Committee of Adjustment

1:05Good afternoon, 12th. I'd like to call to order the April 10th, 2025 hearing of the

1:12Welfth Committee of Adjustment. This hearing is being held in a hybrid format with attendees

1:17appearing in person or remotely and is being live streamed and recorded. Please be advised

1:23that public hearings form part of the public record and the words, names and images of those

1:29participating shall be recorded and posted online.

1:33Member Spears and Member Bellaman have sent their request for this hearing.

1:39Before I outline the hearing format, if you are watching online and wish to speak to an

1:44application that is listed upon our agenda and have not yet submitted a request in advance of

1:50the hearing, please call the number displayed on the screen now, which is 519-822-1260

1:58extension 2524. That's 519-822-1260 extension 2524 and you will receive instructions on how to

2:09participate. For those who are attending the hearing in person, you will also be given a chance to

2:14address the committee. A final call for delegations will be made when each application is called.

2:21The agenda for this hearing has been posted online at gwaulf.ca forward slash cofa.

2:29I will remind all committee members, myself and staff participating in the hearing,

2:34to please unmute your microphone when not in use. Applicants will be unmuted when their

2:40application is called. I'd also like to share the hearing format we will be using to negotiate

2:47this procedure. Each application will be called by the secretary treasurer and the call in number

2:54for those wishing to speak to an application will be displayed on the screen. Afterwards,

3:00the applicant will be given an opportunity to add anything to their application to a maximum of 10

3:06minutes. You will hear a chime when there are 30 seconds left and another when the 10 minutes have

3:13elapsed. If you are the applicant and you have nothing further to add, you can simply say so.

3:19Following this, for some files, staff may provide a brief presentation.

3:25Our committee will then be able to ask questions of the applicant or staff.

3:30After that, we will hear from members of the public who wish to comment on the application.

3:35Please note that all comments should be addressed to myself, the chair. Please also be advised that

3:42please pardon me, please avoid repeating concerns already stated by others and focus on adding

3:49new information. Comments are limited to 10 minutes or less and you will hear a chime when there are

3:5530 seconds remaining and another 10 when another when the 10 minutes have elapsed.

4:01For delegates who have advised staff in advance of the hearing that they wish to display a

4:07presentation, your presentation will be displayed on the screen and a remote is available at the

4:14podium for delegates in person to advance their slides. Any members of the public who have submitted

4:21a request to speak prior to the hearing will be the first invited to provide comments. For those

4:27wishing, watching the hearing online, if you wish to speak to an application and have not yet

4:32submitted a request in advance of the hearing, please call the number displayed on the screen now.

4:38For those attending the hearing in person, you will also be given an opportunity to come forward

4:44to the podium and address the committee. Once all comments from the public have been heard,

4:50the applicant or staff will be given the opportunity to respond to the comments. Finally,

4:56as chair, I will turn to my committee members for emotion and deliberation as well as a vote on

5:02the application. When the committee is making its decision on an application, I will be asking the

5:08Secretary-Treasurer to conduct the vote by roll call. Our Secretary-Treasurer will call each of

5:14the members' name and each member will respond if they are in favor or opposed to the motion,

5:21and I will announce the result of the vote. If you wish to receive a copy of the decision of

5:28an application, you must submit a written request. A written request may be made by contacting staff

5:36using the contact information shown on the screen. To receive a contact, pardon me, to receive a copy

5:43of the decision, please email cofa at gulf.ca with your name, the file number you're interested in.

5:52Please note that owners and applicants automatically receive a copy of the decision.

5:58At this point, I'd like to ask Member Goodfellow to provide our territorial acknowledgement.

6:05As we gather, let us take time to reflect on our privilege to live and work in Gwealth,

6:09a city built over rich Indigenous histories. We are guests here and we should reflect upon the

6:15responsibility to care for this land, the people who live here today, and the generations to come.

6:20If our actions today can move us towards reconciliation, we should take pause and make those

6:25decisions with intention and gratitude. This place we call Gwealth has served as traditional lands

6:31and a place of refuge for many peoples over time, but more specifically, the Attawanderang and the

6:37Haudenosaunee. This land is held as the treaty lands and territory with the Mississaugas of the

6:42Credit First Nation. Gwealth lies directly adjacent to the Haldeman tract and is part of a long

6:48established traditional hunting ground for the six nations of the Grand River. Many First Nations,

6:53Inuit, and Métis people who have come from across Turtle Island call Gwealth home today.

6:59Thank you, Member Goodfellow. Committee members, do I see any disclosures of pecuniary interest

7:07as so please let me know. Seeing none, I would like to speak about the minutes. Do we have a

7:18motion to approve the minutes of our last meeting? Member Goodfellow, seconded by Member

7:28Membrano, all in favor. I believe that carries, Madam Secretary Treasurer.

7:36I have confirmed with the Secretary of Treasure that we do have one application

7:42that has been recommended for deferral, but since this is the first application, I think we will

7:49deal with that first. So with that, I'll turn it over to our Secretary of Treasure to call that

7:56application. Thank you, Chair. The first applications are files B-15-25 and A-61-24 consent to create

8:07servicing easement and multiple variances for proposed addition, attached garage, and porch

8:13slash deck at 73 Yorkshire Street South. I'll note for those attending remotely, if you wish to speak

8:18to this application, you can do so by calling the number displayed on the screen. That number is 519-822-1260

8:27extension 2524 and when you call in, staff will give you instructions on how you can delegate remotely.

8:32Member Thank you. Is the applicant here? Yes, please come forward. Good afternoon. Can you state

8:43your name and your relationship to this application for the record, please?

8:46Member That's pointing directly at my chest. This is Phil McFadden from Build Consulting Services

8:52on behalf of the homeowners. Member Thank you. And can you tell me if the sign was posted as for the

8:58planning? Member Yes. Member And have you read staff's comments? Member We have, yep. Member And

9:04are you in agreement with staff's comment? Member Largely with some comments regarding

9:10B and D of the second file. Member Okay. You have 10 minutes to address the committee.

9:21Member Committee. Small group of people today. This file has been in and back and out again

9:27for reasons regarding the sanitary relocation, which we have now come to a consensus on.

9:35The file, the properties of the corner of Yorkshire and Bristol Street. It is a semi-detached home

9:41and what we are looking to do is build a garage with a living room above to the rear of the home

9:49and relocating the sanitary from 71 Yorkshire, which currently has an easement running below

9:55an existing deck which connects to the sanitary from 73 Yorkshire and then connects to the city side.

