Committee of Adjustment

4:37Good afternoon, Guelph. I'd like to call to order the November 27, 2025 hearing of the Guelph Committee of Adjustment.

4:45This hearing today is being held in a hybrid format with attendees appearing in person and remotely and is being live streamed and recorded.

4:54Please be advised that public hearings form part of the public record and the words, names or images of those participating shall be recorded and posted online.

5:05We have received regrets from members Spears who will not be attending this meeting.

5:10Before I outline the hearing format for today, if you are watching online and wish to speak to an application that's listed on the agenda and have not yet submitted a written request in advance of the hearing, please call the number displayed on the screen now.

5:25That number is 519-822-1260.

5:31That's 519-822-1260 and the extension is 2524 and you will receive instructions on how to participate.

5:41For those attending the hearing in person, you'll also be given a chance to address our committee and a final call for delegations will be made when each application is called.

5:52The agenda for this hearing has been posted online at guelph.ca forward slash COFA.

6:00I'll remind all committee members and staff participating in the hearing to please mute your microphones when not in use.

6:07Applicants will be unmuted when their application is called.

6:11I'd also like to share the hearing format we'll be using to navigate through each application today.

6:17Each application will be called by the secretary treasurer and the call in number for those wishing to speak to an application will be displayed on the screen.

6:27Afterwards, the applicant will be given an opportunity to add anything further to their application to a maximum of 10 minutes.

6:34You will hear a chime when there is 30 seconds left and another when 10 minutes have eclapsed.

6:42If you are the applicant and you have nothing further to add, then you can simply say so.

6:48Following this, for some file, staff may provide a brief presentation.

6:53Our committee will then be able to ask questions to the applicant or staff.

6:59After that, we will hear from members of the public who wish to comment on the application.

7:04Please note that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

7:09Please also avoid repeating concerns already stated by others and focus on adding new information.

7:19Comments are limited to 10 minutes or less and you will hear a chime when there is 30 seconds remaining and another when the 10 minutes has eclapsed.

7:28For delegates that have advised staff in advance of the hearing that they wish to display a presentation,

7:35your presentation will be displayed on the screen and a remote is available at the podium for delegates in person to advance the slides.

7:44Any member of the public who have submitted a request to speak prior to the hearing will be the first invited to provide comments.

7:52For those watching the hearing online, if you wish to speak to an application and have not submitted a request in advance for the hearing, please call the number displayed on the screen now.

8:05For those attending the hearing in person, you'll also be given a chance to come forward to the podium and address our committee.

8:13Once all comments from the public have been heard, the applicant or staff will be given an opportunity to respond to the comments made.

8:21Finally, as chair, I will turn to our committee for a motion and deliberation as well as a vote on the application.

8:29When the committee is making a decision on an application, as chair, I will be asking the secretary treasurer to conduct the vote by roll call.

8:37The secretary treasurer will call each of the members' names and each member will respond if they are in favor or opposed to the motion.

8:47And as chair, I will announce the results of the vote.

8:50If you wish to receive a copy of the decision on an application, you must submit a written request.

9:00A written request can be made by contacting staff using the contact information shown on the screen.

9:07To receive a copy of the decision, please email cofa at gwellf.ca with your name and the file number you're interested in.

9:17Please note that owners and applicants will automatically receive a copy of the decision.

9:25At this point, I'm going to ask member Ross to provide the territorial acknowledgement and those present who are able, could we stand while that's being read?

9:37As we gather, let us take time to reflect on our privilege to live and work in Guelph, a city built over rich indigenous histories.

9:55We are guests here and we should reflect upon the responsibility to care for this land, the people who live here today and the generations to come.

10:05If our actions today can move us towards reconciliation, we should take pause and make those decisions with intention and gratitude.

10:16This place we call Guelph has served as traditional lands and a place of refuge for many peoples over time.

10:24But more specifically, the Atawanda Ronk and the Haudenosaunee.

10:31This land is held as a treaty lands and territory with the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation.

10:37Guelph lies directly adjacent to the Haldeman Tract and is part of the long-established traditional hunting ground for the Sixth Nations of the Grand River.

10:46Many First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples who have come from across Turtle Island call Guelph home today.

11:00Thank you very much, Member Ross.

11:05At this point, I'd like to know if any committee members, if there are any disclosures of pecuniary interest.

11:13If so, please raise your hand.

11:17Seeing none.

11:19I've confirmed with the Secretary-Treasurer that we do have a deferral request and I shall turn it over to the Secretary-Treasurer, Madam Secretary-Treasurer.

11:29Thank you, Chair.

11:31There are a couple of applications on the agenda this evening that are recommending deferral.

11:36First, for minor variance file A-91-25 for 25 Chadwick Avenue, as staff is recommending deferral of the minor variance file and the applicant is not in support of that deferral request,

11:50that application will be heard as originally listed under the current application section of the agenda.

11:56And as well for files B-73-25, B-74-25 and B-75-25 for 310 Enverle Road South, staff is recommending deferral of the consent application so that the applicant can address staff comments and concerns regarding municipal servicing,

12:16cumulative impacts and transit impacts.

12:18The agent has agreed to the deferral request and is an attendant. Should the committee have any questions?

12:25So I'll turn it over to the Chair for a deferral motion for that Enverle applications.

12:29Thank you.

12:31And the, you mentioned that the applicant is in agreement.

12:37Did you want to come forward and address the committee?

12:46Okay, thank you.

12:48Committee members, do I have a motion for deferral?

12:51No.

12:53That's member Fitzpatrick.

12:55There's only one member from that side today.

12:59Just one there.

13:01Member Ross, is there any discussion?

13:04Oh, there's no discussion on deferral.

13:07So I will turn it over to the secretary treasurer to call the roll please.

13:11Thank you, Chair. Committee members, please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the motion, which is to defer the applications.

13:19Chair Smith.

13:20In favor.

13:22Member Fitzpatrick.

13:23In favor.

13:24Member Goodfellow.

13:25In favor.

13:27Member Membraniel.

13:28In favor.

13:29Member Meir.

13:30In favor.

13:31And member Ross.

13:32In favor.

13:33That's carried, Mr. Chair.

13:35Thank you. Your application has been deferred.

13:39Madam Secretary Treasurer, may we have the next applicant please?

13:41The next application is file A-90-25, variance to permit reduced rear yard setback for proposed rear yard addition, sunroom, to existing residential dwelling at 15 Houghton Crescent.

14:00I'll note for those attending the hearing remotely, if you wish to speak to this application, you can do so by calling the number displayed on the screen.

14:07The number is 519-822-1260, extension 2524.

14:13And when you call in, staff will give you instructions on how you can delegate remotely.

14:18Thank you. Is the applicant present? Okay. This will be a telephone call. Is the applicant available?

14:36If you hit star six, that should unmute you.

14:46Can you hear me?

14:47I can indeed.

14:48Can you hear me?

14:49I can indeed.

14:50Can you hear us?

14:52Yes. Yes. I apologize.

14:55I'm in a public atmosphere, which is, I'm trying to get by this.

15:03I apologize. It was very bad timing here. I am getting through this. Okay. Hopefully this is less disruptive.

15:11So let's get a few of the nice ideas out of the way. Can you state your name and your relationship to this application, please?

15:17Sure. My name is Robert Mitchell. I am the applicant. I'm the owner of the residence co-owner with my wife, Colleen.

15:27And I'm prepared to give my statement if you can hear me okay.

15:35Yes. Just one more moment. We have a little more perfunctory information to receive from you. And can you tell me if the sign was posted as per the Planning Act?

15:44Absolutely. I posted it when I received it. I believe on the 13th or 14th, which was 13 or 14 days ahead of the committee.

15:58Okay. And have you read staff's comments?

16:04I have, I believe.

16:06Okay. In that case, you have 10 minutes to address our committee.

16:10Okay. Dear members of the committee, I'm writing to respectfully request approval for a minor variance regarding the rear setback for my property at 15 Houghton Crescent.

16:24The current zoning bylaw requires a rear yard setback of 7.6 meters for primary structures.

16:31My existing deck, which was constructed in compliance with the zoning for decks extends to a point where the closest corner is 3.1 meters from the rear property line.

16:43This location and configuration has been permitted under the applicable provision for decks.

16:50While we enjoy the deck, the southward facing orientation makes the deck unbearably hot during the summer to the point where we cannot spend time on the deck during the day.

17:01I'm proposing to construct a three season sunroom on the existing deck. This will allow us shelter from the intense of the summer months while also allowing us to extend time on the deck in the spring and fall while sheltered from the elements.

17:14Importantly, this addition will not extend the deck or further encroach towards the rear property line.

17:21The sunroom will be built entirely within the existing footprint of the property line.

17:27The sunroom will be built entirely within the existing footprint of the approved deck. However, as the sunroom is considered part of the principal structure, the city has advised that a variance is required to recognize the reduced setback.

17:41The reason for the request, the proposed sunroom will make better use of the existing deck without expanding its footprint.

17:49The structure will not create any new encroachment or reduce the available open space of the rear of the property.

17:56The sunroom will improve the usability of the home for my family while maintaining the established character of the neighborhood.

18:03A building permit has already been reviewed and is ready for issuance pending approval of this minor variance.

18:09For these reasons, I respectfully request that the committee approve this application.

18:15The proposal does not negatively impact neighborhood properties will not alter the character of the neighborhood and represents a reasonable and minor adjustment to the by log given the circumstances.

18:27Thank you for your consideration and the situation where I'm sitting out in the public chair in a noisy situation.

18:35Well, thanks very much for that. If you want to wait right there. My colleagues may have some questions for you. Committee members. Do you have any questions?

