>> mayor burton: good evening.council of the town of oakville and i even have a working microphone.madame clerk we have no regrets. council, i wonder if there are any declarationsof pecuniary interest? madame clerk, i see none.council, how would you feel about resolving into committee of the whole?councillor hutchins moves, councillor lapworth seconds.all in favour? opposed?we are resolved into committee of the whole. council, you have on your agenda, i think,three open consent items and one confidential consent item.is there a mover for the consent items?
councillor adams moves the consent items.all those in favour? opposed, if any?the consent items are adopted, all four. that brings us to our first public hearingitem and this is the public meeting report draft plan of subdivision and zoning by lawamendment for the trinity united church at 1250 mccraney street east.and the recommendation from council is that the comments from the public with respectto the draft submitted by trinity united church be received.and we have a presentation for the public so they understand what council has studiedbefore this meeting. and please begin.>> good evening, mayor burton, members of
council.this evening you will find my staff report on page 13 of your agenda.this is a statutory public meeting for a draft plan of subdivision and a zoning by law amendmentsubmitted by weston consulting on behalf of trinity united church.these application was received march 7th of this year, deemed completed april the 6thand we held a public information meeting may 11th.the purpose of tonight's meeting is to obtain any further public input related to theseapplications. staff at this time are not making a recommendation.they are just asking council to receive the staff report.the subject lands are located generally west
of trafalgar road, south of mccraney streeteast and north of sewell drive. the subject property is municipally knownas 1250 mccraney street east. the intent of the draft plan of subdivisionis to create three residential lots on the southwest corner of the church property, facingsewell drive. the intent of the zoning by law amendmentis to rezone these three lots to an rl 5 zone to permit the development of detached dwellingson each lot. the balance of the site will remain as a placeof worship. the church property itself is approximately1.2 hectares in size and is irregular in shape. it has approximately 133 metres of frontageon mccraney drive and 166 metres on sewell
drive.the proposed lots are approximately 50 metres wide and vary from 680 to 890 metres squared.there are no proposed changes to the church structures on the site.the church parking lot, however, would need to be reconfigured in order to accommodatethe three proposed lots. when this parking lot is reconfigured, theparking requirement for the church will still comply to the zoning by law.in terms of the "livable oakville" plan the site is designated as low density residentialas shown on schedule i, central land use. the and the applicant does intend to conformwith the official plan. the site is currently zoned cu or communityuse.
the applicant is requesting a site specificrl 5 zone which is a residential low density zone to implement the land use and establishregulations in order to allow the site to be developed for these three lots.the public information meeting was held on may the 11th which was attended by the wardcouncillors and four residents in the area. issues raised at the public information meetingrelated to on street parking, tree removal and setbacks.staff have received one letter of concern from a resident and that is attached to appendixa of your report. matters to be considered will consist of conformingwith the "livable oakville" policies. we'll look at density and intensification,compatibility with the existing neighbourhood,
and tree removal.planning staff will continue to review and analyze the application and the merits ofthe application and all technical matters that have arisen through the circulation.staff will also take into consideration any issues raised this evening.staff will also bring forward a recommendation report, i'm expecting, in the early fall.in conclusion, staff put forth this following recommendation for your consideration andare available to answer any questions. >> mayor burton: thank you very much.councillor grant has a question. >> thank you very much, mr. chair.i'm referring to the letter on appendix a which is on page 24.and it mentions and this came after our public
meeting but it mentioned that the wasteland,as they call it, at the northwest corner would be better for development.does staff have any conversation about that? >> through you, your worship, to the councillor,that is something that we will address in our future recommendation report.to have the three lots in that location would require quite a bit of tree removal, so wewill be looking at that option and we will report back to council with respect to that.>> so there would be greater tree removal if we looked at that area than we would beat the southern location? >> that is correct.>> thank you very much. >> mayor burton: any other questions?councillor knoll?
>> quick question.hopefully staff can answer it. but are you aware of whether or not the contractbetween the church and the medical office facility between town hall has concluded orwhether that's still ongoing, for parking? >> through you, your worship, in the past,the medical office across the street did lease land or did lease parking from the churchfor their overflow parking. that has since expired.through rezoning across the street, parking was accommodated through a shared parkingarea between the apartment building. so yes, the church does no longer provideparking for medical use. >> thank you very much.>> mayor burton: thank you, councillor.
other question?councillor grant? >> given public information, i'll move therecommendation for receipt. >> mayor burton: thank you, councillor grant.i would just like to check if there are any registered delegation force this?>> yes, we do have a couple of registered delegations for this item.first registered delegation is diane kalina who is president of the trinity united churchcouncil. >> mayor burton: ms. kalina, would you liketo >> i'm from westing consulting.my name is toula nessinis. >> mayor burton: i gather that you would liketo express your opinion of the report?
>> yes, we had looked at the property extensivelywith the church and again it was the location of the three lots for residential in the southsouthern portion of the site takes advantage of the longest frontage that there is on theproperty and also ensures that some of the treed area is preserved.and we feel that in terms of what we're putting forward is consistent with the provincialpolicies. it conforms to the region of halton officialplan by adding to the residential supply in the area.proposed development is permitted under the "livable oakville" low density residentialdesignation. we are proceeding with single family dwellings,very consistent with what is in the neighbourhood
today.and it contributes towards new housing stock to the community and provides appropriateand compatible intensification, we feel, in terms of i didn't want to repeat with whatleigh had already said. >> mayor burton: thank you for that.>> thank you. and diane is going to be speaking on behalfof the church. >> mayor burton: thank you.council? diane?>> thanks. i have got four slides.are they somewhere? >> mayor burton: help is on the way.>> help is on the way.
i'll just start while he's pulling it up.my name is diane kalina. i am president of the church council hereat trinity united church. i'm just going to take three minutes and i'llgive you a quick presentation on the church, the situation we are in that precipitatedthis project, and of course how we intend to use the funds.trinity is a very small congregation, about 70 families, about 130 individuals.we welcome everybody. for example, you don't need to be a memberof our church or any church for that matter to take communion.the united church was one of the first to allow gay marriages.we are in the process of revitalizing.