10:05We have proposed a new easement, which would be outside the footprint of the proposed construction

10:11and we have worked with engineering to clear up any concerns regarding that, so no complaints there.

10:17The purpose of this construction is to add a living room to the main dwelling,

10:25on the main floor of the dwelling and a covered garage or an enclosed garage below.

10:30So with this being an older semi-detached stone home, like most older homes in the downtown core,

10:37there is not a ton of additional space for a growing family, so they are wanting to create

10:40this living room. The garage below really does give them a chance to add additional storage,

10:47for season storage below, as well as reducing the heating and cooling costs of the space above.

10:55Staff do comment that they would be in full support of a car port versus a fully enclosed garage

11:01and we did go down this path with the homeowners and it is still in the best interest of the

11:07homeowner and for their final use for it to be a fully enclosed garage.

11:13So with staff comments, like I said, we do agree largely regarding item A, we are in full agreement

11:20with staff comments. Item B is regarding the minimum interior parking space being reduced from 3m 6

11:30to 3m 5.89. So the overall reduction of interior space is just over 4 inches,

11:36which would be 2 inches to the front and 2 inches to the rear of a parked vehicle inside.

11:43With exterior parking stalls being 5.5m versus 6, we believe in the homeowner does as well that

11:51any mid-sized sedan very comfortably fits inside this space with enough space to pass around the

11:57exterior of the vehicle. We believe it should be considered a very minor request to reduce this.

12:03We did make this reduction to try and keep as much actual driveway still available

12:11to become off-street prior to entering and leaving the garage,

12:15as well as maintaining as much of a setback from the existing property line as possible

12:21and felt it was fairly minor in the interior. So regarding C, we are in full, item C, we're in

12:31full agreement with staff, and then item D is where we have another conflict. So item D is the

12:38minimum exterior side yard setback for an attached garage, and I would like to pull up slide 4.

13:04So the way it's worded is that we're asking for a 0.8m setback to the garage, which is from

13:11the property line to the actual physical structure. So we have legal off-street parking

13:17completely inside of the garage, which is important here. The contentious item is that there's only

13:244m in change remaining from the garage to the backside of the sidewalk. So when we look at this,

13:32this is a view of essentially the vehicle being backed out of the garage waiting to enter into

13:37the roadway. The sight line, this would be looking eastbound up Bristol Street, so the vehicle at

13:45this point would not be entirely out of the garage. As I said, it's 4m from the backside of the

13:50sidewalk to what would be the garage door. So with the door fully open, the driver would have to pull

13:56out, wait for a clear sidewalk as well as clear laneway or roadway, and begin to back out or

14:03pull slightly over the sidewalk, close the garage door, which takes about 12 to 15 seconds,

14:09back out into the lane, and then pull away. So the same thing, looking westbound. Again,

14:17clear sight line from the vehicle down the street. They would have ample time to make sure the

14:22sidewalk was clear. They're not going to impede any pedestrians and making sure that they have

14:28adequate time to pull into traffic from east or westbound. And again, this is Bristol Street,

14:34which is not a heavy traffic area, especially right now with the large piece of construction just

14:40down the street. At peak times, a couple vehicles every minute, nothing crazy. Morning foot traffic

14:48from pedestrians going to school, etc. But it's reasonable to say that a vehicle could pull out,

14:55be clear, and close the door and leave. This is one of the items that staff brought up was to say

15:01to be able to fully close or fully open the door and not impede either vehicular traffic on the

15:05road or pedestrian traffic on the sidewalk. So we do feel like it's a fairly minor request

15:12and reasonable to be able to function in this way. Again, I do feel, as staff has stated a few

15:19times, that they are in support of this as a carport. I believe the functionality, regardless of

15:24a carport or a garage is fairly similar. It does come down to a vehicle leaving this portion of the

15:31driveway and entering into traffic. And again, in this item, staff support if it was a carport.

15:38The push from the home owner, like I said at the beginning, is this does add additional storage

15:45for season space that they require, as well as vehicle protection. I mean, that's an added bonus.

15:51They do have an accessory dwelling in the basement of this home, and this does give them a little bit

15:56more storage for themselves year-round. And that's a bit, I would ask that the committee would consider

16:04that these items do also be considered minor in nature, and we would seek approval for these.

16:11Thank you very much. Committee members, do we have any questions for the applicant?

16:33I have a question for the applicant, but my colleague has a question for city staff,

16:39so I'm going to defer to my colleague first. Yes, and thank you, Chair. I wasn't sure of the order

16:46of operations today. Okay, so through the Chair to City Staff, I just want to make sure I understand

16:51the dimensions that we're talking about here, because I know in the comments we're talking about

16:560.8 meters for the side yard setback for the garage, but I think in practice,

17:06it's more like four meters. Am I understanding that correctly, just because of the way the

17:11property line is located relative to the garage? The Chair to Member, good fellow. So there is a

17:19decent amount of boulevard in between the actual property line and the sidewalk. As

17:23the applicant said, there's about four meters difference between the side of that structure,

17:28and the actual sidewalk. So yes, and I believe staff are in support of the reduced setback

17:35for the structure itself. It's just the garage, mainly the way that the garage door would function

17:41relative to the proximities that will outline that staff have concerns about.

17:44Okay, and thank you. And just a quick follow-up question again through the Chair.

17:49I think we were also talking or understand that the garage needed to be 3.6 meters. Have I got

17:57that right for the depth, for the car length to be in the garage? That's the other variance that's

18:06been suggested for deferral, that there should be 3.6 meters. Sorry, six meters. I was mishearing

18:17that. Okay, that's why I ask these questions. Thank you. I think that answers my own question.

18:22Go ahead. Thank you. Any other questions? The applicant? I do have a question, and that is

18:34access and ingress to the garage. How is that planned to be maintained?

18:40Access and ingress of the garage? From what? If you could clarify that question.

18:47Is there an access to the garage from the interior of the

18:56unit, or do you have to go downstairs and outside and go through the garage door in order to get in?

19:02I apologize. Yeah, no, there is actually a man door or an access door existing in that lower

19:09section, which would be from the main house into the garage. There's also an exterior

19:13side yard entrance into the accessory apartment that's there. That's going to maintain, that doesn't

19:21change. I did actually, while I'm responding to that, I should also add that staff made comments

19:27regarding if the committee was to approve, they had a few conditions, and we did agree with those

19:31conditions if approved as well. Okay, and I guess the other question I have for you is

19:40I want to be absolutely clear that you're happy with staff's recommendations, but not with the deferral.