18:45I'm seeing shaking of heads. Did staff have any presentation they wanted to speak to seeing none?

18:56I'm I do have one question and that is sure.

19:01When I reviewed the site, it seems to me there's a path behind like a public pathway behind and open space behind your law. Does that not correct? That's correct.

19:13Okay. Thanks for that qualification. Okay.

19:17We have no questions. I'm going to turn to committee members to see if there is room for a.

19:23Oh, comments. Yes. Are there any members of the public who have been registered to speak to this application?

19:31Mr. Chair, I can confirm no delegation requests.

19:35Thank you. And are there any members of the gallery who would like to speak to this application?

19:41Seeing none. Is there anyone online who'd like to speak to this application?

19:46Okay. At this point, I'll consider a motion. Committee members. What is your wish?

19:51Member Ross. I make a motion to approve the variance.

19:55And we have a seconder member. Membrano.

19:59Is there any discussion on this?

20:02Motion seeing none. That's okay.

20:04Thank you. Chair, any members? Please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the motion, which is to approve the application. Chair Smith.

20:14In favor. Member Fitzpatrick. In favor. Member Goodfellow. In favor.

20:19In favor.

20:21In favor.

20:23In favor.

20:25In favor.

20:27In favor.

20:29In favor.

20:31In favor.

20:32In favor. In favor. Member Membrano. In favor.

20:37Member Meir. In favor.

20:39And member Ross. In favor. That's carried, Mr. Chair.

20:43Thank you. Your application has been approved. And you can get back to whatever it is you're doing in public.

20:52Madam Secretary Treasurer, may we have the next applicant, please?

21:01The next application is file A-84 slash 25, variances to permanent reduced setbacks for existing above ground concrete walkway, decking rear yard patio and proposed accessory structure, comma shed at 126 Clairfields Drive West.

21:23If you wish to speak to this application and you're attending remotely, you can do so by calling the number displayed on the screen. That number is 519-822-1260 extension 2524.

21:37And when you call in staff will give you instructions on how you can delegate remotely.

21:41Do I see the applicant online?

21:46Hello. Yes, I'm here.

21:48Thank you. Can you state your name and your relationship to the application for the record, please?

21:53Yes. My name is Patrick Greer and I am the applicant.

21:57And can you tell me if the sign was posted as per the Planning Act?

22:02I believe so. I think the owner is in here as well. And as far as I know, he or his contractor posted the sign.

22:11Thank you. And have you read staff's comments?

22:16Yes, I have.

22:17Well, at this point you have 10 minutes and you can make as much use of that time as you'd like to. So please go ahead.

22:24Okay. So I just want to comment on variance C and variance D in the report.

22:33So first variance C, the side yard setback.

22:38So staff had made a recommendation to reject due to grading concerns, grading and drainage concerns to the site.

22:48So that I would say that the patio itself follows the overall intent of the subdivision grading plan, whereas it's slope towards the back of the lot.

22:59Also for the side yards, the elevations in the mutual side yards to the north and south properties have not changed.

23:08There is no drainage being blocked from those properties.

23:12The property to the south actually drains away from 126 Clearfields Drive and the property to the north drains along the side yard property line and then along the rear into either their infiltration gallery or the infiltration gallery on this property itself.

23:34And then for the rear yard setback to that, I would say that I believe that the site specific zoning bylaw of a three meter setback is incorrect in this case.

23:47If staff can pull up, do you have the overall grading plan for the subdivision?

24:01Yes, this drawing. Sorry, the next one.

24:03Yeah, if you can zoom in on the left hand side there, the infiltration gallery detail down a little bit.

24:20Yeah, right there on the left hand side. So it says the typical grading detail of the infiltration gallery.

24:26So my belief is that the site specific zoning bylaw of a three meter setback was taken from this detail.

24:33And you can see there's a one meter setback to the clean out or inline drain for the infiltration gallery.

24:41And then there's a two meter setback to a snow fence.

24:44And you can see there that it says that that snow fence is to be erect erected to promote or to provide temporary protection of the galleries.

24:53So that temporary production is for what was for the house building activities.

24:59It was just to let builders know that there is a structure and infiltration structure behind this fence and to prevent any builders activities from going beyond this fence.

25:11Obviously, building activities are completed now. So I do not believe that this three meter setback is appropriate.

25:18I propose a one point eight five meter setback because in my view that provides a safe distance should this infiltration gallery need to be excavated excavated pardon me for any repair or remediation work required.

25:33I guess the last thing I will say is staff noted that they reject these setback applications or reductions because of grading and drainage concerns.

25:51To that I would say this is not a typical application.

25:54Unfortunately, the owner was unaware of the setback requirements and this patio is already built.

25:59And to date my understanding is this application is not received any complaints regarding drainage issues on this property or any adjacent properties.

26:11So it's kind of a, I guess a real world example that the grading design is still working the gallery is still working but we do understand that more setback is needed from the rear property line.

26:26And that's all I have to say.

26:30Thank you very much. And I'm going to turn to my colleagues to see if they have any questions of you so stand by please committee members do we have any questions.

26:42Member Fitzpatrick.

26:44Through you, Mr. Chairman and to the applicant. So this is we're dealing with something that's already been built out and the current structure as it's built.

26:57Can you confirm that it conforms to what you're requesting in terms of the 1.8 meter setback or what is planned be if this is not approved.

27:10No, it does not conform to the 1.85 meter setback. Currently it is 0.7 meter setback in one section and then I believe about one meter in another section.

27:25So the owner will have to cut back that patio to meet the 1.85 meter setback or the three meter setback whatever is determined from this meeting.

27:38Thank you.

27:44Any other questions committee members not seeing any hands raised member Ross sorry.

27:53Through you Mr. Chair to the applicant. Can you just go through one more time because I couldn't read the drawing I had to pull up my own copy on my iPad to see it just in a couple of sentences why you think that the 1.85 suffices today versus the three meter setback.

28:15So what are the three meters that's required in the site specific zoning bylaw.

28:21So if we can flip to the first drawing in my application here, there's a sketch of a cross section.

28:38Yeah. Yeah. So this is just a typical sketch of what an excavation would look like to dig down to this infiltration gallery. So the gallery, the top of the gallery would have 1.2 meters cover.

28:49And then safely excavate point six meters straight up and down and then from there proceeded a one to one slope for that excavation and so based on that calculation you can see I have a one meter setback to the center of the gallery and then point eight five meters on the other side of the gallery which includes that one to one slope.

29:11My question was related to the design of the plan of subdivision and the difference between that design and what you're proposing that that the design you referenced that the design was appropriate for a certain point in time.

29:34And now that has occurred. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So if we can go back to the third drawing in this set and the infiltration gallery.

29:45So the design is in the detail again on the left hand side. Yes. So on the right hand side of this detail, there's a line labeled as snow fence and in the brackets there it says to be erected to provide temporary protection of infiltration galleries.

30:10So what that's referring to is temporary protection during the home building activities by the builder at that time.

30:21Thank you. Any other questions of the applicant member Fitzpatrick through you Mr. Chairman to the applicant. So I'm looking at the photos that you supplied and there's there's a pad concrete pad with a conduit where a hot tub is what I'm assuming and the edge of that concrete pad to the fence line.

30:46What is that distance there. The concrete pad is 1.06 meters from the property line. Okay. Thank you.

31:02I do have a question the image that I'm seeing now calls for a two degree slope and it seems to me that your sketch that you showed us at the beginning was a one degree slope.

31:19Have I got that wrong.

31:21So the 2% slope that's the surface. I think a one degree you may have been referring to the that yeah that wouldn't be one degree it's a one to one slope for the excavation so that is one to one is 45 degrees slope of the excavation and that's just one to one is a is a typical side slope for for trenching.

31:53I see. Okay. Thank you.

32:02Does the

32:05Does city staff have any question. Yes, please.

32:12Thank you Mr. Chair. I'll I'll try to be brief. So the requested minor variances for 126 Clearfields Drive West are intended to legalize the existing patio built in the rear yard of the property.

32:23As the prep the patio is located partially within the drench swale and storm gallery area.

32:30The and as the rear portion of the patio is raised above grade variances are required through staff review it was determined that variances a and b are not necessary to facilitate the proposal and a diagram included in the staff report roughly outlines the area is that variance C is applicable to in orange and the area that variance D is applicable to in blue.

32:53Variance C is to permit a reduced side yard setback for the portion of the patio that is above grade roughly outlined with the orange rectangles in the staff report diagram.

33:02As the portion of the patio closer to the house does not appear to be above finished grade the variance is only needed to permit the portion.

33:09That is that is above or outlined in the orange rectangles.

33:14At this point staff have not received sufficient engineering documentation to be satisfied that the proposed reduced side yard setback would not impact grading or drainage on the site.

33:25And as such staff are not supportive of variance C as I'm sure you're aware I'm not an engineer myself but these comments were prepared with consultation from our engineering staff.

33:35So variance D is to permit the patio within three meters of the rear lot line.

33:40This is roughly represented by a dark blue rectangle in the staff report diagram.

33:44The required three meters setback for all structures is a provision that applies to all properties along this block of clear fields drive west as a means of protecting the underground infiltration storm gallery as is already being described.

33:56Protection of the storm gallery is necessary to ensure that storm water is properly dealt with in accordance with engineering plans that were approved when the subdivision was originally reviewed and approved by city engineering staff.

34:09As noted in staff's comments both the existing patio setback of 0.7 meters and the proposed patio setback of 1.85 meters may interfere with the rear yard infiltration gallery and swale.

34:20Altering blocking or obstructing a storm water disposal system is a violation of section 3.13 of the city of Guelph property standards by law and is not supported by staff.