our main initiative involves improving ourreach out to the community. our congregation is gradually become moreethnically diverse and we're also seeing more people who are younger and younger than theretirement age that get involved with our church.it's not that we don't do external projects and programs now.we do. but we're a very open hearted congregationand we know we can do more. very few of the examples we have currentlydoing are listed here. an oakville centred project is our white gifts program which isrun by our own linda roberts who has won several community awards including the community spiritaward and a rotary club award for this work.
it coordinates with other agencies such asthe children's aid society to assist underprivileged families.our roof for the roofless, which is a long running project in india.we also had a fundraiser last month for a refugee family.and as recently as last week held a garage sale to raise funds for fort mcmurray.so basically the situation in a nutshell is that our costs are increasing and our donationsare not increasing at the rate needed to expand our reach and offer more services.our church is a vital part of the fabric of our community.many organizations rely on us to provide a reasonably priced place to rent.our renters include alcoholic anonymous which
really just takes up a collection each weekto give the church; and community groups such as the oakville children's musical theatre.we even offer our church to congregations of different denominations, a seventh dayadventist church currently rents our facilities weekly.we have about 10 to 15 different groups renting each year.so what are we using the funds for? rest assured that we have the support of ourchurch hierarchy, halton presbytery actually loaned us the money to hire weston consultingto fund this lengthy and expensive process. at the works in the united church, all fundsfrom the sale goes to our local church. it doesn't have to be given to some centralchurch body.
nor does it have to be spread among otherunited churches. we are not planning any large building projectsor renovations, just some small interior renovations. the majority of funds will be used to fundprogramming and make ourselves more financially stable.a good example of what we are doing is that last week we hired a children and youth ministrydeveloper. this is a brand new position.the job entails going out into the community and discovering what needs are out there andwhat we would be able to help address, rather than to only serve our current families.thank you for your attention and for your consideration of our project.thanks.
>> mayor burton: thank you very much.i'm very glad you brought that message to us.it's very helpful to have the context. >> you're welcome.>> mayor burton: councillor grant has a question for you, and i guess councillor duddeck too.but we'll go to councillor grant first. >> well, first, thank you for your service.i have been to several of the touchstone events at your church.you have had a lot of milestones. it's a wonderful church.>> thank you. >> and thank you for not taking up the treespace and using part of your parking lot. but i guess part of the question that mostpeople would have is: taking up part of your
parking lot, are you losing anything fromthe congregation? would that be more traffic in the area ormore parking on the streets? >> no, actually.because we used i think as councillor knoll pointed out, before we had already expandedour parking lot to accommodate renting it out to the trafalgar medical building, weactually have more parking than we could ever need.so it isn't a problem at all. >> i did notice that you had a fitness bootcamp in the parking lot this afternoon. i hope to join soon.thank you. >> thank you.>> mayor burton: councillor duddeck and then
councillor knoll.>> thank you very much. through you, your worship, i wanted to acknowledgethat similar to what i think you're experiencing at trinity is much like many of the othercongregations in the community. and how to do it sensitively yet still betrue to the mandate and the vision that you're trying to work within.so well done in terms of being very sensitive to that.and i wish you nothing but the best. >> thank you very much, councillor.>> mayor burton: thank you. councillor knoll?>> thank you. just following up on a question from councillorgrant regarding parking.
i notice that you indicate i think you saidyou have 70 as the slide went by, 75 families? is that what you said?>> that's how many are members of the church. not necessarily coming on sunday.>> no, i know how that works. so obviously the parking lot yes, you getsome laughter from the congregation. >> yes.>> so obviously the parking lot is sufficient for sunday services and for most of the churchfamily business. but what about events such as is the childrenthe children's musical theatre still there? my son used to be involved in it.i remember the parking lot was always very congested when the parents were>> when they're dropping off and leaving?
but they mostly just drive in, drop off andthey don't stay. >> are you finding that even with your eventsdo you believe that even with your events and your rental, you will have sufficientparking spaces? >> yes.>> okay. thank you very much.>> you're welcome. >> mayor burton: thank you very much.>> thank you. >> mayor burton: madame clerk, would you callthe next delegation if there is another delegation? then i'll ask the public here if anyone elsehas any information for council to consider on this matter?would you please come forward, sir, and share
your information?would you introduce yourself, please, for the clerks?>> my name is todd sullivan. i live directly across the street from wherethis proposal is to take place. i have lived in this town since i was 3 yearsold. one of the reasons i bought that house wasbecause the church was across the street and one would assume that in my experience, mostchurches don't pack up and leave, or sell their property off into pieces.currently if you look out my front window, i look at nothing but trees.green space. and for the heart of the city, that's a rarething to see.
now you're going to ask me to look at thefront of three houses that are probably larger than the houses that are currently there.taking away a view that i thought i was purchasing and could depend on.beyond that, there are a number of occasions where the parking lot is at least two thirdsfull. currently, more on a one day a week basisat that level, so i don't see how parking wouldn't be an issue at times.not to mention where is all the construction equipment going to be stored?sewell is narrow as it is. where you put those speed bumps in createsparking issues for people further down the street, just with a little tiny barrier.what happens when you start parking all this
construction equipment?we're going to look at mud, traffic delays, much more than any of us on the street reallywant. i don't know how many people are here today.but i want to voice completely, i'm dead set against those houses being built directlyacross the street from me. and it will directly affect my quality oflife for probably at least a year. and beyond that if you take into account theview. that's all i really have to say.>> mayor burton: thank you very much for sharing your information.>> thank you. >> mayor burton: anyone else?councillor grant?