19:51So you would prefer not to have a deferral? Is that what I'm hearing? Correct, we would prefer for an

19:56approval. We don't believe, based on the recommendations that staff made, if we were to support approval

20:03with conditions, we support the conditions and prefer an approval versus a deferral.

20:10And I guess, I don't want to get too much into the weeds, but that's why you're here.

20:16The, I know the lot is relatively shallow, if I can put it that way, in order to get

20:26any sort of a parking, either garage or carport under the proposed addition.

20:37Is there any, is there any other options that you've looked at to try and meet staff's

20:49qualifications? Through you, Chair, we did go back with the homeowner as well as structural

20:55engineers and reviewed how we could construct and use or create a three-sided enclosure carport.

21:03We, the additional costs associated with leaving it wide open and having to add insulation and

21:12the way we would actually go through heating and cooling that space above, it got exponentially

21:16more expensive and it still didn't meet the intent or the desire for the homeowner to have this

21:22four-season closed storage space. So staff supporting the concept of a carport, they were in full

21:28support of a carport, would mean that one side would be open all the time. So the impacts of

21:33that, we had to go back and look with the homeowner and say, okay, could we go to a carport and are

21:37you okay with that? Whereas the garage at the end of the day is the intended use, it's the best suited

21:46for the family and we feel we made some modifications. The largest issue for deferral last time was that

21:52this easement existed below. So we are actually, the homeowner is actually paying to have

21:57sanitary relocated from the neighboring property in order to make sure that it's fully accessible

22:03at all times. We do feel that there's been a copious amount of work on behalf of the homeowner

22:08to make everyone's lives better through this process. Thank you. You do raise something,

22:17so forgive me, it's leading to another question. You mentioned about the heating and cooling,

22:25is it proposed that this garage would be a heated garage? No, not that it would be heated

22:29garage, but I mean like with any other garage, if you have an R9 or R12 garage door, you have some

22:37bleed through from the main floor, it's not going to be warmed by any stretch, but it's five,

22:42six degrees, it could be maintained throughout the winter. Okay, I'd have to look it up, but I

22:53believe that the building code is the same whether or not it's a garage or it's a car port.

23:02Through you, Chair, correct. I mean the construction techniques from the building,

23:06like the building department doesn't have a concern technically on the build itself.

23:11I think the point of contention or the deferral request from staff on these two items are more

23:18around the functionality of this as a garage versus a car port in their site, not from a building

23:26standpoint or an engineering standpoint, but from the planning standpoint. Okay, thanks,

23:31and forgive me for getting a little into the weeds here. No, no, no. At this point, I'd like to

23:38ask if there are any members of the public who would like to speak to this application,

23:42either here in the gallery or online. Chair Smith, I can confirm we haven't received any

23:55delegation requests. Okay, thank you, and I don't see anyone in the gallery. At this point, I'd

24:02like to turn to staff and see if they have any comments that they wish to make on this application

24:08at this point. Through you, Mr. Chair, I don't think we have any additional comments. Okay.

24:18Thank you very much for that. So at this point, I will turn to my colleagues,

24:23committee members, what is your wish with this application? Member Goodfellow.

24:51I move that we approve the first

25:00file with conditions as recommended by city staff. So that would be B-15 slash 25.

25:09And then, do we actually, sorry, just a point of order, do we do those and do we do separate

25:13approvals or do we approve them all together? Can we separate them? Okay, so I move that we approve

25:24the first application B-15 slash 25 with conditions as recommended by city staff,

25:30and then we deal with the deferral recommendation separately.

25:35As a separate motion. Yes.

25:36Okay. Do I have a seconder for that? Member Mimbrano. Is there any discussion on the

25:46application, pardon me, the motion before us? Seeing none, Madam Secretary,

25:55Chair, would you call the roll please? Thank you, Chair, committee members,

26:00please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the motion, which is to approve

26:06the consent file with the recommended conditions as outlined in the staff report.

26:12Chair Smith. In favor. Member Goodfellow. In favor. Member Mimbrano. In favor. And member Siegel.

26:20In favor. That's carried, Chair. Okay. The easy part has been done and that part of your

26:27application has been approved. Committee members, we still have a portion of this application dangling.

26:36What is your wish? Member Goodfellow. I get to go again. I'm going to motion that we approve

26:56the application with the exception of D. I feel that including B makes sense, but not D, so I am

27:08motioning that we approve all but D and recommend deferral on D. Do you want to do that as

27:19a separate motion or do you want to leave it as one? I'll defer to our secretary treasurer on what

27:28point of order we can accommodate here. Through the chair, I just wanted to get some clarification

27:34from member Goodfellow. You're recommending approval, accept variance D, and you're recommending

27:41deferral of that variance D, deferral or refusal. I'm just wondering what the purpose of the deferral

27:52would be there for variance D? It's a very good question. Yes. Perhaps then it makes more sense

28:02to defer the whole thing if there is one that is being recommended for deferral. Okay. Okay.

28:09Yeah, I can't, I am not comfortable with the whole all of them, but.

28:15So, yes, Madam Secretary Treasurer. Through the chair, I'm not sure if maybe staff, planning staff

28:22any further comments on this? Yes, thank you. Yes, please go ahead. So, I think the applicant is

28:32hoping for a decision today, so I'm not sure if member Goodfellow, what you're considering is

28:37approving something like a carport without approving a garage. I believe this similar setback

28:43is required for both a carport and a garage, so a variance similar to variance D would have to be

28:48approved if you were to want to do approve a carport rather than a garage. So, if that's the

28:54route you were considering going, I would recommend approving it as presented, but adding on a condition

29:00that it must be a carport rather than a garage. Again, maybe that doesn't cover the intent of the

29:07motion you were trying to make, but just in my two cents. Thank you. I appreciate that clarification.

29:17Yeah, it's not quite where I was headed, so. Okay, this is a little bit of a complicated one,

29:23so maybe I will pull back on the motion just for now, in case my colleagues have one that's maybe

29:32a little better thought out. Member Prenno, do you have anything to add? And member Siegel?

29:45Through the chair, can I ask another question? I know we kind of passed that period, but

29:58so if I can ask a question of the applicant, can you just clarify again what the intent of the

30:05room above the garage was? And then I think you had mentioned cost was an issue with the carport

30:11versus the garage, but can you just summarize the cons of that proposal again quickly?