34:31Staff are the opinion that the proposal therefore does not meet the intent of the zoning by law is not desirable for the appropriate development of the lands and it's not minor in nature.

34:39As such staff recommend refusal of the application. Thank you.

34:43Thank you.

34:44Committee members. Do we have any questions of staff member good fellow.

34:48Yes. Good evening through the chair to city staff.

34:52I was interested in your comment about infiltration and I think because there is a bit of a question around you know why 3 meters was originally set. Can you help clarify the intent of that 3 meter setback.

35:08Because I think I initially understood it was related to infiltration so making sure that there is enough space for infiltration of storm water.

35:16I believe I have heard the applicant suggest that it might be related to excavation space and so you know maintenance access. Can you just help clarify maybe how that 3 meters was set and why.

35:29Through the chair to member good fellow the overall grading plan shows the typical grading detail of the infiltration gallery and that detail shows the typical grading is set back 3 meters from the rear lot line.

35:49And also it notes that that that grading is identified as a swale on that detail and the swale is a required component of the storm water management.

36:02Okay thank you. I think that gets part way to what I've been trying to understand and so if I may follow up with another question.

36:16So it is about storm water management not necessarily maintenance of the existing of the infiltration gallery infrastructure.

36:30Through chair member good fellow yet the infiltration gallery and swale are all part of the storm water management for the subdivision.

36:41Okay. Okay that's helpful. Thank you.

36:44Thank you.

36:48Any other questions of staff.

36:51Yes member Ross.

36:53Through the chair.

36:55So you

36:57I think it was Eric you referred to insufficient engineering information to support the the request for the variance.

37:07So what kind of information what level of information would you

37:13consider necessary in order to be satisfied with the 1.85 setback.

37:24Through the through the chair to member Ross so this is something that I think we would have to rely on engineering staff for my understanding I'll let engineering staff speak afterwards.

37:32My understanding is I don't think there's anything that would make us be able to support the 1.85 rear yard setback.

37:39Potentially if it's demonstrated that there's no negative impacts the variance see for the side yard setback is something that could potentially be entertained but I'll I'll defer to Lewis.

37:52Through the chair member Ross. Yeah that's pretty much correct there engineering wouldn't support that 1.85 meter setback.

38:07Thank you.

38:09Any other questions of staff.

38:13I have a I have two questions and they're they're more out of information.

38:19I noticed that from the photographs and my I look at the site that almost the whole lot is covered in hard surface.

38:30Is is that an issue contributing to the stormwater management issue that we're talking about today.

38:37Through the chair.

38:42It could play a role.

38:45But maybe it hasn't yet.

38:47It could at some point but it depends on a lot of factors.

38:53Okay thank you.

38:54I did also notice that in that neighborhood.

38:58It seems that a lot of the downspots seem to be connected to the storm sewer is it.

39:04And forgive me I don't I don't know if that's an allowable situation in Guelph or not in other jurisdictions that I've worked in that they're being disconnected all over the place so I'm wondering based on stormwater load if if that would contribute to your estimate as well.

39:27To the chair some subdivisions in Guelph are still connected to the stormwater system.

39:34This subdivision itself I'm not 100% sure what it's connected to this property does look did look like the drawing for this property does indicate that some downspots are connected to that system.

39:52Okay thank you for the information I appreciate it.

39:54Any other questions of staff.

39:57It's Patrick one question pardon me.

40:01You'll have a moment towards the end.

40:04So I'm going to turn to my colleague member Fitzpatrick for a question through you to staff.

40:11So looking at the diagram that you included with the comments I see a dashed blue line that runs part way through the solid blue box.

40:22I'm assuming that's the three meter marking for the setback that should be the case.

40:29Through the chair to member Fitzpatrick so the dotted line was included by the applicant when they submitted the drawing I believe that is the proposed 1.85 meter setback.

40:41The lower end of that blue box is that roughly the three meter line so every everything in that blue box is patio constructed within the three meter setback.

40:53Understood.

40:55Understood thank you.

40:57Member Ross.

40:59Through the chair so just to recap and make sure that I understand this clearly variances A and B are not required.

41:10Staff may consider reconsider variance C and staff maintain their position on the refusal for variance D. Do I have that correct?

41:26Through the chair that is correct. If further information was provided for a variance C that's something that could potentially be considered yes.

41:35Thanks.

41:40Okay at seeing no more hands I'm going to ask if there are any registered delegates for this application.

41:49Mr. Chair we do the owner Rob Edwards is present via video if they wish to speak to the application.

41:58Okay thank you.

41:59Thank you.

42:01Can you state your name for the record please.

42:03Good afternoon my name is Robert Edwards.

42:08I'm the homeowner.

42:10You have 10 minutes to address the committee.

42:13Thank you.

42:17There's a lot of a lot of parts to this so the patio was constructed.

42:24Based on plans from our contractor and the.

42:28Unfortunately although I was aware there was a gallery or a drainage system in our yard.

42:39We were not aware of the necessary setbacks so it's unfortunate that the patio was built as such and we.

42:50We.

42:52I did contact and we did reach out to.

42:56G. E. I.

42:58The engineering firm to assess and review the situation I believe they are also the same firm or the same engineers that were responsible for designing the subdivision in the first place.

43:11And they were the infiltration gallery and stormwater management.

43:16So.

43:18The obviously the.

43:21Proposal from.

43:24From G. E. I.

43:27My friend Patrick was based on specific to this particular property and their their their assessment of the existing.

43:36Circumstances.

43:38I would like to note that the downspouts are not connected to the stormwater management they are just.

43:45Buried and directed towards the stormwater management but nothing is connected to it.

43:54I've been I've lived in this.

43:58I've lived at 126 Clairefields Drive my wife and I for the past seven years and I can say that the.

44:08Stormwater management system works very well we have had.

44:14Some extremely heavy rainfalls to the point where.

44:19I've had water flowing over my shoes.

44:23While in the backyard and that's the infiltration gallery works perfectly.

44:30It was dry within minutes and you could hear the gallery.

44:37Just drawing down water so it works very well.

44:41The point where where all the water is directed to on the opposite side of Clairefields Drive between the stormwater management system.

44:52And in the subdivisions that overflow or catch basin is dry all the time.

44:59So the I think.

45:03What we've presented.

45:06Cons with regards to.

45:10Variants C and D the side yards and the rear yards our proposal is to.

45:18I think that.

45:20Patrick and myself are ingredients that we are not in any way currently affecting the function of the stormwater management.

45:30Or the intended function of the property at 126 Clairefields Drive the grade of the patio is 2%.

45:40It does all flow towards the rear of the yard.

45:44There is area around the patio where water is collected and still is directed to the two existing drains.

45:54There are two drains on this particular property.

45:57That access the.

46:00Infiltration gallery.

46:02So the 1.8 meter setback the variance from the three meter setback was to permit access should.

46:12Should it ever need to be excavated or repaired.

46:17The but it is in my opinion and my friend Patrick's opinion that the function is.

46:24As maintained.

46:25Currently.

46:27That's it. Thank you.

46:29Thank you. If you want to wait right there.

46:31My colleagues may have some questions for you.

46:37Committee members. Do we have any questions of the.

46:39Deligate.

46:41Seeing none. I'm going to thank you for your.

46:44Your delegation. Madam secretary treasurer.

46:51Is there anyone else who has been registered.

46:54To speak to this.

46:56Mr. Chair. I can confirm no other delegates.

46:58Registered delegates.

47:00Okay. Is there anyone in the gallery who would like to speak to.

47:04This application.

47:07Seeing none. I'll return to our.

47:12Our applicant and.

47:15See if there's any.

47:18Comment or question they'd like to make based on.

47:22The questions that have been raised.

47:24So far.

47:26Yes. Thank you.

47:28And I'd like to echo what Rob said again.

47:30This is this has been built. So.

47:33It seems to be functioning again.

47:35There are no complaints from adjacent residents.

47:38And in response to engineering's comments about the three meter setback.

47:44Being needed for the swale and the gallery to function.

47:48I again.

47:49Rhetorate that that three meter setback was meant to be temporary.

47:53That's no offense was a temporary protection measure.

47:56And if you are concerned about the swale.

47:58There is a swale detail.

48:01On the same drawings.

48:03We have referenced.

48:05Below the infiltration gallery detail.

48:07And that swale is two meters wide.

48:09Not three meters.

48:11So I think if.

48:12If we're going to.

48:13If 1.85 is not acceptable to staff.

48:17Then I would request that they consider two meters.

48:20As that is the width of the swale from the rear property line.

48:24Again, I believe 1.85 meters is suitable.

48:28Based on the depth of the infiltration gallery to activate down to the gallery.

48:34But if you're not willing to accept 1.85, I would.

48:36I would.

48:37I would.

48:38I would.

48:39I would.

48:40I would.

48:41I would request that you consider two meters wide.

48:44But if you're not willing to accept 1.85,

48:46I would request two meters again,

48:52because that's the width of the swale in the backyard.

48:54Okay. Thank you.

48:56Um, any questions arising from that comment?

49:01Yes. Member Ross.

49:02Um, through the chair.

49:04Um, I wonder if cap stuff would comment on, um,

49:07what the applicant has provided with regards to variance D.

49:17Staff's opinions still remain the same.

49:25If there were further consultations with,

49:35with a Swayle that was laid out and detailed in,

49:41on the plan, staff might be willing to listen

49:47and discuss further with the applicant.

49:49But as for what's shown here right now,

49:53we remain the same and staff did recognize the Swayle

49:57as shown on the top detail being three meters back

50:00from the rear property line.

50:05Thank you.