>> sir, i'm just looking at the map.what trees do you look upon? >> i look out my front door, convenientlyright where the postal boxes got put that i wasn't excited about in the first place.>> nobody likes to see that. i get that.>> which i find ironic that they will easily be moved for this project.but that's another issue. if you look directly across the street, themailbox also slightly to my left. i'm looking at the green hill, the large treesthat would block this gentleman's house here. i can almost not even see his house.all the houses at the back that borders the church property, right?i can see a small view of their, i guess office
building, being the church.but quite literally i see nothing but green. and those trees, they were tall when i wasthree years old. so they're 40, 50, 60 years old and you'regoing to start cutting them down too. and i know from personal experience and business,oakville normally protects their trees pretty tight and has strong rules against that.and you know, it's usually far more costly to cut down trees when they're mature, whichis probably one of the reasons why they're proposing it on the parking lot side as opposedto the other side. >> because there's more trees there?>> there's more trees there but also more roadway, less track.because you have two lanes on mccraney plus
the bike path.in essence you're at least 40 feet across, right?twice the road distance across from where you want to build.so when traffic starts coming into play, what? us residents are going to have to wait untila bulldozer moves out of the way to get out of our neighbourhood?so once again, i'm directly across the street. you're welcome to come to my house.i'll show you the view. >> i'm in the area obvious, trust me.>> so i see nothing but green and just a small portion of the gentleman's house over here.and literally it's just a wall of green. >> okay.you realize, though and i'm trying to ask
a question, so i'm not trying to make an argumentbut you realize that if holy trinity loses the land, this entire property could be redevelopedinto a housing project. >> at which time i would likely look at movingor turning my property into a student rental of some sort.>> right. >> because, you know, i bought that spacefor like, that was a huge portion. if anyone is familiar with the homes at thatend, my home used to be a rental property and has required a lot of nexter up money.right? i could have bought new because as you know,for the last 15 years we have been basically been living in development in oakville.i tried to avoid that by buying in an area
that didn't have land around it to developanymore. >> right.>> right. and yes, if the church goes, maybe you buildsomething bigger, right? maybe you take over the whole thing.>> well, we don't build. we have no choice.>> i mean, maybe those things come to you. but by the same token, they have a lot ofactivity in there. i don't see anything about the 6 a.m. workoutactivities that, if you have to don't want to have your air conditioning on and crackyour window, that will wake you up at 6 a.m. monday through friday.right?
the same activity that you mentioned happenslater on in the afternoon. that's the later chapter of that.>> okay. if you have a complaint, please send it tous. >> it's like i know their church, they'retrying to make money, right? i can close my window and it doesn't aggravateme that much in the morning, especially since the bullhorn thing that initially startedwith it went away. right?>> and again, if there's bullhorns at 6 a.m. in the morning, please send me an a.m.>> well, that stopped relatively quickly, the bullhorn thing.>> nevertheless.
my concern is that if we don't at least givea fighting chance to holy trinity, then basically the land might go completely.and my thought is you pick your battles. >> well, if that were the case then i wouldask that you put it on the north side of the property.or the east side of the property. >> okay.>> the east side of the property is probably the last part that would be looked at becauseit's right by the intersection and is the furthest distance away from city servicesto connect to. that would be my guess.>> all right. well, thank you very much.>> mayor burton: anyone else?
anyone else?i beg your pardon? >> may i respond?>> mayor burton: no, we've heard from you. it's not a debate; it's information for council.so i'll accept sir, are you interested in sharing information with us?>> yes, just briefly. >> mayor burton: could you come to the microphoneso we can hear you, and introduce yourself. >> hi, i'm jim powley, 217 sewell.i wrote that letter that's in the appendix there.i just wanted to comment on the optional forest area.there's some lovely mature trees in that forest. however, you can't even access to that.to appreciate that forest area, it's total
brush.you can't even walk in there. it's thick briar, trees that have grown up.leaf piles. dead branches are just thrown in there.so there used to be a little walkway through there but that's long been abandoned.that's why i refer to it as a wasteland. albeit there are some lovely trees in there.i won't deny that fact. but no one really can appreciate them whereasthe green trees that are on sewell are much more publicly observable.that's all i wanted to say. >> mayor burton: thank you very much for thatclarification. i appreciate you taking the time.i'll accept councillor grant's motion now
to receive the information.councillor knoll? >> i have a question for staff on redirect.>> mayor burton: well, please ask your question. >> thanks.i just wanted to explore the parking situation just a little bit more because i want to understandthe numbers better. in the report it refers to the fact thereare 95 parking spaces. that's current day.correct? >> yes.>> so what is if the building were to be built today based on the lot coverage, etc., whatwould be the requirement be for parking spaces? >> i don't have the number for you.i know i did the analysis and i talked to
zoning specifically about that.i can have that within the future recommendation report, that analysis for you.but my understanding is that there's more than excess parking there than is requiredfor the church use. with removal of the parking, the church propertywill still comply with the by law. >> so based on the proposal before us, howmany spaces are actually removed? >> i might defer to the applicant.she may have that number more at hand. >> if that's okay with you, your worship?>> currently there's 85 spaces and it's been reduced down to 56 spaces.>> so the report says 95 spaces and you're saying 85.>> i think it's 85 that they currently have
onsite.>> so how many will it become? >> my quick math to that is...a loss of some 20 odd spaces. >> okay.through you, i would request that staff bring that information back in the final report.>> mayor burton: in terms of process, it might be sufficient for your purposes just to signalto staff that you are interested in having a detailed parking analysis in the recommendationreport. >> yes, that's sort of what i spoke over youon. i apologize for that, by the way.so yes, i would like that very much. if staff could do that, that would be great.thank you, your worship.
>> mayor burton: so then the motion is onlyto receive. as everyone understands, this is not a decisionnight on this matter. this is an information gathering night.so all those in favour of receipt? any opposed?that carries. thank you, everyone.we now turn to item number 5, the public meeting and recommendation report.a temporary use by law extension for the vic hadfield golf centre.and trish collingwood will summarize for the public the report that council has studiedon this matter. >> good evening, mr. mayor and members ofcouncil.
the report tonight can be found on page 25of tonight's agenda. the purpose of this report is to provide councilwith a recommendation on an application for the extension of a temporary use by law submittedfor the vic hadfield golf centre, to permit the lands to be used as a golf centre anddriving range as a temporary use for an additional three years.all right, there we go. the property is located at 340 burnamthorperoad which is situated at the southeast corner of trafalgar and burnamthorpe road intersection.the applicant is requesting approval to permit the lands to continue to be used as a golffor a golf centre with a driving range as a temporary use for an additional three years.this property has been used as a golf centre
with its associated uses since 2001.a temporary use by law has been in effect on this property since 2001 and extensionshave been granted in 2004, '07, '10, and '13. the current temporary use by law expires onjuly 2nd of this year. should council approve the proposed extensionit would be in effect until july 2nd of 2019. no other changes to the existing temporaryuse by law are proposed. the subject site is thank you.the subject site is designated as trafalgar urban core in the north oakville east secondaryplan. the north oakville east secondary plan hasa policy that allows the continuation of existing uses which do not conform to the provisionsof the plan.