30:17Yeah, the intent of the space above the garage is a family room for this

30:21expanding family that's owned the home is lying with a carport as opposed to the garage.

30:30You do have one side that's going to be open to the weather four months,

30:34so it increases the amount of insulation and modifies the construction technique slightly,

30:40which increases the cost. With this chance to say this though, we have deferred this file already.

30:49This has cost this family an incredible amount of money and would the option between a carport

30:57and a garage, the garage is the intended end product and we believe we have put the work

31:02in to prove that it makes sense. If carport is what the committee is willing to support,

31:09I would like to see that as a motion if at all possible. Again, deferring this file again.

31:16A deferral is an incredible amount of time and money for all parties involved and we have already

31:20gone through this once. The homeowner is taking the risk and the time to relocate a neighboring

31:30property sanitary and able to allow the construction of this has been a long arduous process costly

31:37and we have worked with staff extensively to get to this point. Carport does increase the cost of

31:45construction slightly, marginally. If that was the only way to move this forward, we would understand,

31:51but again, staff have provided ample support here that say if the committee would like to

31:58support the approval of this, that they would have a couple other conditions. We're happy to add the

32:03conditions they've suggested, but we would prefer to move out today with an approval one way or another,

32:08not a deferral. This has been a very long expensive process.

32:16Thank you for drawing that out, Member Siegel. I appreciate it.

32:21So just to summarize, summarize, excuse me, it sounds like the applicant would prefer a decision

32:29today and so committee members, I'll turn to you and what is your wish? Member Goodfellow.

32:51I actually saw through the chair, I have another question for city staff.

32:55Please go ahead. So they recommended conditions that you suggested if we were going to approve

33:03this, are those specific to a carport or are those for a garage? Just so that I'm clear when I make a

33:11motion that I know which of those recommended conditions to include if we were going to go one

33:19way or the other? Through the chair to Member Goodfellow, those recommended conditions in the

33:26report were for either way, whether it be a garage or a carport. When I raised my hand earlier,

33:31that's because I was going to say if you do go the carport route, I would recommend just approving

33:37as is and adding an additional condition saying, specifying that it must be a carport rather than

33:43a garage, but those three conditions recommended by planning staff and I think there was a few

33:47by engineering staff as well would be recommended either way, whether it be for a garage or a carport.

33:56Okay, thank you. Okay, committee members, we're still waiting for a motion so

34:05do I, yes, Member Segal? Sorry, I just have one more question. What for,

34:13so let me just pull it out here. So for D, just to clarify through staff, was the

34:21reason the request doesn't align with the zoning bylaw, is that a sightline issue or a safety

34:30issue? I know you're saying you can't pull out, put the garage down, so was the concern more of a

34:35safety of not having the sightlines and that would that be different with a carport or was it

34:42more of like you're backing in and then blocking a sidewalk? Just kind of curious for a little bit more

34:46in general on that one. Through the chair to Member Segal, it would be more the latter. The

34:52intent of the provision is to have sufficient space for a car to pull into the driveway and then

34:57open up the garage and then pull into the garage. There are specific regulations for sightline

35:02triangles for driveways, which I don't believe there is a variance being requested for that provision,

35:09or it would be the latter. Okay, do we have a motion? Members of committee, I'm turning to

35:29Member Goodfellow, I was giving her a glare, not a glare, a glance. An encouragement. Okay, I

35:40motion that we approve the application but include an additional condition for a carport

35:46and I believe if I'm following along correctly that we would also include the additional

35:52conditions recommended by City staff, which are numbered 1, 2, and 3 at the bottom.

36:00Oh shoot, okay, so there are five additional conditions recommended by City staff.

36:08Through the chair, my understanding is those two additional conditions from engineering staff

36:12are associated with the already approved easement application, so it would just be the three

36:17additional from planning staff. Okay, then the three additional from planning staff. Thank you.

36:24Thank you, Member Goodfellow. Do we have a seconder? Member Brembreno.

36:31Madam Secretary Treasurer, may I ask you to call the vote? Thank you, Chair, Committee Members,

36:38please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the motion, which is to approve the

36:44minor variance file with an additional condition requiring a carport and as well as including

36:51the staff conditions, the three staff conditions that were mentioned in the comments document.

36:57Chair Smith. In favor. Member Goodfellow. In favor. Member Brembreno. In favor. And Member Siegel.

37:05Opposed. That's carried, Chair.

37:10Your application has been approved with the added conditions. Madam Secretary Treasurer,

37:18may we have the next application, please? The next applications are Files B-51-24,

37:30A-92-24, and A-93-24 consent to create one new residential lot with one retained residential

37:38lot and multiple related variances for proposed severed and retained lots at 39 Armstrong Avenue.

37:44Also note for those attending the hearing remotely, if you wish to speak to this application,

37:48you can do so by calling the number displayed on the screen. That number is 519-822-1260

37:55extension 2524. And when you call in staff, we'll give you instructions on how you can delegate

37:59remotely. Is the applicant present? Yes, please come forward. Good afternoon. Can you state your

38:15name and relationship to the application, please? My name is Colin VanWord, I work for VanHart and

38:20Surveying and I'm the applicant. Thank you. And can you tell me if the sign was posted as per the

38:25Planning Act? It was, yes. And have you read staff's comments and are you in agreement? Yes, and yes.

38:35You have 10 minutes to address the committee. Excellent. Thank you. Okay, so Mr. Chair and

38:44members of the committee, we are looking for your consideration for a severance and then

38:50related minor variances. This is a property in the ward, an established old neighborhood of Guelph.

38:59And we are proposing a severance to create one additional residential dwelling. This lot is

39:06larger than the other lots along the street. It was the existing house is an old farmhouse that

39:16existed well before the plan of Subdusion or the registered plan that created all the lots down the

39:22street. And so it was created a bit larger and as you can see, it set back further from the street

39:30than you'd normally expect. And so as a result of this larger lot, we are suggesting a severance

39:39to create a lot that's 10.12 meters wide and about 24.3 meters deep. We think this lot

39:52is a good fit for another dwelling. And it actually is the size of the rest of the lots that the

40:01original plan created. So we are requesting a minor variance for the lot area. The lot area is 245

40:10meters squared instead of 275 meters squared required by the bylaw. But we believe that's

40:17enough space for a house and it fits with this neighborhood. There's actually seven other lots

40:21on this street that are the same area as this lot. So we believe it fits in very well. We are also

40:28asking for a minor variance for the front yard setback. The front yard setback in this area

40:38is calculated by averaging the two houses on either side. And in this case, for the severed lot,

40:46the existing dwelling at 39 is further back from the lot than normal. So we think it doesn't make

40:52sense to use that as the front yard setback. So instead, what we've done is we've calculated our

40:57front yard setback based on the house one over 35 and 45 and done that average. So that's the

41:04second request. And then for the retained, we have three requests that are essentially non,

41:10are illegal non conforming. Again, this is a this location of this house is a little bit unique

41:18because it's old and existed before the plan. So we're requesting a minor variance for the maximum

41:25front yard setback and for the rear yard setback and those have existed since the house and the

41:31plan of register plan existed. The third request is for the location of the driveway. Right now,

41:39the location of the driveway is in part of the property where this the proposed severance is.