50:07I'm reluctant to craft or recraft an application before us.

50:14And I don't know, maybe, I guess my question to staff would be,

50:20would there be any,

50:26any ability with a deferral that would address some of the,

50:33that would allow for further discussion with the applicant?

50:40Through the chair, to the chair.

50:42I think a deferral might be the appropriate path forward

50:45to allow further discussions to happen

50:46between the applicant and engineering staff.

50:48Yes.

50:50Okay. At this point, I'll ask the applicant

50:55if they would entertain a deferral

50:57to further have conversations with city staff.

51:03We will.

51:05With that in mind, yes, remember wrong.

51:17Okay. At this point, I'd entertain a motion of some kind.

51:23We could go ahead and refuse this application

51:27based on staff's comments.

51:29We could approve it or we could defer it.

51:31And I'll turn to my colleagues for their wisdom.

51:34What is your suggestion?

51:35Member Ross.

51:37I'll make a motion to defer the application.

51:40Do we have a seconder?

51:41Member Fitzpatrick.

51:42There is no discussion on a deferral.

51:45I'll turn it over to the secretary treasurer for a vote please.

51:51Thank you, chair.

51:52Committee members, please indicate your vote

51:53by responding in favor or opposed to the motion,

51:56which is to defer the application.

51:58Chair Smith.

51:58In favor.

51:59Member Fitzpatrick.

52:01In favor.

52:02Member Goodfellow.

52:03In favor.

52:04Member Mambrenio.

52:06In favor.

52:07Member Meir.

52:08In favor.

52:09And member Ross.

52:10In favor.

52:11That's carried, Mr. Chair.

52:12Thank you.

52:13Your application has been referred to a future meeting.

52:17Thank you.

52:20Madam secretary treasurer,

52:21may we have the next application please?

52:27The next application is files B-76-25B-77-27.

52:34B-78-25 consent to create three new residential lots

52:39with one retained residential lot at 61 to 63

52:43and 65 college avenue west.

52:47For those attending the hearing remotely,

52:48if you wish to speak to these applications,

52:50you can do so by calling the number displayed on the screen.

52:53The number is 519-822-1260 extension 2524.

52:59I'll also note for the committee's benefit

53:01as well as those attending

53:02that we did receive correspondence

53:04after the commenting deadline from Christine Little

53:09and Sarah Totten with a petition regarding the application

53:13and as well correspondence from Keith Stinson

53:16and those pieces of correspondence

53:18have been circulated to the committee members.

53:21Thank you, Madam secretary treasurer.

53:22Can you state your name for the record please

53:24and your relationship to the applicants?

53:26Jeff Buseman from Van Hurt and Surveying

53:29and I'm representing the you family

53:30who are the owners of this property.

53:33And can you tell me if the sign was posted

53:35as per the planning?

53:36Yes, it was.

53:37And have you read staff's comments in our own agreement?

53:40Yes, I've read them and I'm in agreement.

53:44As you know, Mr. Buseman,

53:45you have 10 minutes to address the committee.

53:47Thank you.

53:49If we could put up the maybe zoom in a bit,

53:52it's at the front of the property.

53:56This is representing two properties that are there today

54:00and the idea is to remove the houses that are there

54:04at 61, 63 and 65 College Avenue.

54:09You can see in a faint hash line on the right.

54:12I don't know if this pointer works.

54:19You can see how the existing house

54:22is actually very close to the front.

54:25Okay.

54:26And so the proposal is for the new homes to be back here

54:30in line with the ones that were recently built

54:33over on this side.

54:34You'll also see that a three meter road winding is required

54:39and that will happen.

54:42The properties are fairly good width,

54:46just over 10 meters each, they will be, and they'll be semi.

54:49You can also see that the footprint,

54:52not that this has been finalized the size of this one,

54:55but this footprint is quite a bit larger

54:57than the footprint of the existing homes.

55:00They're quite small, relatively speaking.

55:02And then this is the other house,

55:03so that one's a bit bigger

55:05and then that will be removed as well.

55:09The somewhat unique thing is that this property line here,

55:12well, the new one will follow this line right here

55:15and have a jog so it's in line

55:17with the rest of the properties here.

55:21This is the type of sevens we've seen numerous times

55:24in this committee and meets all the criteria.

55:27I think it's a good fit for this area.

55:30And I'm happy to answer any questions or comments

55:32that staff may have or the committee may have.

55:35Thank you.

55:37Thank you.

55:37Committee members, do we have any questions of the applicant?

55:41Member, member, I know.

55:43Yes, I was looking at the drawing, sorry,

55:46through you shared to the applicant.

55:49I was looking at the drawing and there's a strip

55:51between parcels two and three.

55:57What is that strip?

55:59What is it part of?

56:03I can hit through the chair.

56:06Right now the property line of this property on the left

56:10follows this line right here.

56:14Okay, and then what we're saying,

56:16or nobody can see that.

56:18Oh, you can't see that, I'm sorry, you can't see my,

56:20I forgot, I've been pointed out, you can't see my pointer.

56:24The right side of that little strip that you're referring to

56:30is the existing property line between the two properties.

56:33So in a way we're gonna move that property line

56:35over a little bit to the left.

56:38Because if we kept the one to the right,

56:39it would be obviously the house would be right on top of it.

56:42Does that make sense?

56:43I know it's a little cluttery and it's hard to read,

56:45but the idea is that we will end up with four parcels,

56:49each at about 10.2 meters wide.

56:53Thank you.

56:56Thank you, member, member,

56:57you know any other questions of the applicant?

57:01Seeing none, I wonder if staff have any comment

57:05or have a presentation.

57:08Yes, I do have a presentation for you, Mr. Chair.

57:12Go ahead, please.

57:15Thank you.

57:16To you, Mr. Chair and to the committee,

57:18I understand that there might be some concerns tonight

57:21regarding the demolition of the existing units

57:24and the moving of the current tenants.

57:26Our housing staff have advised issues surrounding disputes

57:30or potential bad faith acts between the tenants

57:32and landlords are handled provincially

57:34at the landlord and tenant board.

57:37The city currently does not have a renovation by-law

57:39in effect and per recent discussions of city council,

57:43such a by-law along with a rental replacement by-law

57:47isn't expected until 2026.

57:50Therefore, staff's approval recommendation

57:52before you tonight is limited to our current servants

57:56and intensification policies.

58:02Thank you.

58:04Any other questions?

58:07Seeing none, Madam Secretary Treasurer,

58:11are there any registered delegations?

58:14Mr. Chair, we do have a couple of registered delegates.

58:17The first is Sarah Totten, who's appearing via video.

58:42Thank you.

58:44I just said this.

58:45Yes, can you state your name for the record, please?

58:47My name is Sarah Totten.

58:49I have been a tenant of 63 College Avenue West

58:51for 14 years.

58:53Before you get started, let me just restate the rules

58:57that you have 10 minutes to address the committee.

58:59I know it.

59:00And you can make as much use of that time as you wish.

59:03Thank you.

59:04I first like to say I am reading from a script

59:06and that I have shown this script to the other six tenants

59:09and that they are in agreement with what I'm about to say.

59:13I would like to express my appreciation

59:16for the support I received from the residents

59:17of the old University neighborhood

59:19who I met while gathering signatures

59:21for the petition to oppose the applications.

59:24I oppose the proposal for three reasons.

59:27Disruption to the tenants.

59:29There are currently four tenants living

59:30at 6163 College Avenue West and none of us wants to leave.

59:34There are three tenants at 65 College Avenue West.

59:37They also do not wish to leave.

59:39This is an affordable rent controlled semi-detached house

59:43and the property owners have proposed to demolish it

59:45and replace it with a semi-detached house

59:47of similar square footage.

59:48The difference being the new property

59:50will not be rent controlled.

59:51This will result in displacement of the people

59:53from the affordable housing at a time

59:55when there is an affordable housing crisis in Guelph.

59:58This proposal will add to the problem.

1:00:01Additionally, a fifth tenant may also be displaced

1:00:05as the vacant unit above mine is currently being listed

1:00:08as for rent at the cannon.

1:00:10The listing makes no mention of the proposal

1:00:12to demolish the building despite the fact

1:00:15that the rental listing was posted over a month

1:00:17after the application was submitted

1:00:19to the committee of adjustment.

1:00:21I did send you a screenshot of that listing.

1:00:25My second objection to the proposal is interference

1:00:29with the character of the neighborhood.

1:00:31Many of the houses in the old university neighborhood

1:00:33have historic significance and contribute

1:00:35to the beauty and character of the neighborhood

1:00:36and the uniqueness of the city of Guelph.

1:00:39One of my fellow tenants and I went door to door

1:00:41through the old university neighborhood

1:00:43to talk about this proposal with the residents.

1:00:45Many were not aware of it and had not seen the signs

1:00:48placed on the lawns in front of 6163 College

1:00:51and 65 College by the committee of adjustment

1:00:53because of the road closure of college at Gordon

1:00:56due to the ongoing construction,

1:00:58which has resulted in less foot traffic

1:00:59and vehicular traffic past the properties.

1:01:02None of the people we spoke to

1:01:04in the old university neighborhood

1:01:05were in favor of this proposal.

1:01:07When they did find out, they expressed concern

1:01:09and negative feelings as well as the ongoing development

1:01:14in the old university neighborhood,

1:01:16including the new semi-detached properties

1:01:18that were recently built along College Avenue.

1:01:21This morning, I submitted to the committee

1:01:22of adjustment of petition of signatures

1:01:24from those we spoke to and others who opposed

1:01:26the application to sever the logs

1:01:28and demolish the properties.

1:01:29As of my checking the petition,

1:01:32it currently has 134 signatures.

