cedar trees between the property. We actually have 11 trees that act as significant privacy noise buffering right now against the two lots. Um and then the overall scale of the proposed dwelling just within the heritage district and what it will do to our privacy sunlight. Um it's going to be a completely different viewpoint and what we purchased not just over a year ago. Um, you know, we were under the impression that there would not be a almost 30 foot high kind of front yard aspect that we're looking at a house immediately in front of us. Um, with a significant amount of trees most likely going to be hurt during the process of construction. So, the setback in height, you know, the 1.66 m with required being 2.4, this is significant. It's not minor in a sense when you add it up. Um, it also requests, like we've talked about the height a ton tonight at 9.88 meters. The 9 meters already is is high and to be even higher at a flat roof. The massing effect of that is significant because with peaked roofs, it's actually a much smaller home because of the height of the peak. Um, but our concern is not simply with like either variance in isolation. It's combined effect. Right? The application would allow a taller substantially larger dwelling to be constructed closer to our property or home and against this m mature hedge that is basically irreplaceable. So we did uh go ahead and have an arborist come out Bartlett um and do a report and they basically determined that the trees um are all mature, healthy and vigorous in nature. Um, and they also identified that there's massive risk to the root systems that are going to happen from the construction excavation that will be that close to our property line. Um, the tree protection zone that they noted must be at least 2.7 m and approximately 4 m being preferred to be very safe and the current plan only shows 1.8 m of tree protection zone. Um, so it's pretty clear to see if you've been on the site or walked it. like these are 80-year-old mature cedars that are irreplaceable cannot be changed with regards to what it's doing right now for privacy uh noise buffering and just be becoming the overall heritage district with its intent of that's where you want to live right um the next points we just have are like the scale of the home is quite large I believe the applicant seeks a floor area of 46% with 35% being uh allowed that to me is 30% increase. Uh I believe they also revised the proposal 1% from 47 down to 46% when asked about comments. The lot covered was also reduced by less than 1% um when they were asked to also take into that account. So when we talk about the four tests, you know, we don't believe it maintains the general intent and purpose of the official plan because of the sale height setbacks and potential impact on the mature trees together. It does not maintain the general intent of the purpose of the zoning bylaw. Um, collectively, it creates a materially larger building envelope in a very old style street. Now, there are tons of different kind of homes on the street, but everything is mostly old. Um, the biggest thing for us though is the the minor variances aren't really minor in their impact. It's the forer, like I said, is 31% greater. um and we don't believe that the requested variances are desirable or appropriate for the development of the property. We're not opposed to redevelopment and we've actually met with the owner and I believe they know that. It's just the lot is only 25.91 meters wide. That's what it is. It's not if it were a little bit smaller or if it were a little bit deeper. That's just exactly what it is. And that's what I believe the new bylaw suggests to keep in play is the fact of what it is and to build within it. So, we're definitely not opposed to having a home there. It's more so just trying to maintain the integrity of the street for all the neighbors and including myself who I wasn't noted on the the report. Um, and I just wanted to make sure everyone knew that, you know, we are back there kind of looking into the backyard of this home. Um, and we kind of for all these reasons respectfully ask the committee and chair to, you know, deny this um minor variance application as it stands today. Great. >> Thank you, Mr. Spox. I appreciate the submission that you brought in with the pictures and everything. It does paint um a good picture. Um any questions of Mr. Sparks at this time from the other members? Okay. All right. Hang tight. Um who's next, Madam Secretary? >> Uh we have a Gerald Dename. One moment. I'll move him in. >> Okay. there. >> Okay. Uh, Mr. Den, do you have a camera that you can turn on? >> Uh, very well. Now we see you. Go ahead, sir. >> Sorry. Um, yes. I second the motion to Mr. Sparks because I live at 88 First Street. My name is Jerry Denny. Uh, we've been here in this house for over 47 years. Um, the variances that 82 is asking for, uh, they call them minor, but you know, seven combined, they're certainly not minor. And as you as the committee would are well aware, this area is governed by a very high standard of scrutiny because it's an heritage area. Uh I like Mr. Sparks had an arborist report on from Bartlett tree experts regarding the uh measurements and the photos which were included in the arborist report that I sent in. Uh these trees are are over 30 feet high. There's nine of them on my property and they are very close to the existing foundation of the house. In fact, they are approximately 13 in 13 ft from the from the foundation. And if they go ahead with the variance of 1.66 on the north side, the tree protection zone cannot cover this area. These trees need to be protected. They're over a hundred years old. Uh, basically, uh, what else have I got here for you? The trees themselves, the canopy measures between 2.5 and 3.5 m. They they're really very very healthy and they're well