41:47And we are asking to just move that to another the other side of the property.

41:53The zoning bylaw requires the parking spot to be behind the front wall of the house. And

42:01essentially, we're moving the parking spot of the side of the lot. It's a situation

42:07that's already existing that the parking spot is in front of the house. And because the location

42:11of the existing house, it doesn't make sense to put the parking spot behind that rear wall.

42:17And then we do also have two other minor variance requests that are part of the whole appeal

42:21situation. So those are just for the the side yard. And that's just to bring

42:29those provisions are under appeal. And so we just want to bring those those conform with the zoning

42:33bylaw. Yeah, we've had to work with engineering a little bit to figure out some of the servicing,

42:42but we've been able to work with the neighbor and engineering to sort that out. And planning staff

42:48and engineering have included conditions for that. So we're happy with that. Overall, I think this

42:53is a great severance. It's an established neighborhood, beautiful location, and it's a great place to

42:59add another home. That's in a great part of the city. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to

43:05answer. Thank you. My colleagues may have some questions. Committee members, do you have any

43:12questions of the applicant? Seeing none, I do have a question. And this is to staff.

43:27Staff, I note that the driveway is being swapped to the retained lot and that parking would be in

43:40advance of the of the dwelling. And you're supporting that. I just wanted to be 100% clear.

43:47Through the chair, that is correct. Staff are supporting that given the unique context of the

43:52heritage house there. Okay. Thank you. That's all my questions. Are there any members of the public

44:01who would like to delegate on this particular application? You can have a moment after I

44:14asked for delegation, so just have a little patience. Thank you. Are there any members of the chamber

44:19who have any thoughts that they would like to delegate on this application? I don't see any,

44:25Madam Secretary Treasurer. Do we have anyone on line? Chair Smith, I can confirm no delegations

44:30have been received. Okay. And I'd like to ask the applicant if he had a further comment.

44:38Sorry, Mr. Chair. I didn't mean to interrupt. You just jogged my memory. The landowner is actually

44:44just listening in. So if you had questions for him, he could, but he is just viewing remotely.

44:51Just wanted to mention that. Okay. Did he want to speak? You have some time left in your 10 minutes.

44:58Okay. Seeing none, I'm going to ask staff if they have any comments that they'd like to make

45:03on this application. No additional comments, sir. Thank you. I was going to say I had seen shaking

45:12heads, not nodding heads. So committee members, what is your wish? What do we want to go forward?

45:26Member Mambreno. I put a motion to approve this application with a condition as recommended by

45:34staff. Thank you. And do I have a seconder? Member Goodfellow. I just want to make a quick

45:42comment. I want to commend the applicant for being respectful of the existing older home in

45:49this severance application. And I will be supporting it. Everyone's a little bit different.

45:56And having parking in the front, normally I wouldn't support that. But in this particular case,

46:01I'm happy to support it with that. Unless there are any other comments, I'd like to

46:07ask Madam Secretary Treasurer to call the vote. Thank you, Chair. Committee members,

46:12please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the motion, which is to approve the

46:16applications with the recommended conditions from staff. Chair Smith. In favor. Member Goodfellow.

46:24In favor. Member Mambreno. In favor. And Member Siegel. In favor. That's Cary, Chair.

46:31Your application has been approved. Thank you. Madam Secretary Treasurer, may we have the next

46:39applicant, please? The next application is file A-34-25, variance to permit reduced front-yard

46:47setback for proposed addition to existing dwelling at 530 White Law Road. I'll note for those attending

46:53remotely, if you wish to speak to this application, you can do so by calling the number displayed on

46:58the screen. That number is 519-822-1260 extension 2524. And when you call in, staff will give you

47:06instructions on how you can delegate remotely. Good afternoon. Can you state your name and your

47:12relationship to the application for the record, please? Good afternoon. My name is Dana Luman,

47:16and I am the owner of the property. And can you thank you, and can you tell me if the sign was

47:22posted as per the Planning Act? Yes, it's there. And have you read staff's comments and are you in agreement?

47:29So I am not really familiar with what is going on. I'm just here to advocate for my proposal.

47:36So that's all I can say. I guess what I'm asking is, have you noted that staff has recommended that

47:46your application be approved? Yes, I did. I didn't notice that. Okay, yes. I just have to be clear

47:52and ask these questions. Yes, yes. We were talking back and forth before we came to this motion. Yes.

47:59You have 10 minutes to address us, and you can make as much use of that time as you wish.

48:04Okay, thank you very much. Thank you very much for here. And so we are familiar with

48:09multiple children, and our house is already built, is older house, and we are now trying

48:15at that comeback. As you see in the picture, we have a garage, what is in the front of the house,

48:21and then the main house is kind of like setback. And we are here because the front setback is

48:28a little bit less after we will build the wall. So we are trying to just match the garage wall with

48:33the original wall of the front of the house to the garage wall, and it will increase our living

48:41space and get more quality, more space to get ready in the front. And we will have a bigger

48:51kitchen because my kitchen is just one wall of this space for six people. So I will get my big

48:56counter. And yeah, so that is our idea, and I hope that you will support our idea and get the motion

49:07really approved. Thank you. That's concise and precise, something we like. So if you want to wait

49:13right there, my colleagues may have some questions for you. Committee members, do we have any

49:18questions of this applicant? Seeing none, at this point, I'd like to ask if there are any members

49:28of the public who would like to speak to this application. Seeing none, Madam Secretary

49:36Treasurer, are there any online? Chair Smith, I can confirm no other delegation requests.

49:43Thank you. And staff, do we have any further comments on this application? Seeing none,

49:52I will now turn to committee members. And what is your wish, committee members?