1:01:35Had we been given more than 15 days notice

1:01:37to respond to this application,

1:01:39I'm certain we could have garnered even more signatures.

1:01:43My third objection is the potential heritage value

1:01:45of the houses.

1:01:47I believe that given their age,

1:01:48both 6163 College and 65 College Avenue

1:01:52may qualify for designation as heritage properties.

1:01:556365 College Avenue West is a semi-detached house dating,

1:01:59I believe, from the early 1900s

1:02:01and the original portion of 65 College Avenue West

1:02:03dates back to 1860.

1:02:06I understand the committee of adjustment

1:02:07does not have authority here,

1:02:09but I urge the city of Guelph to have both 65

1:02:11and 6163 College Avenue West

1:02:14assess for designation as heritage properties.

1:02:17Thank you for your time and attention.

1:02:20Thank you very much for your delegation.

1:02:22If you want to wait right there,

1:02:24my colleagues may have some questions for you.

1:02:26Committee members, do we have any questions of this delegation?

1:02:31Seeing none, let me sincerely thank you for your delegation.

1:02:37Thank you for allowing me to speak.

1:02:40Madam Secretary Treasurer,

1:02:42are there any other registered delegates?

1:02:45Mr. Chair, there is one other registered delegate.

1:02:47The name is Brian Riley.

1:03:11Good afternoon.

1:03:12Can you say your name for the record, please?

1:03:14Brian Riley.

1:03:15Mr. Riley, you have as others 10 minutes

1:03:18to address the committee,

1:03:19so please make as much use of that time as you wish.

1:03:23Thank you, Mr. Chair.

1:03:25And thank you, Committee,

1:03:27for allowing me the opportunity to speak on this application.

1:03:32The old university neighborhood,

1:03:33which I've been a resident of for 35 years.

1:03:37My wife actually has been 60 years.

1:03:39She grew up in the house that we're in,

1:03:43is losing its family homes.

1:03:46To what I would call corporately owned rentals.

1:03:52The More Homes Built Faster Act

1:03:55states in the first paragraph

1:03:58that the plan is to build, sorry,

1:04:02the plan is part of a long-term strategy

1:04:04to help build more homes and make life

1:04:08more affordable for Ontario families.

1:04:11And I will concur that this act includes rentals

1:04:16and multiple units on the same property.

1:04:19However, I'd like to speak to how this act

1:04:23is currently affecting the neighborhood

1:04:27and future, the neighborhood in terms

1:04:34of this application for College F.

1:04:38Sorry, this act, sorry,

1:04:42this application is not building homes for families.

1:04:45It is taking families away from the neighborhood

1:04:49by removing home ownership opportunities,

1:04:53tearing down existing homes, smaller homes,

1:04:56and building student residents.

1:05:01As we've seen on the previous application

1:05:05at 67, 69, and 71 College F,

1:05:11where there are currently three houses were removed

1:05:15and the, sorry, three semi-detached homes,

1:05:22housing 18 students per house.

1:05:30Also on Forest Ave, sorry, Forest Street

1:05:33around the corner from in the old neighborhood,

1:05:38three homes again with students was built.

1:05:42I believe Bristol Street has the same type of home

1:05:46being built as this application.

1:05:49There's another home on College Ave,

1:05:52just east of this application.

1:05:55That is, again, the three units within it.

1:06:05And I'm sure there's many more that are being done.

1:06:10Under the city's official plan,

1:06:12these are, is to encourage residential intensification,

1:06:16is my understanding,

1:06:17but there's really no residential homes being built here.

1:06:21These are purpose-built student housing,

1:06:25intensifying the maximum number of students

1:06:28for the maximum corporate profit.

1:06:31This type of development is creating

1:06:33a less desirable neighborhood for families to live.

1:06:39It is increasing our noise level with,

1:06:43how dare I say, the student parties

1:06:46and the loud music's being played.

1:06:49I face close to the, my backyard in the backyard

1:06:54of the current residence that was built along College Ave,

1:06:59music being played through there is quite loud.

1:07:04Our streets are being congested with parking.

1:07:10University Ave, where I live,

1:07:14frequently there's cars parked on both sides of the road,

1:07:18only making University Ave a one lane traffic.

1:07:21And if you wish to turn on to University Ave

1:07:23off of college, when the car's there,

1:07:26you kind of have to wait until somebody goes through.

1:07:28Not a big issue right now,

1:07:30because we're experiencing major construction

1:07:32and very little traffic, but it is an issue.

1:07:36We also find the student rentals in this neighborhood

1:07:39are creating a,

1:07:45there's more garbage on our streets, more litter.

1:07:48I can't even get the students to take the garbage cans in,

1:07:50or the garbage bins off the street

1:07:52in a reasonable amount of time.

1:07:54Last week I called on the by-law office

1:07:58to have somebody mentioned to take their garages away.

1:08:03Yesterday I called by-law on a car parked on the lawn.

1:08:09And I'm sure there's been many more situations.

1:08:16This application, or 61, 63 and 65, College Ave,

1:08:23is very similar to the one that was approved

1:08:26where there's going to be more students in our neighborhood.

1:08:30And less families.

1:08:33When you,

1:08:37actually it will increase the students to 126 beds,

1:08:41just on that stretch alone.

1:08:44Around the corner on University Ave where I live,

1:08:47there's three houses with 20 beds of students.

1:08:52On Caledonia, the next block over,

1:08:54there's nine houses of students.

1:08:59I'm estimating here, but I'm pretty sure each house

1:09:02probably has four or five students in them.

1:09:07This does not create an inviting community

1:09:10for families to move into.

1:09:13With over 170 student beds in just one block.

1:09:18If you were to walk outside of that block

1:09:21to other streets in the neighborhood,

1:09:23you'll find the same situation happening.

1:09:27In fact, the student population on College,

1:09:30University and Caledonia block,

1:09:33numbers these residents two to one.

1:09:41In addition, we can add that the recently announced

1:09:44student housing by the University of Guelph,

1:09:46their plans to build 150 beds at College and McGilvery Street

1:09:53across on the other side of College Ave.

1:09:56There's also 250 beds at College and Gordon.

1:10:02These are rebuilt in the next 10 years.

1:10:07Student University also announced 2,500 new beds

1:10:14over at Stone and Edinburgh

1:10:18in what they call Wellington Woods.

1:10:21That is 4,000 new beds coming to the neighborhood,

1:10:26to the old University neighborhood.

1:10:33The old University neighborhood is no longer.

1:10:36It is becoming a student housing block.

1:10:40This application may meet and check all the boxes

1:10:44for zoning and official plan policies,

1:10:49but it does not check the boxes

1:10:52for a strong and flourishing community.

1:10:56It is creating a transient neighborhood

1:10:59when there's becoming less and less attractive

1:11:02to be a resident of.

1:11:05I and the few residents remaining that I've spoken to

1:11:10ask that this committee reject the application

1:11:13and future applications of this type.

1:11:16More student housing isn't needed

1:11:18in the old University neighborhood.

1:11:21The University of Guelph is taking care of that.

1:11:24We need affordable family homes.

1:11:28Thank you, Mr. Chair.

1:11:31Thank you very much for your delegation and your opinion.

1:11:35If you want to wait right there,

1:11:36my colleagues may have some questions for you.

1:11:38Committee members, do we have any questions of this delegation?

1:11:43Seeing none, let me thank you again for...

1:11:47Thank you.

1:11:50Madam Secretary Treasurer,

1:11:51do we have any other registered delegations?

1:11:54Mr. Chair, we don't have any other registered delegates,

1:11:56although there may be some in the audience

1:11:58that wish to speak.

1:12:00Is there anyone in the chamber

1:12:02who would like to speak to this application?

1:12:07Seeing none.

1:12:09Is there anyone else online

1:12:11who is looking to speak to it?

1:12:13Okay.

1:12:16I guess at this point, Mr. Buseman,

1:12:20you might want to address some of the issues

1:12:22that have been raised.

1:12:26Thank you, Mr. Chair.

1:12:27This just wanted to be clear that the owner or applicant,

1:12:30the developer of this site is different

1:12:32than the other ones that have been referred to.

1:12:36And a suggestion, it's always student rent.

1:12:38In all these places, that's not always the case.

1:12:40There's young couples and so on.

1:12:43I know that in some of the other units,

1:12:45I can't speak for the ones in college

1:12:47because I don't know those,

1:12:48but I know on Forest and so on.

1:12:50It's a variety of people.

1:12:51It's not just students.

1:12:54In summary, it checks all the boxes

1:12:57in terms of planning and official plan.

1:13:00It is a great location in terms of fronting on college

1:13:03for this kind of development.

1:13:05I think it's a positive development.

1:13:07And I encourage the community support.

1:13:13Thank you very much.

1:13:15Any questions of Mr. Buseman seeing none?

1:13:22I'd like to ask staff a question,

1:13:25a couple of questions,

1:13:26and I'm not sure if you can answer all of them.

1:13:29So I'll start with the difficult one first.

1:13:32One of the delegations raised the issue

1:13:34of heritage designation.

1:13:37Can any member of staff speak to whether or not

1:13:41either of the existing buildings

1:13:44are on the heritage register?

1:13:48To you, Chair.

1:13:51Sorry, I did see it in the staff comments.

1:13:58No, they're not designated

1:13:59or listed in the heritage registers.

1:14:03I understand they're not designated,

1:14:04but they're not on the register is what you're saying?

1:14:08Yes, that's correct.

1:14:11Okay, thank you.

1:14:12And I just want to get some qualification

1:14:18from staff on another issue.