the vic hadfield golf centre has been in operationsince 2001 and it is appropriate to allow the property to be used for this purpose untilsuch time as their redevelopment proposal is brought forward for the property.this property is intended to develop in the second phase of the secondary plan, and planof subdivision approvals, registrations, rezoning, site plans and construction are currentlyunderway in phase i a number of them are. and at present, phase i is not yet complete.so phase ii is still a number of years away. the property is zoned existing developmentand has a temporary use performance zone 2 on it.the zoning of the lands permit the existing use as a golf driving range, a sales and proshop, and an accessory storage structure.
the temporary performance zone also providesregulations for a lot area, floor area, a number of driving tees and the amount of parkingonsite. as mentioned previously the existing temporaryperformance zone expires next month and this extension will give it another three years,to 2019. as there have been numerous extensions tothe temporary use by law and no public interest shown on the application over the number ofyears that it has continued, the public meeting requirement has been combined with this recommendationreport and will satisfy the public meeting requirement for this application.staff put forth the following recommendation for council's consideration: that the temporaryuse by law extension application submitted
for the vic hadfield golf centre be approvedand that by law 2016 057 to permit the lands to be used for a golf centre as a temporaryuse for a period of three years be passed. put.this concludes my presentation. >> mayor burton: thank you, ms. collingwood,for the presentation. i think it's important for the public to knowwhat we're doing. they might be watching.and if we put it through without an explanation, they wouldn't have had a chance to know thatthis is a continuing pattern that makes total sense.are there any members of the public with information for council on this matter?mr. faye, are you in support?
>> (inaudible).>> mayor burton: thank you. is there a motion?this is in ward 6, if i recall. councillor adams?>> if there are no further members of the public before us tonight, then i'm happy tomove the staff recommendation. it hasn't caused any issues over the lastfew years and i'm happy to it to continue in the interim.>> mayor burton: thank you, councillor. all those in favour?councillor lishchyna? councillor lishchyna, ask your question.>> thank you. my question is with respect to the golf coursecurrently.
are they allowed to spray in that area, thegrass? considering there's a school right acrossthe street. >> through you, mr. mayor, i am not i am notpositive on that answer and i will have to speak with our environmental policy sectionto determine whether they are permitted to do so.>> mayor burton: shall i call the vote? all those in favour?opposed, if any? and that is carried and approved.and thank you for your attendance. that brings us to public meeting item number6. we have a presentation from heinz hecht.this is a town initiated housekeeping amendment
for winston park west employment lands.mr. hecht, we're all ears. >> thank you, your worship, members of council.just in terms of background and an overview of the application, on april 18th of thisyear, council approved a draft plan of subdivision and zoning amendment for an employment draftplan of subdivision located at the northwest corner of upper middle and highway 403.the zoning by law which was passed that evening contained a mapping error.and the mapping error had the effect of removing the parkway belt and utility zoning categoryfrom a portion of the draft plan of subdivision shown in red.the effect of the revised by law which is before council tonight would be to restorethe previous parkway belt and utility zoning
from a portion of the draft plan of subdivision.the revised zoning by law would only affect block 10 in street b and would not affectthe permitted uses or regulations contained in the original by law.staff have contacted the owners of glenburnie school to ensure that they're aware of therevision and to confirm that there would be no zoning impacts to the regulations as itaffects the school. in conclusion, your worship, the revised zoningby law is a staff initiated housekeeping zoning revision.staff recommend approval of the revised by law.and the revised zoning by law implements a draft plan of subdivision which is in conformitywith the "livable oakville" plan.
that concludes my presentation, your worship.i would be happy to answer any questions. >> mayor burton: thank you, mr. hecht.are there any questions? councillor adams has a question.>> i just note that we've got a note here from enbridge.i presume from my reading of it, it has no impact on the recommendation.>> through you, your worship, yes, that's correct.the conditions of draft approval addressed the enbridge, transcanada and union gas requirements.>> thank you very much. if there are no members of the public here,then i'm happy to move the recommendation. >> mayor burton: thank you, councillor.are there members of the public with information
for council on this matter?i see none. all in favour?opposed, if any? and that is adopted.that brings us to our discussion items. and the first one is item number 7 in theagenda, the notice of intention to demolish at 129 douglas avenue.and susan schappert has a synopsis of this for the public.as the public will understand, council is already familiar with it.>> thank you, your worship, and members of council.the application before you is a notice of intention to demolish for a property thatis listed on oakville's register of properties
of cultural heritage value or interest at129 douglas avenue. due to the 60 daytime limits required by theontario heritage act, we are required to make a decision on this application by june 20thof this year. the property was originally added to the heritageregister as staff and the heritage committee and council had determined that it showedpotential cultural heritage value for its circa 1903 four square style frame house.as part of the notice of intention to demolish process, staff and members of the heritageoakville advisory committee have completed several site visits to the property and heritageplanning staff have also completed a detailed research report which is also included inyour agenda package.
the owner of the property also provided staffwith a historic photo of the property circa 1961 which was shortly after her parents tookpossession of the property in the late 1950s. the review of the property against ontarioregulation 906, which is what defines cultural value, showed minimal heritage value for theresidence which we actually determined to be closer to 1910 rather than 1903.some limited heritage value for its association with the historic brantwood subdivision, althoughthere were no individually significant owners of the property discovered.and in terms of its contextual value, well, the property is historically and functionallylinked to the area it's not considered to be a significant landmark within the community.staff's review and the recommendations supported
by the heritage oakville advisory committeeare therefore to remove the property from the oakville register of properties of culturalheritage value or interest and i'm happy to answer any questions you might have.>> mayor burton: thank you, ms. schappert. are there questions?councillor hutchins, did you have a question? are there members of the public with informationfor council on this matter? councillor hutchins has moved the recommendation.all those in favour? opposed, if any?and that is carried. thank you, ms. schappert.unless you're up next? >> yes.>> mayor burton: you're a double hitter tonight.