50:00Member Goodfell. I motion we approve the application as recommended by city staff.

50:06Thank you. And do we have a seconder? Member Siegel, is there any discussion? Seeing none,

50:15Madam Secretary Treasurer, will you call the roll please? Thank you, Chair. Committee members,

50:20please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the motion, which is to approve the

50:25application. Chair Smith. In favor. Member Goodfellow. In favor. Member Mambrenio. In favor. And

50:33Member Siegel. In favor. That's carried, Chair. Thank you. Your application has been approved and

50:40now you can get busy on making your kitchen, your dream kitchen. Thank you so much. You're welcome.

50:49Madam Secretary Treasurer, would you mind calling the next applicant please? The next applications

50:57are files B-16-25, A-36-25, and A-37-25. Consent to create one new residential lot with one retained

51:08residential lot and multiple related variances for proposed severed and retained lots at 22

51:13Prospect Avenue. I'll note for those attending remotely, if you wish to speak to this application,

51:18you can do so by calling the number displayed on the screen that number is 519-822-1260

51:25extension 2524. And when you call in, staff will give you instructions on how you can delegate

51:30remotely. Good afternoon. Can you seat your name for the record please? Jeff Beaseman,

51:36Van Artens, her van agent for the property owner. Thank you, Mr. Beaseman. And can you tell me if

51:42the sign was posted as per the planning? Yes, it was. And have you read staff's comments and are

51:47you in agreement? Yes, I've read them and I'm in agreement with them. Thank you. And as you know,

51:53you have 10 minutes to address the committee. Thank you, committee and chair. This is a really

52:02sweet, I think, infill severance. You can see that on the right there's two houses that are

52:09almost identical configuration. We're sort of matching that. In this case though, our proposed

52:17severance is slightly narrower than the parcel to the right that faces on Hillcrest Drive.

52:23The main reason we had to do that is just where the existing house is. We have suggested roughly a

52:28two meter side yard relative to the existing house. We chose two meters just because of the way of the

52:34land rather than going 1.5, which we could have done. But just because of the lay of the land and

52:41the drainage affecting the existing house, we were a little bigger than normal.

52:45So the to make the severance happen, we need a variance, small variance on area for 433 square

52:52meters versus 460 and similar to lot width, 14.4 meters instead of 15. The other severance outside

53:03of the ones under variances under appeal is the exterior side yard of the retained. You can see

53:10we're asking for 3.0 that E on the sketch. The, I believe the orientation because now that's an

53:19exterior side yard and it's an existing condition that 3.0 meters. It's well suited still for

53:28this situation and it exists already. Staff are favorable of it. The one thing we will have to

53:35do is remove the deck or at least the portion of the deck that crosses the property line.

53:40I think it's great severance and I'd be open to any questions that you may have. Thank you.

53:46Thank you. Committee members, do we have questions of the applicant?

53:53Seeing none, I'm going to ask if there are any members of the public who would like to speak to

53:59this application. I see none in the gallery. Madam Secretary Treasurer, is there any on online?

54:07Mr. Chair, I can confirm no delegation requests.

54:10Thank you and I'll turn to staff. Do we have any further comments? Shaking heads,

54:17so I will assume that to be no. Committee members, what is your wish? Sorry, I didn't see that member

54:36Siegel. It's sort of your hand. Yes, in and out of the blue. Thank you. Yes, I'll move to

54:45approve the application with the conditions recommended by staff. Thank you and do we have a

54:50seconder? Member Goodfellow, is there any discussion on this motion before us? Seeing none,

55:01Madam Secretary Treasurer, will you call the roll please? Thank you, Chair. Committee members,

55:06please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the motion which is to

55:10approve the applications with the recommended conditions. Chair Smith? In favor. Member Goodfellow?

55:16In favor. Member Mambrenio? In favor. And Member Siegel? In favor. That's carried,

55:22Chair. Your application has been approved. Thank you. Thank you. Madam Secretary Treasurer,

55:33may we have the next applicant, please? The next applications are files b-17-25 through to

55:45b-21-25 as well as minor variance application file number a-38-25 through to a-43-25. Consent

55:57to create five new residential lots with one retained residential lot and multiple related

56:02variances for proposed severed and retained lots at 91 Duke Street. For those attending remotely,

56:09if you wish to speak to this application, you can call in now by calling the number displayed on

56:13the screen. That number is 519-822-1260, extension 2524. And when you call in, staff will give you

56:21instructions on how you can delegate remotely. Welcome back. Can you say your name for the record,

56:29please? Hi, Jeff Buseman, Van Hart and Sir Vang. And can you tell me if the sign was posted? Yes,

56:34it was. Thank you. And you've read staff's comments, I assume. Yes. And are you in agreement? Yes, I am.

56:42You have 10 minutes to address the committee, Mr. Buseman. So this property is relatively close

56:48to downtown on Duke Street. Right now, actually the person that owns it is going to develop his

56:55offices in the commercial building that's there today. So one thing nice is this property would be

57:01brought to a residential use, which is what it's set up for in terms of the official plan and zoning.

57:07The plan is, as you can see, six semi units. They all fit with zoning except with, I'm going to say,

57:17the zoning except for the parcel at the top. You can see that we have it to be 7.3 meters wide

57:25instead of 7.5. That's just, that's how it fit. And so that's a variance for that. All the other

57:33variances are all the technical ones because they deal with the items currently under appeal.

57:42There's been a fair bit of dialogue with city staff on this configuration on different ways of

57:47developing this parcel and we found this to be the most practical way to move forward with

57:52the development on this person, on this property. Be happy to answer any questions or comments that

57:59you might have. Thank you. Committee members, do we have any questions for this applicant?

58:07Member Goodfellow. Yes, through the chair, I believe to the applicant. I understand that this

58:13site is located in the flood plain and based on that, that maybe some of the some of the

58:21configuration of the site may need to be modified to

58:24for approval with the GRCA's requirements relative to basements and whatnot. I guess,

58:35can you comment at this point on whether you foresee that the building configuration may need

58:44to be adjusted relative to what the GRCA will request as part of their process or are we talking

58:51about kind of like a standard building construction? I don't know it perfectly well, but my understanding

58:57is standard building construction that certain things have to be above. Maybe Eric knows it

59:05better than I do, so I can maybe ask. Do you know more? Through the chair and member Goodfellow,

59:12so there are a number of requirements, but the main one being elevation. So there's a minimum

59:17elevation for entranceways for structures within the special policy area.