1:14:22There are two residents that are essentially,

1:14:27Mr. Buseman pointed out the line being redrawn

1:14:31and this will now be four lots instead of two.

1:14:38And this is a severance application,

1:14:40but if this was a building permit application,

1:14:45how many structures,

1:14:47how many homes could be built on each lot?

1:14:54To the chair, the zoning permits a maximum

1:14:57of four dwelling units per property.

1:15:03So if this had just been a building permit application

1:15:07not a severance by right,

1:15:10the owner could put up another set of,

1:15:16like four and four I guess is the number.

1:15:20To the chair correct, either in the form of a foreplex

1:15:22or a main dwelling with 380 use.

1:15:27Okay, thank you.

1:15:29Any other questions for staff or the applicant?

1:15:34Seeing none, committee members, what is your wish?

1:15:50Member Fitzpatrick.

1:15:53I put forth that we follow staff recommendations

1:15:57and approve this severance with the usual conditions.

1:16:02Thank you, and do we have a seconder?

1:16:04Member Ross, is there any discussion?

1:16:08Yes, Member Ross.

1:16:13I'm going to support the motion.

1:16:15Having said that, I certainly hear

1:16:21and appreciate the level of dismay

1:16:25that residents are expressing about the loss of their homes

1:16:29and also it sounds like the nature of the community

1:16:32that they live in.

1:16:35Delegate Brian Riley brought up

1:16:37the More Homes Built Faster Act,

1:16:40and that of course is a provincial law

1:16:44which increases the supply of housing

1:16:47and makes it faster to build new homes.

1:16:51So that really changes the landscape

1:16:53for a committee like ours

1:16:56and the rules and regulations under which we operate.

1:17:01So given the restrictions of our role,

1:17:05that's the obligation of the committee

1:17:09is to deal with these situations most reluctantly.

1:17:15And yet those are the, that's the structure

1:17:19within which we have to make a decision.

1:17:21So for that reason, I'll be voting in favor

1:17:25of the staff recommendation

1:17:28with the conditions outlined in the staff report.

1:17:32Thank you, Member Ross.

1:17:35Any other discussion?

1:17:37I'd like to echo your comments

1:17:41and I will be reluctantly supporting it as well.

1:17:45I followed this quite closely at City Council

1:17:49and this was the decision of City Council

1:17:52to move in this direction.

1:17:55And this is where we find ourselves.

1:17:58Our role is constrained by not only the four tests,

1:18:03but the rules in terms of severance.

1:18:06So I will be supporting this.

1:18:08If there's no other discussion,

1:18:10I would like to ask Madam Secretary Treasurer

1:18:13to call the road, please.

1:18:15Thank you, Chair.

1:18:16Committee members, please indicate your vote

1:18:18by responding in favor or opposed to the motion,

1:18:20which is to approve the applications

1:18:22with the recommended conditions.

1:18:24Chair Smith.

1:18:25In favor.

1:18:26Member Fitzpatrick.

1:18:27In favor.

1:18:29Member Goodfellow.

1:18:30In favor.

1:18:32Member Membranio.

1:18:33In favor.

1:18:35Member Meir.

1:18:36In favor.

1:18:38And Member Ross.

1:18:39In favor.

1:18:40That's carried, Mr. Chair.

1:18:42Your application has been approved.

1:18:43Thank you.

1:18:44You're welcome.

1:18:46Madam Secretary Treasurer,

1:18:47may we have the next application, please?

1:18:52The next application is file A-89-25,

1:18:56variances to permit proposed additional dwelling unit

1:18:59within a separate building to be located

1:19:01in the front yard, Regent Street,

1:19:02and permit increased exterior stairs projection

1:19:05at 17 Arthur Street North.

1:19:08I'll note for those attending remotely,

1:19:09if you wish to speak to this application,

1:19:11you can do so by calling the number displayed on the screen.

1:19:14The number is 519-822-1260 extension 2524,

1:19:20and when you call in staff,

1:19:21we'll give you instructions on how to delegate remotely.

1:19:25Good afternoon.

1:19:26Can you state your name for the record

1:19:28and your relationship to the application?

1:19:31I'm Rob Dronovski.

1:19:32I'm the applicant representing as agent,

1:19:35the owners to 17 Arthur.

1:19:38Thank you.

1:19:39And can you tell me if the sign was posted

1:19:40as per the planning act?

1:19:41Yes, it was.

1:19:42And I guess the other thing I need to ask you is,

1:19:46if you've read staff's comments

1:19:48and if you're in agreement.

1:19:49I have read them, I'm in agreement, yes.

1:19:52As you've seen, you have 10 minutes to address the committee,

1:19:54so please make as much use of that time as you like.

1:19:57Just briefly, the owners have been wanting to put an ADU

1:20:01into the backyard of their home, but it is a through lot.

1:20:04So legally there are actually two front yards,

1:20:07even though it is a, as you can see on the site plan,

1:20:12a single detached home,

1:20:13fronting on Arthur Street and the rear yard

1:20:16is really a rear yard in every way for that home.

1:20:21And it's a large yard,

1:20:22so they want to put this additional dwelling unit

1:20:24in the rear and meets all the setback requirements,

1:20:27except that it is a dwelling unit

1:20:29that'll need to be in the front yard

1:20:31since we have a frontage on Regent Street,

1:20:34and we have an entryway stairway

1:20:37that needs to be larger than the zoning by-law,

1:20:40so we're asking for approval on allowing the ADU

1:20:44in the front yard at Regent Street

1:20:46at the slightly larger stairs.

1:20:50Thank you.

1:20:51Thank you.

1:20:52If you want to wait right there,

1:20:53my colleagues may have some questions.

1:20:55Committee members, do we have any questions of the applicant?

1:21:00Seeing none, does staff have anything they would like to add?

1:21:06And that seems to be shaking of heads, so in not nodding.

1:21:11So at this point, I'll turn to whether or not

1:21:16we have any registered delegations, Madam Secretary Dredd.

1:21:20Mr. Chair, I can confirm no delegation requests

1:21:22have been received.

1:21:24Okay, thank you.

1:21:24And is there anyone in the chamber

1:21:26who would like to speak to this application?

1:21:30Seeing none, committee members, what is your wish?

1:21:38Member Goodfellow.

1:21:41I move we approve the application

1:21:42with the condition as recommended by city staff.

1:21:46Thank you, and do we have a seconder?

1:21:49Member Membrano, is there any discussion

1:21:52on the motion before us?

1:21:54Seeing none, Madam Secretary Treasurer,

1:21:56would you call the vote please?

1:22:00Thank you, Chair, committee members,

1:22:01please indicate your vote by responding

1:22:03in favor or opposed to the motion,

1:22:05which is to approve the application

1:22:07with the recommended condition.

1:22:08Chair Smith.

1:22:09In favor.

1:22:11Member Fitzpatrick.

1:22:12In favor.

1:22:13Member Goodfellow.

1:22:14In favor.

1:22:16Member Membrano.

1:22:18In favor.

1:22:19Member Meir.

1:22:20In favor.

1:22:21Member Ross.

1:22:22In favor.

1:22:23And members, that's it.

1:22:26Member Spears is not in attendance tonight,

1:22:28so that's carried, Mr. Chair.

1:22:30Thank you, your application has been approved.

1:22:33Thank you.

1:22:34Madam Secretary Treasurer,

1:22:36may we have the next applicant?

1:22:38I guess that's the final applicant as well.

1:22:41The last application for this evening

1:22:43is file A-91-25,

1:22:46variances to permit proposed additional dwelling unit

1:22:50within a separate building to be located in the front yard,

1:22:53permit reduced side yard setbacks,

1:22:54and permit reduced distance to primary dwelling

1:22:57at 25 Chadwick Avenue.

1:22:59For those attending remotely,

1:23:00if you wish to speak to this application,

1:23:02you can do so by calling the number displayed on the screen.

1:23:05I'll also note for those,

1:23:07the committee members and those attending,

1:23:08that correspondence was received after the comment deadline

1:23:12from the agent, Phil McFadden,

1:23:15with some clarification about the application

1:23:17as well as correspondence was received

1:23:20from Bonina Barth and Paul Marsh

1:23:24regarding the application as well,

1:23:25and that correspondence has been circulated

1:23:28to the committee members.

1:23:30Thank you. Is the applicant present?

1:23:32Yes, please come forward.

1:23:38Good evening. Can you state your name

1:23:40and your relationship to the application for the record, please?

1:23:42Yes, Phil McFadden from Build Consulting Services

1:23:45on behalf of the homeowners.

1:23:47And can you tell me if the sign was posted

1:23:49as per the Planning Act?

1:23:51It was.

1:23:52And have you read staff's comments?

1:23:54I have.

1:23:56And I take it that you are not in agreement with deferral,

1:23:58so we'll allow you 10 minutes to address the committee, please.

1:24:03Appreciate it.

1:24:04We don't disagree entirely with staff comments.

1:24:06We do agree with the first two.

1:24:08They were accepting of the first two

1:24:10of the four minor variances.

1:24:12It's just the second two that I want to speak to.

1:24:15So through you, Chair,

1:24:18this is an application that we are looking

1:24:20for four minor variances at 25 Chadwick

1:24:23to build a second story on top of an existing garage,

1:24:29detached garage, to allow for an accessory dwelling unit.

1:24:33The intention of this is not for the current owners

1:24:37as a rental, but as a multi-generational dwelling,

1:24:41where the primary dwelling is being occupied by the parents

1:24:46and the accessory dwelling will be occupied by a family,

1:24:51their own family, sorry.

1:24:53So the property as you see here is a very bizarre shape

1:24:58as it's had a couple of different severances.