all right, this is item number 8, the historicstone wall at 1028 lakeshore road east, and this is a closure, surplus and conveyance.and ms. schappert will summarize this for the public.>> thank you again, mr. mayor. the application before you tonight or ratherthe report is a joint report by heritage planning staff and legal staff.i'll certainly endeavour to give you a good summary of what we're proposed for this site.and if there's any specific or technical questions regarding the conveyance, i may ask the councillorto assist me with answering them. the property at 1028 lakeshore road east isdesignated under the ontario heritage act already.what this map shows you is the location of
the property parcel with the green bar beingthe location of the historic stone wall in question, which falls partially on to privatelyowned property and partially on to town owned property.the purpose of the report before you tonight is a proposed amendment to the heritage designationfor 1028 lakeshore road east based on the conveyance of the land from the town to theprivate property's ownership. this is the town's preferred solution to conveythe lands that the stone wall sits on as it does ensure that the stone wall will be maintainedby the property owner who is very supportive of the application.a couple of photos which i would like to note were taken in april, despite the snow, toshow you the stone wall and its proximity
to the house.the stone wall, while we weren't able to find the exact historic construction date for itcertainly has been in existence for many, many years and contributes to the overallcharacter of lakeshore road as well as to the character of the property at 1028 lakeshoreroad east. the recommendation before you is a ratherwordy one but essentially what we're asking council to do is to amend the heritage designationby law to include the stone wall following the conveyance of the lands to the owner of1028 lakeshore road east. i'm happy to answer any questions you mighthave. >> mayor burton: thank you, ms. schappert.councillor hutchins, do you have a question?
>> no, again i'm happy to move it forward.>> mayor burton: thank you. councillor lishchyna, have you a question?>> thank you, susan. so you indicated that the current propertyowner is supportive of taking on the looking after this wall.so if that property owner sells, there's language saying that the next owner also has to dothat? >> through you, your worship, yes, once thedesignation by law is amended, it would include all of the lands.so the current property owner has in fact actually been maintaining the wall duringhis ownership of the property, which has been for many years.and he would like to ensure its long term
protection.>> mayor burton: councillor elgar? >> so to be clear, it will be then registeredon title? for sure?>> through you, your worship, yes. >> thank you.that's great. >> mayor burton: are there any members ofthe public with information for council on councillor gittings?>> thank you, mr. mayor. i would just like to say what a wonderfulsolution. the owners of the property have shown overthe past number of years their desire to preserve and look after the wall, have they not?>> most definitely.
>> at their own cost.so i think it's a delightful solution and i'm glad to see it's going to be in such caringhands. >> mayor burton: shall i put the question?all in favour? all right.that brings us to the advisory committee minutes from heritage oakville.and there's numerous items here. and we have a delegation on one.and the delegation is for the 6b and that is the 417 union street.so, council, i would propose that we dispatch the other part and then deal with the delegatedpart. and councillor duddeck is moving the balance.any discussion or questions?
they are adopted.and that turns our attention now to 6b and perhaps madame clerk you could call the delegation?pardon? is there a delegate here?>> yes, so i would call mr. fernando. >> mayor burton: welcome, sir.please approach the microphone there and share your information with us.>> yes, my name is bimal fernando. i'm the owner of 417 union street.and just to give you a little background what happened over the last year, i have been workingon this project since july of 2015, trying to build a house for the family.prior to this prior to the heritage meeting approval, took place may the 24th, i had fewmeetings with some of the community members.
sorry, the committee members of the heritage.and i was told they are not happy with the design.and i was asked at the time to change. and i met the committee a few times after.and then we redesigned the whole house. and i came up 3.6% extra lot coverage.so now we are about 3.6% extra lot coverage. what i'm still struggling to understand is,according to my knowledge we still have the old rules in place.and my neighbour got approval last year for 4.9% extra lot coverage and i was told thati can't get 3.6%, with the same rules. so i'm struggling to understand.and i'm asking you to consider and give me a reasonable decision.>> mayor burton: thank you very much for your
information.are there questions of the delegation? thank you, sir.so is it ms. schappert who will present again? carolyn, welcome.>> thank you, mr. mayor, members of council. so i have a presentation that might clarifythings a little bit. this is a presentation that was done to theheritage oakville committee on may 24th. so the heritage permit application is for417 union street. you can see it here within the heritage conservationdistrict. it's the larger gray property on union streethere. and the application was to demolish the existinghouse and property and to construct a new
2 storey house with attached garage.this is the existing house here, as seen about last year.so this house here is not considered to be of heritage value.it's not considered to be a property that contributes to the heritage district.so staff have no problems or any concerns about the removal of this house.but the heritage permit application, it's really surrounding the design of the new house.so again there's just giving you a bit more context.where the arrow is pointing up, that's where the property is, behind these trees.and this is the plan of the house that's being proposed by the owner.so again you can see here this is the lot
here and we've got the house in gray in theplans. this is the front elevation that will be facingon to union street. so it's a 2 storey brick house with some stonealong the bottom. it's got a low sloped roof, a simple woodtrim. a lot of details that are influenced by thearts and craft design which is a style that's seen throughout the heritage conservationdistrict. wood doors and multi paned windows which arealso consistent with what what's found in the district.this is the rear elevation. again, same type of materials.some french doors in the back.
the east elevation and here you can see, thisis the garage, set back from the front of the house which is always a concern.within the heritage district we want to make sure that the garage is pushed back furtherfrom the front elevation. so here we have the front porch and the garageis pushed back to here. and then this is the west elevation.again, a large brick house with a stone chimney and stone base.just to give you a bit of background, the process that mr. fernando was referring to,there were several designs and these are the main ones, so the initial design that camein had a lot of different styles, a lot of different details, different materials.lots of different types of windows.