59:23Thank you. Through the chair, back to city staff, then I can you clarify that a little bit further

59:31than and again, I'm thinking back to you what are the applications we reviewed not long ago and

59:39I'm looking for some clarification on how that building entrance elevation may,

59:46those requirements may translate to this particular application.

59:53Through the chair again to member Goodfellow, I don't think the GRCA has flagged any particular

59:59concern with the designs being provided, but that detailed review would happen when the applicant

1:00:05applicant goes for their GRCA permit. Okay, thank you. Appreciate that. Thank you, member Goodfellow.

1:00:14You cut some of my grass, so I appreciate it. Do we have any other questions of the applicant?

1:00:25I just want to make sure that I'm not missing member Siegel.

1:00:31Seeing none, are there any members of the public who would like to speak to this application?

1:00:38Seeing none, Madam Secretary Treasurer, anyone online? Mr. Chair, I can confirm no delegation

1:00:45requests. Thank you, and city staff, any further follow-up? No, thank you. Committee members,

1:00:54what is your wish? Do we have a motion? Member Siegel. I move to approve the application with

1:01:16the conditions recommended by staff. Thank you, and do we have a seconder? Member Mbrenno,

1:01:23is there any discussion on this? Seeing none, Madam Secretary Treasurer, would you call the vote,

1:01:30please? Thank you, Chair. Committee members, please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed

1:01:35to the motion, which is to approve the applications with the recommended conditions. Chair Smith.

1:01:41In favor. Member Goodfellow. In favor. Member Mbrenno. In favor. And member Siegel. In favor.

1:01:49That's carried, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Your application has been approved. Thank you.

1:01:53You're welcome. Madam Secretary Treasurer, may we have the next application, please?

1:02:07The next applications are files b-22 slash 25 through to b-25 slash 25, as well as minor

1:02:14variance application files a-44 slash 25 through to a-48 slash 25. Consent to create four new

1:02:24residential lots with one retained residential lot and multiple related variances for proposed

1:02:29severed and retained lots at 165, 165A, and 167 Alice Street. And I'll note for those attending

1:02:37remotely, if you wish to speak to these applications, you can do so by calling the number displayed on

1:02:43the screen. That number is 519-822-1260 extension 2524, and staff will give you instructions on

1:02:50how you can delegate remotely. Thank you. Welcome back. Can you see your name for the record, please?

1:03:01Survey. And can you tell me if the sign was posted as per the Planning Act?

1:03:06It was, yeah. Thank you. And can you tell me if you've read staff's comments and if you were in

1:03:12agreement? Yes, I have. And yes, I am in agreement. Thank you. And you have ten minutes to address the

1:03:19committee. Thank you. Okay, so this is another property or three properties in the ward. I'm here,

1:03:31I'm joined by the property owner as well. Hunter is here. So this is three properties.

1:03:38On one of the properties, there's an existing residential house. And what we're proposing

1:03:44is to sever this to create five lots. And the proposal is a townhouse development.

1:03:55The proposed development meets all of the new zoning bylaws requirements, but a whole slew of

1:04:00the things that are under appeal. So that's what all the minor variances are. All the minor

1:04:04variances are technical, just bringing in all the items that are under appeal. I think it's a great

1:04:13applications adding gentle density into the ward in a great location. And I'd be happy to answer

1:04:21any questions that you guys have. Thank you. Straightforward to the point. I appreciate that.

1:04:27Committee members, do we have any questions for the applicant? Remember good fellow.

1:04:32Yes, through the chair to the applicant. A couple of things I noticed about that site.

1:04:37One are the trees. And I guess I do see that there will be an investment in some additional or new

1:04:44trees. Am I understanding that correctly? So the driveways have been configured so that the trees

1:04:52can stay at the front. Okay. That was intentional. Okay. Yeah, we'd like to keep the trees at the

1:04:58front. Yeah, actually, so yes, through the chair that actually addresses my question. They're beautiful

1:05:03trees. So yeah, nice that that was considered. A second question if I may. I noticed that there's

1:05:10a monitoring well at the back of one of those sites. Can you just comment on the plan for that?

1:05:17I didn't notice any conditions in staff comments and perhaps that question isn't for you. It's for

1:05:23staff. But just to understand what the plan will be for that monitoring well as the construction

1:05:28progresses. I'm unsure of that monitoring. Well, if that's something that's been there from

1:05:38previous studies, like this parcel was one parcel and was severed back in 2020 to create the two

1:05:48lots, I don't know if that monitoring well is still from that. Yeah, I don't have an answer on that.

1:05:55And so maybe if I can redirect through to staff on that question through the chair,

1:06:01to city staff, is kind of when would something like that get captured to make sure that a monitoring

1:06:07well was correctly removed and capped or decommissioned? Through the chair to member,

1:06:15good fellow, I believe that's going to be an OBC requirement that it's decommissioned per Ontario

1:06:26provincial regulations. Okay. And so just to follow up a question on that is that

1:06:34I guess that process gets triggered then through a different city process

1:06:40would not need to be captured with a condition here, for example? I believe it is applicable already.

1:06:47Okay. Thank you. That answers my question. Thank you. Thank you. Community members, any other

1:06:55questions for the applicant? Seeing none other, we've covered staff in your question there.

1:07:06Are there any members of the public who would wish to speak to this application? I don't see

1:07:13anyone rushing to the microphone. Madam Secretary Treasurer, do we have anyone online?

1:07:21Chair Smith, I can confirm no other delegation requests. Okay. Thank you.

1:07:27Community members, what is your wish? Or I will ask staff if they would like to make any comments.

1:07:35Yes. Please go ahead. Through the chair to the rest of the committee, planning staff would like to

1:07:42note one small correction in the comments provided where it says low density residential

1:07:48for the official plan and use designation. It should be mixed office commercial,

1:07:52but this correction doesn't change any analysis provided or our recommendation for approval.

1:07:59Thank you for pointing that out. Madam Secretary Treasurer, is that something

1:08:04that can be captured in our motion? Through to the chair. I think that's just a typo

1:08:12clarification on the comments. So I think we can just note that accordingly. I don't think it

1:08:16affects the motion or any proposed motion at all. I appreciate that. Thank you. Any other

1:08:23information or comment from staff? Seeing none. Committee members, what is your wish?

1:08:31Remember no. I move to approve the application as per recommendation from staff.

1:08:40Thank you. And do we have a seconder?