balanced throughout. Uh, the structure that's proposing, which is 9.88, 88 uh is a little bit of a strange. It's not true because that house sits on a hill. It's a it's the highest house on the street as far as height from the road. That is something to it needs to be taken into consideration. So 9.88 could be uh could be 10 or even maybe higher. Okay. Um or whatever >> and also with the the height of this heist house would uh we wouldn't get any sunlight and as the one of the committee members said 88 will be in the hole which I believe is true. Okay. Um if the if the formula is you regarding the tree protection zone then there is really no way that these this construction can happen this close to the trees. Okay. And a further note uh we received a note from uh Michelle Dram uh Dramik uh who is the inspector officer of parks and wrecks. They the forestry has provided comments regarding the trees including the mature cedar trees along the north property line of 82 88 and 86 first street. They provided comments indicating that the proposed variances for reduced north side yard setback is not supported due to potential injury of mature cedars along the property line. >> Okay. >> Okay. That's basically all I have to say. >> Thank you, Mr. Denome. >> Thank you. >> Uh any questions or comments from the many members? >> Okay, I see none. Um next, Madam Secretary Treasurer. >> Yes. Next, we have Mr. and Mrs. Bar. B A R. I'll move them into the meeting. One moment. you hear? >> Yes. Go ahead, Mr. >> Bart. >> Thank you for Thanks for the time to speak. >> There there's an echo, so perhaps uh turn one of the devices off. small marital issue. >> No worries. [laughter] Happens to the best of us. Go ahead. >> Yeah. Yeah. Um so we are to to put it in context. Uh again, thank you for the for the ability to speak. Uh we are the neighbors to the south. We live at 72 First Street. um uh which we have lived at for the past 28 years. Um and uh our house actually uh as not noted in the earlier submission, our house also is oriented uh to the the front of our house is actually oriented to the north. Our house was one of the two original h residences built in 1860 uh on the street. So in fact our the side the side yard is really our front yard. So our front door in fact faces this residence and so again the side uh you know impingement is actually even greater for us. Um we also have uh the same considerable tree issue given uh that we have mature trees in fact higher and older than the cedar trees are on the on the north. Um, and you know, I I think that and I don't want to be repetitive and I'm respectful of the chair's comments of not repeating what we said in the in the note, but I believe that uh we also are in the circumstance of the culmination of all the variances are greater in the whole than the you know than any single one of them. And um I would suggest to we like as Lindsay had mentioned we are not adverse to someone doing building a a lovely home on the site. Um we have done lots of reser uh renovations to our house. Uh we have we have worked with historical society and we have worked with every with the town on each and every one of them. uh the character and nature of this neighborhood and the character and nature of the street is is quite unique and um I think that the cumive nature of what they're asking for is uncharacteristic to the street. So um that that that's basically all I really really wish to share with the committee but I I I hope they they they understand and I I would be be great if they had walked the street because um I I don't think this submission is in character to the street. Thank you. >> Thank you Mr. Bar. Uh, do [clears throat] we have someone else waiting? Madam Secretary Treasurer? >> Yes, we do. We have uh Miss Claudia Fullerton. I'll move her into the meeting. One moment, please. >> And I do want to reiterate that we have all your letters of objections and we've read them and we're aware of all your sentiment. So go ahead, Miss Alton. >> Okay, we see you. You just have to unmute yourself. Okay. Are we good now? >> Go ahead. Yes. Go ahead. >> Um, my name is Claudia Fuller. Oh, and now I've got How do I get rid of this? Do you get an echo? >> No, we're fine. We We hear you. Okay. >> Okay. My name is Claudia Fullerton. I live at 87 First Street across from um 82. Um, everybody's probably said everything that's been going through my mind, but uh, and they've said it very well, but I do just a couple of things. Um, one is 82 First Street is not a twostory house. What is existing there is not a two-story house. It is listed as a two-story house on the presentation, but it's a bungalow on raised land. So we are not replacing twostory with twostory. We are uh it looks like we are putting a very large house on a very small piece of land. if it was smaller. Everybody has said before that we have no objection to a lovely home being put on this lot, but the pictures that you showed of of the houses in the neighborhood, they're on wide lots and they're big houses, but they're on wide lot. So, this is going to be in our face. And um we don't feel that it adheres to the neighborhood. Um the other thing that people in this area because we are heritage which has been mentioned before we have to for a very long time most of us have lived here for a very long time and we've been we adhere to town rules and we adhere to heritage rules and I am surprised that Heritage agreed uh Mr. Barton said that they agreed with the housing uh the house being built because these rules are strict and we have all lived within these rules for a very long time, both sets of rules, town rules and heritage rules. And um Mr. Barton is asking us to bend those rules and break those rules to accommodate this house, which the neighborhood feels is just far too big for the lot. So, it's not it it can't be a