we wanted to see a style that was a littlebit more simple, a little bit more humble, one that really met the character of the district.so we worked with the owner and his architect as well as a few members of the heritage committeeto do that. this is another rendition, which you can seeis a bit simplified but staff still had some concern that the house was a little bit toelegant and too formal for the heritage conservation district.and during this time the house was made smaller as well.the garage was pushed back further too. and then this is the final product that camethrough in the heritage permit application. so again you can see that the roofs have alower slope on them, as opposed to the higher
pitched roof you saw before.something that is more characteristic of the types of houses in the district.materials were simplified. windows and doors more simplified to be alittle bit more, again, humble, to meet the character of the district a little bit better.and here we have a view showing all of union street.so this is the house that is currently under construction.it's about finished now on the corner of union street.and then here we have the proposed house. and then the two existing properties between.so in terms of the collaboration, we had several months of collaborating with the applicant,their architect as well as a few members of
the heritage committee.again, like i said, we worked to simplify the design.staff felt that in the end the massing and design materials proposed in the applicationwere compatible, and met the guidelines. we also felt that there was sufficient spacearound the house. they had increased the set back more thanzoning required, to just give a little bit more breathing space around the house.and we felt that it was consistent with other buildings approved in the neighbourhood.the one thing where they did not meet zoning was the lot coverage.so the owners are requesting a 28.6% lot coverage. whereas 25% is permitted.as part of the heritage permit application
process, we don't look specifically at numberswhen it comes to variances like that. of course that's left up to the committeeof adjustment. but the changes that are required or the designthat requires these types of variances, we do look at.so we want to ensure that the building is not too bulky, too tall, too forward or tooback on the property, so it is in keeping with the character of the district.staff felt that that despite these numbers, it still had a design that was compatiblewith the heritage conservation district. now, to speak to the guidelines that mr. fernandoreferenced, we have two district plans we're looking at.this is where a bit of confusion comes into
place.we have the original district plan which was created in 1987. and that is the guidelineswe have used up until now and continue to use, i should say.in 2015 staff created and worked with consultants as well to create the district plan.a new revised district plan. and it was endorsed by council in januaryof this year. however, it's currently under appeal.and in accordance with the ontario heritage act it is therefore not in effect.because it was endorsed by council, we wanted to use it as much as possible, understandingthat of course this is the direction that the town wants to go.so we worked with the applicant to make sure
that the proposal was as much as possiblein keeping with this district plan. however, in the end it is not fully in effect.so one of the main differences that these two district plans have regarding the lotcoverage can be seen on this slide. so if you look at the 2015 one, the intentis to be a little bit more strict in terms of lot coverage.so the wording is that the maximum lot coverage for main residences as well as accessory buildingsand structures including detached garages shall be the maximum lot coverage permittedaccording to the district and the zoning use by law.that's pretty clear. we want to be able to meet that 25% lot coveragewith the new district plan.
of course, considering it's not completelyin effect, we looked to the 1987 district plan.and the wording in that one is "it is recommended that new building construction does not exceedthe existing maximum lot coverage. however, it is encouraged that new constructionbe consistent with neighbouring existing buildings." so following knows guidelines and the restof the guidelines in that document, staff felt that the proposal was in keeping withthese 1987 guidelines. and that is why we had staff's recommendation.now heritage oakville committee recommended denial of the application.but this is the staff recommendation that the heritage committee originally sought.so that is to approve the demolition of the
existing house and the construction of thenew house subject to final details on brick, stone, roofing, windows and doors being submittedto staff for approval. those are pretty standard clauses.so i would be happy to answer any questions. that concludes my presentation.>> mayor burton: thank you, carolyn. there is a question.councillor elgar is first. >> thank you very much for the presentation.it's appreciated. could you tell me how many square feet we'retalking about, this 3.6% deviation? >> that, i will have to see if we have itin the document. just give me one moment.>> and while we're doing that, i'm just trying
to understand the gentleman mentioned thatthe house on the corner deviated by 4.9%. and was that under a different timeline ofyears ago? pour was that just approved recently?>> so through you, your worship, that one was approved in 2015, i believe.the process started in 2014. and they were given a 30.5% for that one.so that's the we have it as going over by 5.5%.>> i think he referenced 4.9. >> yes, i had in my notes it was 30.5 in theend. if it's the one i'm thinking about on thecorner, being 63 first street, i believe >> okay.so that was quite a bit over.
i see.>> regarding the square footage, i don't have the exact numbers but i can tell you thatthe square footage of the house as proposed the total square footage is 3655, so 3,655.in terms of that percentage, i'm not sure what that difference would be.>> so it's probably two storeys for sure. so you divide it by half for lot coverage.so you would have to take off not too many square feet, is what you're saying.he would meet everything, all guidelines, if we accept say at 25, instead of 28.6, ifthe house shrunk a good rainstorm and it shrunk, we would have no issues with that new housegoing up? >> well, from a heritage perspective.and just speaking from the heritage perspective,
staff has no concerns with what they're proposingnow. so if they were to minimize it or shrink itas you say, we still would not have any concerns as long as the design was still compatible.from the committee of adjustment's perspective, i can't speak to that.>> so if it just shrunk a little bit, you from a heritage point of view would have absolutelyno issues if it remains with the current proposal? >> if it remains with the current proposal,we have recommended approval as is. that is our stance.we're just presenting our existing recommendation that we already gave to the heritage committee.that has not changed. >> yes, it is hard if one person has a 5.5%deviation and the other person is looking
for 3.6, to explain it.thank you. >> mayor burton: councillor elgar, i calculatethe square footage difference come down to the point you mentioned, they will have totake 110 feet out. they would go from 3655 to 3545.but we should hear from the committee. the committee, of course, had a differentview of it. so and i see a member of the committee nowoffering to share their view. councillor duddeck?>> thank you. through you, your worship, we had considerablediscussion. we really were wrestling with this one giventhe fact that one of the key what shall i
say?problems that a lot on heritage have had with the conservation district here is the lotcoverage. we have been going bigger and bigger and bigger.so we really wanted to remain firm with the 25%.i do acknowledge what carolyn has said, that it isn't in effect while under appeal.but in good conscience, the heritage committee under their heritage lands would not endorsesomething above the 25%. and they did not feel it was unreasonablefor the applicant to reduce it by 3.6. >> mayor burton: councillor o'meara?>> i saw the different ideations of drawings. how many times did you work with the proponentto get the house to where it needed to be?