1:25:01The last completed in September, 1992, I can't remember

1:25:07what month, but a couple of portions were severed

1:25:11to the benefit of 21 Chadwick,

1:25:14I believe to allow for a driveway to pass

1:25:17through the back of 21 Chadwick to a garage at the rear.

1:25:22So I'll address that a little bit as we go through here.

1:25:27I just wanted to mention the corrections

1:25:29to the application itself, which was circulated.

1:25:33There was a notation error on the application

1:25:36where previously the side yard setback requirement

1:25:42of 1.5 meters, we were requesting a reduction to 0.67.

1:25:47On the plan, it was listed as 0.59.

1:25:51At some point, during markups, this got changed,

1:25:54but we are actually looking for 0.67 as is stated

1:25:58from the existing garage to the property line,

1:26:01as noted on the survey.

1:26:04This would be a lesser setback reduction,

1:26:08and we have spoken with staff about that.

1:26:11The other item is in comment to the building department

1:26:15as well as staff, planning staff,

1:26:18that there is no intention during construction

1:26:22for there to be more than 80 square meters of living space,

1:26:26which is allowed through the zoning bylaw.

1:26:29The drawings that were provided for floor plan

1:26:31were for reference at this point only,

1:26:33as design is not finalized,

1:26:36and the homeowners are not intending

1:26:40to circumvent any bylaw there.

1:26:44When permits are applied for,

1:26:47it would be to a maximum of 80 square meters

1:26:50of living space.

1:26:51There is a small section of the front

1:26:52of the main floor of the existing garage,

1:26:55which would be a studio,

1:26:58hobby room for the owners.

1:27:00And as it shows right now,

1:27:03the second floor does have extra floor space,

1:27:06but would be reduced slightly,

1:27:08as the overall height of the building

1:27:09is likely to be reduced.

1:27:12If we could go to the next slide, that would be great.

1:27:15Thank you.

1:27:17As you can see here,

1:27:18the overall lot of 25 Chadwick, as I mentioned,

1:27:23has had a couple of severances,

1:27:25as well as a sanitary easement in 1992.

1:27:30The proposed garage is close to the interior side yard,

1:27:35which would be a portion of the rear yard of 21 Chadwick.

1:27:40It is now currently 0.67 meters, or 2.2 feet,

1:27:43from the property line to the edge of the garage,

1:27:47whereas prior to the severance,

1:27:48it would have been, prior to the original severance in 1992,

1:27:51that was to the benefit of 21,

1:27:54it would have been closer to two meters, 2.01 meters.

1:27:59And again, I believe at some point,

1:28:02to allow for this driveway that passes

1:28:04through the rear of 21,

1:28:06that severance was agreed to,

1:28:08as well as to create a sanitary line

1:28:10through the easement underneath that driveway now that exists.

1:28:16There is a comment in the correspondence from 21 Chadwick,

1:28:22mentioning the setback of there being close.

1:28:26And I just wanted to draw everyone's attention

1:28:29that it is a driveway on the other side of that building,

1:28:33and then quite a distance to the actual home,

1:28:35and absolutely no windows are proposed

1:28:37on that side of the building,

1:28:40as well now that we're looking for correctly 0.67 meters

1:28:45side yard setback,

1:28:47it would not be under the 0.6 meter setback

1:28:50that would trigger a access and maintenance agreement

1:28:53between 21 and 25 Chadwick.

1:28:59Oh, could we go to the next slide?

1:29:04As I mentioned, this is the sort of proposed overall floor plan,

1:29:08which is not set in stone in any way.

1:29:11My apologies to staff, we did go over this a few times,

1:29:14and there is a partition wall that would be proposed

1:29:18to separate the spaces.

1:29:20And again, floor plan not confirmed.

1:29:23This was for the sake of showing no windows

1:29:27on the side yard setback.

1:29:29We do have the one window,

1:29:31which is going to be a variance D that I want to speak to.

1:29:34But again, in variance C,

1:29:36that's bottom right corner would be the tightest area

1:29:41to that side yard setback.

1:29:43And again, no windows are proposed,

1:29:45and believe that maintenance would be reasonable

1:29:47in that space.

1:29:51Go to the next slide, that would be awesome.

1:29:55Okay.

1:30:01So, minor variance D is related to this window proposed

1:30:06on the second story, which would be facing

1:30:10across the backyard of 21 Chadwick,

1:30:15which is again at the rear of the existing garage,

1:30:18but another proposed second floor.

1:30:21There are some outdoor gardens in the rear,

1:30:24but it's not, the concept of this window is obscured glass,

1:30:30not to impose in privacy in any way with the gardens,

1:30:33but to let natural light in for any bedroom proposed

1:30:36on that second floor.

1:30:38And again, we're looking for a reduced setback

1:30:43from what would be required to be three meters to 1.92

1:30:48as the building exists where it is currently.

1:30:52The homeowners have spoken with 21,

1:30:56the owners of 21 Chadwick,

1:30:58and there was some concern about the build form,

1:31:01the overall build form,

1:31:02and there's a lot of open communication right now

1:31:04around what the final design would be

1:31:06and overall building height.

1:31:07So there's concepts or discussions to have

1:31:11clipped ceiling in the second floor

1:31:13to bring down the overall building height

1:31:15and to reduce any kind of imposing feel on 21's property,

1:31:21but to still allow for the bedroom space required

1:31:25for the family in this multi-generational dwelling.

1:31:29Could we go to the next slide please?

1:31:33I'm gonna pick up the pace.

1:31:36So this is just an overall look of,

1:31:39so the top left corner you're looking at

1:31:41is the, as shown in the garage,

1:31:44which will be the detached ADU.

1:31:47The lower section there is 21 Chadwick,

1:31:50and the top right square there is a garage behind

1:31:53or to the rear of 21 Chadwick.

1:31:57The blue shows sort of the sight line

1:31:59from that second story window across sort of a treat area

1:32:04and garden area to the rear of 21 Chadwick as well.

1:32:08And again, for natural light,

1:32:09not for the purpose of,

1:32:11or to have an obscured glass on that window

1:32:13to stop from any kind of privacy issues

1:32:16between 25 and 21.

1:32:19We do believe that the owners

1:32:24between the two properties have had reasonable conversation.

1:32:27We think that it's not an extensive ask

1:32:32for that reduction and setback in order to let that happen.

1:32:37Just to quickly clarify,

1:32:39the variances that were completed in 1992 really did

1:32:45impact this site-air setback reduction from 1.5 meters

1:32:51that we're seeking to 0.67

1:32:54through whatever purposes there were at the time

1:32:59in the benefit of 21 Chadwick.

1:33:02Whereas we believe it's a reasonable reduction

1:33:06in that setback to make this work,

1:33:08but I would be open to any questions or comments from staff.

1:33:13Thank you very much.

1:33:14Community members,

1:33:15do we have any questions of the applicant?

1:33:17Member Ross.

1:33:19After you, Mr. Chair.

1:33:21I wondered if you would mind

1:33:25perhaps using the registered plan drawing

1:33:27that's marked up in red to go through variances C and D again

1:33:32so that I'm perfectly clear,

1:33:36particularly regarding the 0.59 versus the 0.67.

1:33:41So are we able to zoom in a bit there on what would be L?

1:33:48I think it's shown as L1 there.

1:33:51So yeah, right at the bottom,

1:33:54there's sort of a clip corner in the light gray,

1:33:56which is the corner of the property of 21 Chadwick.

1:33:59And in the survey, you can see it's labeled as 2.2 feet,

1:34:04which is actually 0.67 meters setback

1:34:07from the existing garage to that property line.

1:34:11Sorry.

1:34:13I'm on a, I've got two drawings,

1:34:16one which is marked up with requested variances.

1:34:20Let's see which one this is.

1:34:22It's by Build Consulting Services

1:34:24and it's part of your submission, your site plan.

1:34:28Yeah, matching what's seen there.

1:34:32It actually has the 0.59.

1:34:37Oh, it's showing 0.59.

1:34:39Okay, so the,

1:34:40so I'm just reconciling that one

1:34:43with what I see before me here.

1:34:45Okay, I understand now.

1:34:47So what's being shown here,

1:34:50I do see as the 0.67, this was,

1:34:53and I guess this was one of the earlier drafts

1:34:55that we had reviewed with staff.

1:34:59The marking from the formal survey,

1:35:02the legal survey that was completed,

1:35:05is labeled on the drawing as 2.2 feet

1:35:08from the setback of that property line

1:35:10to the structure.

1:35:11On the submission by us,

1:35:13there was a clear, clear to show 0.57,

1:35:16which may have just been adjustments in scale,

1:35:21but the actual dimension is 0.67.

1:35:230.59, you mean?

1:35:25Sorry, 0.5, I apologize.

1:35:260.59 is what was shown in the application

1:35:29and we were just trying to clarify

1:35:30that it's actually 0.67 as shown 2.2 feet

1:35:35on the legal survey.

1:35:37And then if you could indulge me for variance D,

1:35:421.92, that window, I can see it on,

1:35:47yes, I see it on both pictures,

1:35:50and that is where the window is located.

1:35:53On the second floor, slightly more to the center

1:35:56of the building, it's not quite at the edge,

1:35:58but the narrowest part of the setback

1:36:01from the building to the property line

1:36:02is 0.92 meters versus the required three meters.

1:36:08Thank you.

1:36:08No problem.

1:36:11Any other questions of the applicant?

1:36:16Seeing none, staff, I wonder if staff have anything

1:36:22to add to this?

1:36:26To you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee,

1:36:28staff do have a brief presentation

1:36:30with respect to the application.

1:36:31Thank you, please go ahead.