1:08:44Very good fellow. Is there any discussion on the motion before us? Seeing none. Madam Secretary

1:08:53Treasurer, would you call the vote please? Thank you, Chair. Committee members, please

1:08:58indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the motion, which is to approve the

1:09:03application. Chair Smith. In favor. Member Goodfellow. In favor. Member Mambrenio. In

1:09:12favor. And member Segal. In favor. That's carried, Mr. Chair. Your application has been approved.

1:09:21You're welcome. Madam Secretary Treasurer, may we have the next application please?

1:09:29The next application is file B-26-25. Consent to create one new residential lot with one retained

1:09:36residential lot and 18 Ryder Avenue. I'll note for those attending remotely, if you wish to

1:09:41speak to this application, you can do so by calling the number displayed on the screen.

1:09:45That number is 519-822-1260 extension 2524. Good afternoon. Can you state your name and

1:09:55your relationship to the application please? Yes. My name is Brianna Miller. I am from Van

1:09:59Harten Surveying and I am on behalf of Tarraview Homes, a property owner. Thank you. And can you

1:10:04tell me if the sign was posted as per the planning? Yes, it was. And have you read staff's comments

1:10:11and are you in agreement? Yes, and yes. Thank you. Will you have 10 minutes to address the committee?

1:10:16Yeah, through you, Mr. Chair, are you okay if I speak to this application and the following for

1:10:21both Ryder and Lubbitt at the same time as they are related? Let me just ask for advice from our

1:10:30Secretary of Treasury. Is this something we can do, Madam Secretary of Treasury? Through the

1:10:35chair. We do have these files listed separately. I mean, I'll leave it up to you. I mean, the

1:10:40applicant is free to maybe speak to both and then when we get to the next one, they might not need

1:10:45to make another presentation, but I'll leave that up to you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. I'm happy to allow

1:10:50it. They are interconnected as you're indicating, so please go ahead. Correct. So the two lots are

1:10:59located in an already established subdivision. They were left like significantly larger than

1:11:05the neighboring lots with the intention of preserving the two trees that are shown on the sketch.

1:11:11So the proposal now is to sever them pretty much in half, with the severed being proposed for

1:11:17development eventually and the retained to be left vacant aside from the trees until the trees

1:11:23naturally pass. At that time, then the retain would be developed. It can accommodate a single

1:11:30detached dwelling that is characteristic of the established neighborhood. The lots can already

1:11:34be serviced with municipal sewer and water, so that is not a concern. We also have support from the

1:11:42planning staff as well. The proposed development does not require any minor variances and is in

1:11:49consistency with the zoning bylaw for RL2-12 zoning on the property.

1:11:57Thank you. That's concise and to the point. I appreciate it.

1:12:01Committee members, do we have any questions of the applicant? Member Mimbrano?

1:12:09To the applicant, yes. You mentioned about the tree and

1:12:14not developing that portion of the or that lot because of the tree. Whose tree is it?

1:12:24So the tree, I believe it belongs to the property owner, but it is protected as per the tree protection

1:12:31survey that was done when the subdivision was created. I can be correct if I'm wrong on that.

1:12:39And just to follow up on that one, so the initial intent to leave those trees and

1:12:46was it that those lots where the whole lot was supposed to stay as it was or as a natural?

1:12:55So through you, Mr. Chair, the lot was going to be developed kind of in the way it's done now,

1:13:00but because of the size and the associated price tag, unfortunately they are not selling,

1:13:05so the idea is to make it smaller and more affordable for people to buy.

1:13:10Thank you. Thank you, Member Mimbrano. Any other questions of this applicant?

1:13:21Seeing none, if you want to stand by, I'll ask if there are any people in the gallery who would

1:13:28like to speak to this application. Seeing none, Madam Secretary Treasurer, is there anyone online?

1:13:38Mr. Chair, I can confirm no other delegation requests.

1:13:41Okay, thank you. And at this point, I will turn to my colleagues to see if there is a

1:13:49motion before us. Member Goodfellow. I move that we approve the application

1:13:55as recommended by city staff with conditions listed.

1:13:59Thank you. And do we have a seconder? Member Mimbrano, is there any discussion?

1:14:09Seeing none, Madam Secretary Treasurer, can you call the vote please?

1:14:13Thank you, Chair, Committee Members. Please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed

1:14:17to the motion which is to approve the application with the recommended staff conditions. Chair

1:14:22Smith. In favor. Member Goodfellow. In favor. Member Mimbrano. In favor. And Member Siegel.

1:14:28In favor. That's carried, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Your application has been approved.

1:14:35And at this point, we'll turn to the last application, which I believe is related.

1:14:42And I am going to say that we have already sworn this delegation in. And unless you have anything

1:14:51further to add, we will accept as noted your comments. Yeah, nothing further to add.

1:14:58Okay, thank you. At this point, then I will ask if there are any delegations who would like to

1:15:04speak to this application. Seeing none, are there any online? Mr. Chair, I can confirm no other

1:15:11delegation requests. Thank you. And Committee Members, do we have any questions of this applicant?

1:15:19Seeing none, what is your wish, Committee Member Goodfellow? I move we approve the

1:15:27application with the conditions recommended by City staff. Thank you. And do we have a seconder?

1:15:34Member Siegel. And any discussion? Seeing none. Madam Secretary Treasurer, would you call the

1:15:42roll please? Committee Members, please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the

1:15:47motion, which is to approve the application with the recommended conditions. Chair Smith. In favor.

1:15:54Member Goodfellow. In favor. Member Mambrenio. In favor. And Member Siegel. In favor.

1:16:01That's carried, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Your applications have been approved. Thank you.

1:16:09Madam Secretary Treasurer, I believe that brings us to the end of our meeting agenda.

1:16:20Mr. Chair, I just had one brief staff announcement. Please. So just a quick reminder that

1:16:28for existing members and members of the public that we are seeking members for a position on the

1:16:33newly combined Committee of Adjustment and Property Standards Committee. Recruitment is open until

1:16:39April 21st and the application form can be found online at gulf.ca or by contact and Committee of

1:16:45Adjustment staff. And that's the only announcement I had, Mr. Chair. Thank you. I do have one

1:16:49announcement and that is I want to welcome back Member Siegel and our congratulations on her

1:17:00family addition. So welcome back and hope to see it many more meetings.

1:17:07Take care. And with this, I would like to ask for a motion to adjourn. Member Goodfellow,

1:17:16Seconder, Member Mambrano, all in favor. We stand adjourned Committee. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.