how many iterations of the drawing did theapplicant bring forward? >> i would say about three but there was alsoa lot of drawings between there. we worked between november and may.so november of 2015 until may of this year on the drawings.so, i mean, i can't speak to how many in between because the architect has had several betweeneach of those stages. but we had about three or four larger iterations.>> because that's my concern. it's not just: well, we'll find 100 feet herin the closet; it's the redesign of a whole house.walls have to be moved. load bearings have to be moved.did we at no point in this process when we're
going through there have this discussion about,the new rules are this and we're going to strictly enforce them, so that he knew whathe was doing before he came to the heritage committee?did he have that conversation? >> through you, your worship, when we startthe process with the applicant it was november 2015, prior to the 2015 district plan evenbeing completed yesterday and endorsed by council.so the process for this heritage permit application started before the district plan was evenendorsed. and then in the middle of that whole process,council endorsed the district plan but it was immediately appealed.so we kept going with our initial approach,
if that makes sense or the approach of the1987 district plan because that was the only thing that was ever in place throughout theentire process. >> and i just take it the committee decidedto use the 2015 one and hold the 25%, then, i guess is what i'm hearing?okay. i'm sorry about that, sir.okay. >> mayor burton: are there any others?councillor hutchins? and then i'll come back to you for a secondtime. >> yes.speaking from the committee's point of view, i believe the committee felt that this isa brand new house.
it could easily have been designed to thespecifications to keep it within the variances that was being requested.so 25% was sufficient. >> mayor burton: thank you, councillor hutchins.councillor elgar? >> i wonder if the applicant that came forwardwould if we could ask him a question regarding where it stands right now, and what he cando. >> mayor burton: mr. fernando, would you liketo come back to the podium and let councillor elgar ask you a question or two?thank you. >> thanks very much for coming.and with staff explaining to us also, and also two members of the council that wereon the heritage committee.
would you be willing to shrink your house3.6% on a square footage basis, which is hardly anything, and we could approve this, if weput in that it would be a certain square footage? >> the problem we have is when we designedthe house originally, the walls were straight up and the heritage didn't quite like theywant us to minimize the upstairs. the second floor.so we if you look at the drawings that we have done, we have quite a lot of coveragenow. and for us to get that 3.6% out, it's about320 or 330 square feet. that's about one and a half garage that ihad to take out. my neighbour carolyn was right, it was actually5.5% was given before so we are struggling
to get that 3.6% out.that's why i'm hear today. if i can get that 3.6% out, i'm more thanhappy to do so. and we worked with the old rules and theni was i had meetings with the heritage committee members numerous times.and i was told to work with the design. and now i have run into this problem afterone year. so even after one year i can't get going withthe house, because of the 3.6%. so i really want you to consider this.we tried. we really tried.it's a matter of me losing now, like, 1 and a half percent of the garage.>> there's no other place that you feel you
can do it?that's a concern. because two members of our council sit onthe heritage and they're extremely knowledgeable of how it works.and i'm just trying to think, you could probably get moving a lot faster if you>> and i would also like to say that some of the members in the heritage supported meas well. and for me to get 3.6%.and unfortunately a few members didn't want to support me at the time.so i i was there the 24th of july and some members supported me.>> which is not the majority, or you wouldn't be here.i thank you.
i was kind of hoping that you would say, hey,i'll reduce it for this size. >> i can do it.the only thing is i have to redesign the whole thing.i have spent already about $30,000. if i knew when i started that the new rulesare going to apply, then i would have really done this, and i really want to obey the rulesand i will not go. but i went to 4.9 thinking that i will getthat, because the neighbour got 5.5%. but then i reduced from 4.9% down to 3.6%.so i never thought this is going to be a big issue.and now because we are applying the new rules, my issue is the new rules are not in effectyet.
so that's what i tried to struggling to understand.>> okay. i thank you.i think you know the rules and i think you know what heritage told you as a majorityanyway. so...okay, i was hoping you would shrink it. thank you.>> mayor burton: are there other questions? i see a sign over here.councillor adams? >> i wanted to ask the applicant whether hehad been aware of the 25% rule when he initially purchased the property.okay. >> mayor burton: ms. schappert, do you happento know the size of the lot in metres or feet?
i'm sorry, carolyn.>> that's all right. let me see here.so the lot area is 777 square metres or 8,370 square feet.>> mayor burton: and 8,370 times 25% gives 2,092.5 feet for coverage?>> and through you, your worship, what they're proposing is 3,290 square feet.so it's a difference of 300. >> mayor burton: and is that a result of sowe cannot assume that therefore the upper floor is not the same size as the lower floor.correct? >> that's correct.we asked the applicant, as he was mentioning, to bring in the second storey a bit.again, a lot of that was to do with the roof
line.we wanted to make the building have lower sloped roofs and not appear so large.so that was where most of the reduction took place was in the second storey.>> mayor burton: so do you happen to know the second storey number?>> yes, i do. the second floor is 1980.so 1,980 square feet. and the ground floor is 1675.so that's opposite of what sorry. so that>> mayor burton: let's start over. >> that must be>> mayor burton: you had 2,092.5 you had 2,390 for the ground floor, i thought you said.>> no, sorry that's the footprint of the house.
i apologize.ground floor he has here 1675 square feet. yes, that doesn't make any sense because theupper floor is 1980, which has more square footage in the upstairs.so i would assume that those were backwards. >> mayor burton: okay.so the lot coverage number is the sum of the two smaller numbers; is that correct?>> so the lot coverage number? well, i'm looking at that's the footprint.that's the lot coverage. what i was looking at was the square footageof each floor which totals 3,655 total square feet.>> mayor burton: let's go back to the size of the lot, 8370.and 25% of that is 2092.5.