1:36:35So to you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee,

1:36:37the application before you today, as mentioned,

1:36:39is for four requested variances at 25 Chadwick Avenue.

1:36:44As the applicant mentioned in their presentation,

1:36:46they are proposing to construct a second story addition

1:36:49to the existing detached garage

1:36:51and to convert the building

1:36:52into a detached additional dwelling unit,

1:36:55or ADU, on the subject lands.

1:36:57And staff are supportive of variances A and B

1:37:01as both requested variances meet the general intent

1:37:04and purpose of the zoning bylaw and the official plan

1:37:07are desirable for the appropriate development of the lands

1:37:10and our minor nature.

1:37:12However, staff have determined

1:37:14that there are outstanding variances

1:37:17that will be required for the proposal

1:37:19as based on the drawings submitted,

1:37:21the second story addition of the ADU

1:37:23would increase the floor area of the accessory structure

1:37:27to approximately 120 square meters.

1:37:29Now staff do recognize that the applicant

1:37:31in their presentation did mention

1:37:33that the design has not been finalized,

1:37:35but based on the information provided to staff

1:37:38on the drawings,

1:37:39we remain of the opinion at the moment

1:37:42that there are outstanding variances that will be required

1:37:47as the zoning bylaw requires that each ADU shall not exceed

1:37:5180 square meters of residential floor area.

1:37:54And the staff are recommending deferral of application

1:37:58A-91 slash 25 as the application as proposed

1:38:03requires those additional variances.

1:38:06Thank you very much.

1:38:07Any questions of staff and their presentation?

1:38:11Seeing none at this point,

1:38:15I'm going to see if there are any registered delegates.

1:38:21Mr. Chair, I can confirm no registered delegates.

1:38:24Are there any members of the public in the gallery

1:38:27who would like to speak to this application?

1:38:30Seeing none, I'll turn it back to the applicant.

1:38:35If he has any questions or qualifications

1:38:38that you'd like to add?

1:38:39Yeah, we would like to qualify and clarify

1:38:42that although staff are referring to

1:38:51what would be a required access,

1:38:53an additional variance would be required

1:38:55if we were seeking to construct something

1:38:57with more than 80 square meters living space.

1:39:00That's not what we're seeking.

1:39:03And requesting to move for approval here

1:39:07because even through a building permit application,

1:39:11we wouldn't be able to build anything legally

1:39:14that would be exceeding the approved square footage

1:39:19or square meters of the accessory unit.

1:39:23And the overall footprint of the building itself

1:39:25is not increasing.

1:39:27So we're not seeking an additional minor variance

1:39:31to defer for those purposes.

1:39:33We would disagree and say approval now

1:39:36based on the fact that we aren't seeking

1:39:39additional square footage

1:39:40and that this approval still,

1:39:44we have to apply for a building permit.

1:39:46This doesn't approve us to do anything

1:39:48outside of an approved building permit.

1:39:51And a hope that I've clarified enough

1:39:54to ask me to move to approve.

1:39:59If for some reason it is still unclear

1:40:01and a deferral is required, I understand that.

1:40:05But we feel as clear enough at this point

1:40:09that we've made our case.

1:40:11And again, we have no intention of circumventing the bylaw

1:40:15or building anything that we wouldn't be able

1:40:17to be a permit approved for anyways.

1:40:22Any questions of the applicant?

1:40:26Yes, remember Fitzpatrick.

1:40:27Through you, Mr. Chairman.

1:40:29And I guess more directed towards staff

1:40:31than the applicant if that's allowable.

1:40:35So the applicant's comment about,

1:40:39they're not gonna be able to get a permit

1:40:42if they exceed the square footage

1:40:45or the square meters that are permitted

1:40:47under the 80 bylaw.

1:40:51Is that, that's accurate, I'm assuming.

1:40:55Yeah, through the chair to member Fitzpatrick.

1:40:59Yes, that is correct.

1:41:00But I am also gonna point out that variance C,

1:41:03the minimum interior side yard setback,

1:41:06which we've now is over the 5.9,

1:41:09it's, what was it, like 6.6 or whatever.

1:41:15The applicant is also talking about adding

1:41:17not what's just existing, but a second story to that.

1:41:22The total area is over 120 square meters.

1:41:27When you add the second story,

1:41:28the staff doesn't necessarily know

1:41:34what the applicant's proposing.

1:41:36Potentially we can increase that setback impact

1:41:40on the neighbors so that it is not as close as 0.6

1:41:44for the second story to reduce the size of the dwelling.

1:41:49In addition, the applicant keeps noting that it's a garage.

1:41:52It's currently not a garage.

1:41:55A site visit found that it's finished space now

1:41:59and there's no garage door.

1:42:03Staff doesn't have any permits on record.

1:42:06So we're unsure of how it's being used at the moment.

1:42:11There are just a lot of questions

1:42:12on how the design will be

1:42:16which ultimately does impact the neighbors

1:42:19and questions that aren't answered yet.

1:42:22Thank you, that really does help clarify things for me.

1:42:24I appreciate that.

1:42:27Any other questions of the applicant or staff?

1:42:31I do have a question for staff

1:42:34and that is generally speaking

1:42:36when we have an application that comes before us,

1:42:38one of the conditions is if we're going to approve it

1:42:41that the drawings and specifications are in general,

1:42:48what we approve are the drawings and specifications

1:42:50that are essentially followed.

1:42:54And I'm a little unclear how we'd wrap that up

1:43:01given that some of these comments have been made verbally,

1:43:06some of them by writing and et cetera.

1:43:11Is there any clarification that you can help me with with that?

1:43:22To you, Mr. Chair.

1:43:24Yeah, staff recognize that's a bit challenging

1:43:27in terms of formulating our comments

1:43:29when certain dimensions in terms of,

1:43:32and in this case, square footage are not accurately depicted.

1:43:39The approved plans do indicate that floor area

1:43:44of 120 square meters.

1:43:46And I guess from our perspective,

1:43:49in order to properly formulate our comments,

1:43:55we need to trust that the plans as provided

1:44:01and what the requirements,

1:44:02the sorry, the variances being requested

1:44:05follow those plans that have been submitted.

1:44:10Thank you.

1:44:11I'm a little reluctant to craft things on the fly.

1:44:14I'd like to see a clean application before us.

1:44:19So I appreciate those comments.

1:44:21Thank you.

1:44:21Are there other questions that we have?

1:44:26Okay.

1:44:27And are there any delegations, Madam Secretary Treasurer?

1:44:31No.

1:44:32Is there anyone in the gallery

1:44:33who would like to speak to this application?

1:44:35Seeing no one rushing the microphone.

1:44:39Committee members, what is your wish?

1:44:43Member Fitzpatrick.

1:44:44I motion that we defer this application

1:44:49until we have further information

1:44:51on what's going to be built and that it conforms

1:44:53and addresses staff's concerns.

1:44:57Thank you.

1:44:57And do we have a seconder?

1:44:59Member Meir.

1:45:01There is no discussion on a deferral.

1:45:03So I'll ask the secretary treasurer to call the vote please.

1:45:07Thank you, chair.

1:45:08Committee members, please indicate your vote

1:45:09by responding in favor or opposed to the motion,

1:45:11which is to defer the application.

1:45:13Chair Smith.

1:45:14In favor.

1:45:15Member Fitzpatrick.

1:45:17In favor.

1:45:17Member Goodfellow.

1:45:18In favor.

1:45:20Member Mambraño.

1:45:21In favor.

1:45:23Member Meir.

1:45:24In favor.

1:45:25And member Ross.

1:45:26In favor.

1:45:27That's carried, Mr. Chair.

1:45:28Your application has been deferred to a future meeting.

1:45:36Madam Secretary Treasurer,

1:45:37I believe that completes our applications.

1:45:43Do you have any staff announcements?

1:45:46Mr. Chair, I do have one brief staff announcement.

1:45:50So as part of bill 17,

1:45:54the province has proposed allowing variances

1:45:57to be permitted as of right.

1:45:59So if a proposal is within 10% of the required setback.

1:46:04So in other words, if the minimum setback is deemed

1:46:07to be 90% of the prescribed setback in the zoning bylaw.

1:46:11So for example, if there's a one meter setback requirement

1:46:14in the zoning bylaw, no variance would be required

1:46:16for a setback that's within 90% of that setback

1:46:19for 0.9 meters.

1:46:21So wanting to update the committee

1:46:23that this regulation is now in effect

1:46:25as of Friday, November 21st.

1:46:27This doesn't impact any of the applications

1:46:29that were heard today.

1:46:31And we've also done a review as staff

1:46:34and looking at the applications that we received in 2025

1:46:37and none of them would have been impacted

1:46:40by these new as of right variances.

1:46:41So we do believe it's gonna have a minimal impact

1:46:44on applications going forward.

1:46:46I will note that as part of the recent bill 60,

1:46:50the province has proposed building upon bill 17

1:46:53to allow these as of right variances

1:46:55to any zoning provision, not just setbacks.

1:46:58But it would be up to the province to identify

1:47:00which types of zoning provisions this would apply to

1:47:02and there's no regulations in force about this yet.

1:47:06So we'll update the committee if that changes

1:47:08and that's all the announcements I had, Mr. Chair.

1:47:12Thank you very much.

1:47:14I had heard a little bit about that.

1:47:15So it's good to hear this clarified specifically like that.

1:47:20At this point, I'm going to call for a motion to adjourn.

1:47:27Nobody wants to leave?

1:47:30Member Meir, I saw your hand waving.

1:47:36Member Goodfellow has moved that.

1:47:39Do I have a seconder?

1:47:41Member Fitzpatrick, all those in favor?

1:47:44We stand adjourned committee members.