good feeling to have everybody around you not crazy about what you want to build. The house is lovely. The design is great. It just needs to be smaller. you're building on a small lot. Um, and I think that's all I have to say because everybody else has made my previous points. >> Thank you, Miss Fullerton. Okay. Um, anyone else, Madam Secretary, Treasure? >> Yes, we have one more. Uh, we have Yin Woo. One one moment. I'll move them into the meeting. Have you been able to move him in or no? >> Yes, he's here. I think he's just trying to start his video. >> And Mr. Yinu, we see you on the panel, but I think you're still muted. Then if you have a camera, perhaps you can turn it on. >> Uh I believe they didn't want to speak and oh >> perhaps the letter was uh all they wanted to uh share. >> Well, I I do I do have him and he's at 81 First Street. So we have his letter. I'm looking at it right now. So thank you for your submission, Mr. Woo. Okay. Uh, Mr. Barton, uh, floor is yours to comment uh, on all of the issues at hand being the trees, the arborist report. The, um, well, you've heard it all, so I'll let you go at it. >> Yes. I think I'll start with the uh, with the trees and the arborist report. So we, as I noted, the owner did have an arborist involved here and they do have a report that they would submit. I think it's key to understand I heard a comment that there's no way this can be built without affecting the trees. I would say that's a difference of opinion from the arborist, our arborist on this application. So the arborist that the owner has retained has indicated that measures can be taken to uh protect the trees through. So I think that's something that would be addressed through the submission through the applicant. But it's important to not know note if if it's worth pulling the site plan back up. The sideyard is a pinch point. So when you look at the site plan that the 1.66 m if you want to talk about that on the north side is a limited area where it's 1.66 meters before it widens out. So we're we're we're talking about the pinch point where that happens. We're not talking about the entire mass of the house being 1.66 m from uh that north property line. So I think if we it's down a few slides to the the site plan. So we can see there yeah on that the top of the picture how it it uh it moves back uh as you move towards the rear of the property. So many of those trees that are in that hedge row that we can see there that are I I understand to be the trees of concern actually have that larger setback um where the building comes back in. So again, I think it's a key consideration when you're looking at the idea that this entire row of trees is is somehow going to be eliminated. Um the arborist information we have is that's not going to be the case. Um again from the perspect I just a general comment about breaking the rules. we are authorized to submit minor variances under the planning act. Um so again I and I would agree with the point that heritage is very strict. So the fact that the owners did receive uh the comments they did on the revised submission and the the feedback they did receive from the heritage committee, I would disagree that it does not fit in other than the perception that it's too big based on the numbers that we're asking for. Um, again the uh there were comments about shadow and sunlight being affected. Just to note again, you could have a 10 m peaked roof built here that would be imposing a greater height in terms of shadow. Um, if you were if you were to have a shadow study done, um, you would likely be surprised to see I've done many had many shadow studies, uh, the shadows that would occur for a 10 m peaked roof versus a 9.8 8 m semiflat roof um in terms of and then again you could also have the two full stories of windows on the north side overlooking into the property. So the 9.88 versus the 9 or 10 m versus peaked roof versus uh 9 m flat roof again when it speaks to shadow and privacy my opinion is that you would experience similar uh conditions. Um and then again just from that tree perspective just point out again that the owner is committed you know to uh demonstrating tree protection, tree preservation um again there's a heritage permit that's required to be submitted here. Um so again certainly conditions of approval um that the owner is open to um but again my opinion is and I certainly understand the comments about the idea of cumulative impact. I think it's important to understand um you know when you look at these and I'm sure the committee is well aware this is more I think to the to the neighbors that it's not just about the numbers it's not just about you know if you're 60 some you know 60% bigger than the standard um you're you're you need to look at or you know typically what planners would look at is the potential for adverse impacts for example and again simply being different than what's on the street doesn't mean it's adverse or it's having a negative impact. So, um I think certainly I hear the comments. Um I I think that a great amount of effort has been taken here to and then I think just the point because the sideyard in the north seems to be a key point. The understanding that it is a pinch point at the 1.66 66 m before stretching out and that the arburest work that the owner has done differs from that opinion that and I did read the arburest report that the owner submitted and I I do think it was put together relatively quickly and there seem to be some qualifications in there about about what the report says. Uh you know the information we have indicates that this the trees could be adequately uh protected through through construction. Okay. Um, thank you, Mr. Barton. Any questions from the committee members to Mr. Barton at this time? >> Go ahead, Mr. Dicki. >> Why didn't you submit the arburous report that you speak of? We