>> and they have 2390.>> mayor burton: so therefore they're almost 300 feet over?>> correct. yes, that's correct.>> mayor burton: and so the bottom floor is 2390.that's established, right? >> the coverage, yes.makes sense to me. >> mayor burton: so then one of your othernumbers is the upper floor. right?>> that would make sense. >> mayor burton: okay.>> i'm going by the architect's numbers, so i apologize if it's not all perfect.>> mayor burton: but earlier in the discussion
of this, we were wondering as a group we werewondering could we assume that the second floor was the same size as the ground.and what we've learned is that in response to requests by staff, the applicant reducedthe upper floor. but not by quite enough to reach the rigorous25% being asked by the heritage committee. >> and through, your worship, just on thatnote, it did the coverage was also reduced. it started at about 31%.they brought it down to, i think it was, 29%, around there.and then ended up at 28.6%. >> mayor burton: all right.well, i understand. i thank you for clarifying the numbers forme.
in the interests of fairness to the applicantand the unsettled nature of the existing regulation, because of the appeal, i'm going to supportthe staff recommendation on this matter. i'm not asking anyone else to join me in this.i'm happy to be futile on it. but i just think that in the circumstances,a little bit of consideration is owed to the applicant when i hear how much work he wasput to, and apparently cooperated with doing, and i think that should count for something.so that's why i'll be supporting council, that's why i'll be supporting the staff recommendation.>> mayor burton, just to be clear, so you are moving>> mayor burton: i'm not moving anything. >> oh.>> mayor burton: the recommendation in front
of you is to back up the heritage committee.and if that passes, the matter is over. only if that fails would there be an opportunityfor someone to move the original staff recommendation. and i'm not expecting you to do anything morethan a little alamo here. but that's just in the name of fairness, ithought i would stick up for the applicant. councillor duddeck?>> thank you, your worship. and thank you for your comments.i appreciate those. this was not an easy one for us to deal with,as i say. but given the fact this is quite an issuefor the heritage committee in regards to lot coverage, as i said previously, i can acceptthe fact that because somebody's appealed
it, it's not considered current, or in effect,rather. but i cannot in good conscience say that,well, based on the fact he's tried a couple of times it's interesting, there's a commentin our minutes, or in our agenda, rather, that heritage planning staff has pushed asmuch as possible for a lower coverage. and it's been reduced considerably from earlierplans. unfortunately, it's still not meeting thetarget that the heritage committee wants. and unfortunately, this has been a bug a bearfor heritage for a long time, where we have had larger and larger homes and more lot coverageof these lots. and given that his lot would appear largerthan some of the others, he's already at a
higher percentage, if you really want to lookat it that way. so i will be moving the that we pass the minutesas presented. >> mayor burton: thank you, councillor.and i certainly the respect that the committee does.and i totally understand your position. are there other speakers or shall i put thevote? councillor adams as a speaker.then is there another? councillor elgar?>> i have heard what councillor duddeck has said, and i agree with her, and i will besupporting her motion. >> mayor burton: councillor elgar?>> yes, thank you very much.
this is a pretty interesting one.if i had not just found out that one house right next door was a 5.5%, not a 4.9%, deviationfrom the standard, i would have stuck with denial of this.but i'm having trouble based on the fact of how he's already shrunk the house.to me it is a minimal very minimal difference, an awful lot different than the 5.5% thatwas just allowed not that long ago. so i will have to, unfortunately, not supportthe councillor on this one. thank you.>> mayor burton: all right. i'll put the vote, then?councillor duddeck? >> could we have a recorded vote, please?>> mayor burton: yes.
all those in favour of the motion to approvethe committee recommendation, please rise to be named.councillor adams, councillor grant, councillor knoll, councillor hutchins, councillor gittings,councillor chisholm and councillor duddeck, and councillor robinson.and to be recorded in the losing side, councillor lishchyna, councillor lapworth, councilorelgar, mayor burton and councillor o'meara. i declare councillor duddeck's motion carriedsubstantially. the next item, council, is item number 10and that is the "livable oakville" official plan review council subcommittee report.and that, i believe, calls on councillor elgar, do you want to say anything here?>> thank you very much, mayor burton.
at a recent meeting, a meeting ago we arepart of a "livable oakville" subcommittee related to where we want to go in the future.and what we noticed is that in the goals of the province, they want to make sure environmentalsustainability is in there. and while we have it in our plan, it wasn'tspecifically a separate goal that was written. so staff took it under advisement from committeeto work on it and report back and to change the wording somewhat, so that in fact oursustainability was at a higher level in our plan, so that it wouldn't be misinterpretedas not being there. so staff have put together a new study goaland they have reworded it, and this is as recently as 5:57 p.m. tonight, if you wantto read it.
and there's both the study goal and also aboutyou know, it's about environmental sustainability. and i'm hoping everyone will support it, andi would like to thank staff for all the rewriting they have done a few times, and also for mayorburton for a few last minute changes. and i'm very pleased that we have this it'sfront and centre now, about environmental sustainability.so i thank staff for that, and i and i would be appreciate everybody's support in thistwo changes to our "livable oakville" subcommittee minutes.>> mayor burton: thank you, councillor. any other speakers?in the circumstances, may i ask for a recorded vote on this?and would you please rise to be named, to
show your support?councillor lishchyna, adams, grant, knoll, lapworth, elgar, mayor burton, hutchins, gittings,chisholm, duddeck, robinson and o'meara. i declare the motion carried.and i thank you for that, council. it means we get to end in unanimity, if weweren't always there during the meeting. i now would ask for a motion to rise and report.councillor robinson, thank you for that. that carries.i rise and report that the committee of the whole has met and made recommendations onconsent items 1, 2 and 3, confidential consent item c 1, public hearing items 4, 5, and 6,discussion items 7 and 8, advisory committee minutes items 9 and 10 as noted by the clerk.and i need a mover and a seconder for the
report.councillor lishchyna? and councillor grant.thank you. it's good to be able to see your waving handover there. the report is adopted.i have a small bit of new business. does anyone else have any?thank you. then i'll just say on your behalf how happyi was to see the minister of labour and member for provincial parliament for oakville returnto cabinet in the cabinet shuffle. and i thought it would be appropriate to observethat his record in cabinet must have been a very positive reflection on halton becausetwo more members of provincial parliament
from halton are now in cabinet.and so where once we had none and then had only one, now we have three.and as there's now 30, i think it's significant that halton now has voices to the extent of10% of cabinet. and we congratulate, indira naidoo harrisand eleanor mcmahon, and we thank kevin for the example he set that inspired more to comefrom halton. and i know i speak on behalf of all of youwhen i say that. can i now ask for a mover and a seconder ofthe by laws? councillor knoll and councillor lapworth.as printed in the agenda, all in favour? opposed, if any?the by laws are adopted.
that completes our agenda.it's been great working with you. and we are adjourned.
