22 Brookfield Road

Distributed photos of what he says are adult dinners, lights and speakers inside the 'so-called tent,' and argued the structure doesn't meet the zoning code's canopy definition.

Said neighbors don't oppose a kids' play canopy per se, but don't believe that's its real use — she suspects it's being used to expand mosque capacity beyond what parking can handle.

Objected to the 'canopy' label, cited photos of dinners and heaters, warned of flooding from the unapproved paved surface, and said approval would mean more traffic and lower property values.

Supported the canopy for the kids — and accused a neighboring commenter of deliberately blocking mosque traffic with her car, which the chair quickly shut down.

Read a neighborhood letter: if it's a permanent structure, the code applies — at least 21 more parking spaces are required and impervious coverage appears to exceed the 35% limit, requiring a variance.

A veteran teacher offered a solution instead of a gripe: indoor recess alternatives — board games, indoor activities — exist, so the canopy is a want, not a need.

A 20-year mosque attendee said Friday traffic lasts barely 90 minutes a week and called the area a ghost town otherwise — the complaints, he argued, aren't about the canopy.

Longtime member traced the conflict to post-9/11 friction, said the city granted one-side parking then revoked it, and invoked religious freedom protections.

A fellow teacher countered the indoor-recess argument: public schools have gyms — the mosque school doesn't, which is exactly why the canopy matters.

A 40-year neighbor who welcomes the mosque said permission was never given for a permanent structure, retrospective approval would reward it, and Friday capacity is the real safety issue.

Said the tent has stood for years with no safety issues, offered to work with neighbors on parking — and firmly stated the mosque isn't going anywhere.

A neighbor since 1989 with nothing against the faith, he said the 'for the children' story doesn't square with photos of banquets and fairs — and clarified the loud-music neighbor issue was resolved years ago.

Argued the canopy can't add capacity — the building's footprint doesn't change — so parking and membership concerns don't actually apply to this approval.

A 35-year user of the space said he's never seen it crowded and asked the board to forgive the permit lapse and recognize the facility's community service.

Highlighted severe parking shortages, zoning non-compliance, and questioned the actual use of the tent structure.

Stated that overcrowding and traffic impact property values and neighborhood safety in the quiet residential area.

Defended the mosque, noting that parking issues occur only briefly on Fridays and the canopy is solely for children.

A teacher at the school explained that the canopy protects children from weather during outdoor play and lunch.

Noticed that the notice described a canopy while a permanent steel structure was built without permits, worsening street congestion.

A student testified that the canopy is crucial for outdoor play during rainy or hot weather.

Supported the canopy as a necessary safety and educational space for children in the neighbourhood.

Spoke on behalf of youth, stating the canopy provides shaded outdoor space for families and children.

A neighborhood doctor and long-time congregant explained efforts taken with neighbours to resolve Friday parking congestion with cones.

A nearby resident stated that traffic is only busy during Friday prayers and never blocked his driveway.

Apologized for Friday noise and parking inconveniences, noting the structure is strictly for students.

Emphasized the canopy's role in providing safety and shelter for children and vulnerable community members.

Clarified that parking issues are unrelated to the canopy and invited officials to inspect the site on Fridays.

A nearby resident expressed full support for the mosque and offered his own driveway for parking.

Argued that the mosque has outgrown its property and that the tent is used for unauthorized large events.

Highlighted severe street congestion and blocked emergency access during religious holidays and Fridays.

Suggested that a temporary seasonal canopy would address safety without permanent site over-densification.

Questioned structural safety, snow load calculations, and the lack of permits for the permanent structure.

Agreed that parking is a genuine grievance but argued it should not be conflated with the canopy application.

A retired major general and neighbor stated the canopy does not bother anyone and protects children.