haven't seen it. >> To be honest, the trees came up as an issue to us a couple days ago when the owner met with the neighbors to the north. We hadn't heard concerns about trees. We heard concerns about drainage. Um we had indicated that would be dealt with the development engineering. So the it it was just a timing issue. Uh I did reach out to staff but I understand staff don't typically speak with uh the applicants once the application's been accepted until after there's a committee meeting. So I didn't have that opportunity to discuss that or to be able to resubmit it. So primarily because the the this and we could see on the arburous report uh if I pull it up I believe it was prepared in November. So it's it's something that's really come together and been raised by those neighbors relatively late in this process. >> A number of trees quite a number of trees that are are being removed. Like you should have submitted an arburst report. You should have been advised by an arburist on all those issues. I'll just say at the last minute because the neighbors brought that forward like you you should have been aware of that concern. >> We did have a >> pre hadn't had an arburish report and submitted it to us so we could read it to make to to to for us to analyze it. You haven't done that. So did you want to defer and maybe maybe give us the arburish report? >> So at pre-con we had a pre-conultation meeting in advance of submission and arburish report was not identified. Um so that's why it was not provided as part of a complete application. So um to me it feels like the tree concerns have been raised at the last minute beyond my timelines for submission of documents to the town. Um deferral I think and the question came up at the beginning. Um the owner has made what I would say are change significant changes to the dwelling. a we're looking at a complete redesign of the house to uh what I would say address the concerns that have been raised. Um so that's why we didn't you know to if we demonstrate that the trees can be protected that does not address any of the other concerns that have been raised by staff uh just with the floor area of the house for example. Um the we still have the the other setback as well. Um so again it's uh I I think the tree is an item that we could address as a condition of approval and satisfy staff that trees can be preserved. Well, you've come forth with seven variances, five of which deal with footprint. And my thought is if if you can't squeeze your bigger house into the footprint that the zoning bylaw stipulates, then the house is too big for the lot. Then you had the added problem of trees along both sides and throughout that you're eliminating. Then you have the problem of eight neighbors coming forward and and opposing this like uh why it's time to step back and revise this. Anyhow, I that's the end of me. Thank you very much. >> Any anyone else would like to address Mr. Varden before we take the matter into committee? Sorry. I Yeah, go ahead, Miss Price. Um, one of the neighbors, I believe it was Mr. Denom, mentioned that the house is actually on a hill and that by putting the house, it's going to be even higher because of the hill. What is What do you do? Do you agree that the house is on a hill and are you not aware of it? >> I I wouldn't say it's on a hill. There certainly there's differences in elevations and there will be differences in elevation when the new home is constructed. So you you wouldn't simply build the house on the exact same you know top topography of the property as exists today and then the uh the measurements. So again, this is where you end up in this balancing act of of qualific. If you want to speak to the technicality of what the zoning says, whether it's a flat roof versus a peaked roof, if the zoning bylaw measures this house at 9.88 m, it's a 9.88 m house. That's kind of the way have we have to look at it. We can't have it both ways where, oh, it's actually higher than 9.8 meters. If we look at it from here for example. So again I I wouldn't agree that that there is a condition here where this somehow inflates the height of the house. >> Madame chair we also are showing uh Lindsay Sparks with his hand up. Would you um allow >> Well, typically >> Well, typically we already heard everything that the um the applicants have uh had, sorry, the neighbors have had to say, so right now we're it's Mr. Barton's uh time to reply. Um if it's a quick comment, I'll allow it, but we've already heard everything. Um where is Mr. Barton? Is he in the um >> uh Mr. Sparks? He's in >> Sorry, Mr. Sparks. >> He's the um in the attendance, but I'll move him into the committee and he can let you know if it's a quick comment or or not. Mr. Sparks, I'm I'm I'm just because I didn't see you face to face, I I will explain the process one more time. Typically, we're now in the period where Mr. Barton is commenting on all the concerns of that have come from the neighbors. It can't be a back and forth. >> Understood. Sorry, I thought I was just going to address one of the comments of Mr. Barton that made that we brought up the trees late in the submission process. and and I'll let you have that moment u just out of courtesy because since co and moving into the electronic type way of the hearing it it's hard so I'll allow it but it won't be a back and forth >> understood no that's fine I just wanted to clarify one item just the trees were brought up very late in the process you know we we got someone out to review the trees as fast as we possibly could when we saw drawings when we were provided the drawings and we were also notified of the signage on site. I don't know how we can act any faster when we don't know haven't seen any drawings from the town or from the owner and applicant. It's also to note the owners uh Jerry Dename and myself have talked to the owner of this home in the past throughout the summer through last year about trees and about plans for the home. So, I just want to make it known that this isn't something we're trying to do at the last second. This has been on the forefront for a while. Unfortunately, we couldn't get reports done prior to seeing where the reports actually were or the >> No. And and to be honest with you, good for you. Uh I commend you on on doing that because that painted a very good picture for us where m Mr. Bart didn't fail to offer that and and that goes speaks to what Mr. Dicki was saying. So, um you did nothing wrong. That is the unfortunate part of the process is you do not receive notice until it comes out and that's when you have time to react and in that short span of time you did a great job. So >> thank you. That's all I have. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And if I could respond to that I didn't anyways. >> Sorry. Sorry Mr. Barton. One of the planners has their hand up. Just let me have her uh uh speak her mind and then I'll I'll I'll allow you to comment. Go ahead Miss McFale. Thank you chair. Um just to respond to the comment about an arborist report for the subject lands through the pre-conultation um that was done in August. It was flagged by forestry staff that an arborist report would be required. Um however an arborist report is typically reviewed as part of the development engineering permit application and that's why staff had recommended that process um be undertaken first. Um so the applicant was aware um of the requirement uh but uh perhaps it it wasn't there was a decision made not to submit it with the committee of adjustment materials. >> Thank you Miss McFale. Go ahead Mr. Bart. [clears throat] >> Okay so yeah so uh firstly I didn't intend to suggest the owners did or the neighbors did anything wrong. I was resp replying to their reasons why I did something wrong. um the suggestion that I purposely mishe withheld information. Miss McFale is correct. We were told to submit at deesp um we weren't advised I when I submitted the minor variance application I wasn't told it was incomplete. Um so again it's simply a matter of uh you know my experience again is we typically would provide arburous reports and engineering plans as part of the ESP process. Um and that's why it was it was to be provided at that time the the indic the only reason I brought up when the neighbors report was submitted was that we didn't have time to respond to that. we didn't have time to then say because my expectation would have been if I submitted an arburous report after that I would have been required to defer. So that that's the reason why the arburous report was not provided. Not out of any ill intent on my part certainly. And I don't I don't think that we uh for I speak for myself when I say that that was not the thought in my mind which is why I asked you the question about the D why [clears throat] you hadn't gone ahead and went with what town staff had actually recommended and you decided to follow the process as as you're used to and sometimes the suggestion from town staff is in the nature to help with the tough applications that are before us and this just is one of them. So that's >> I would agree. I guess I took I did take Arbor forestry staff suggestion to be a DESP [clears throat] submission. Um I should have I guess >> not followed that directive. I should have done something different. Um and and I was just responding to the idea that I failed to provide information. I think Mr. Madam Chair, you mentioned that uh Mr. Sparks provided a report and I failed to do so. I'm simply just trying to explain uh that I don't believe I had failed in any way to provide the requested information. >> All right. It was a a judgment I guess call and understood. Okay. Anything further um from the committee members uh questions, clarifications before we take the matter into committee for a vote? Okay, I see none. Who would like to get the discussion rolling? >> Mr. Towski, go ahead. >> Thanks, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I'm aligned with the evidence of staff and the neighbors on this application. This uh dwelling is not too big by the numbers as the agent has suggested. It's too incompatible by the cumulative result of the numbers. Madam chair, I don't believe this meets the intent of the official plan in terms of compatibility and character. The intent of several of the zoning provisions are not met. Cumulatively, this application is not minor and in my view, it is in no way desirable for the development of the property in this neighborhood. Madame Chair, I will move that this application be denied. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Tuski. Is there discussion on this recommendation? Mr. Hardcastle. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just briefly, um I I um agree with uh um all of the points that were raised by Mr. Towski. Um I would bring forward [clears throat] that the um the concept of tangible impact and opportunities to have addressed have not been been leveraged here. And I believe that that some of the tangible impacts to the northerly property um I've not seen to be satisfied. So I'll put that on the record as well and I will be supporting the motion on the floor. >> Very well. Thank you, Mr. Arcastle. Anyone else? Okay. So the motion is to uh deny the application that is before us having failed the four tests. All those in support. Okay. The application has been denied. None opposed. Okay. Have a good night, Mr. Barton. >> Thank you. >> Good night to everyone else. [clears throat] The next item on our agenda was deferred. So, we are now confirming minutes for October the 28th. Miss Price, thank you. Minutes for October the 28th are confirmed. A motion to adjurnn. Thank you, Mr. Hardcastle. We are adjourned at 8:39.