Council Planning

13:37Good evening everyone. I'm going to call the September 19th 2023

13:42Guelph City Council planning meeting to order. If you are able please stand for

13:47our national anthem. Could take a moment of silence. I'm going to read the

15:38Indigenous Territory Acknowledgment. As we gather we are reminded that Guelph is

15:43situated on treaty land that is steeped in rich indigenous history and home to

15:48many First Nations, Inuit and Métis people today. As a city we have a

15:53responsibility for the stewardship of the land on which we live and work. Today

15:58we acknowledge the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation of the Anishinaabic

16:03peoples on whose traditional territory we are meeting. Are there any

16:12disclosures of pecuniary interest and general nature thereof of items on the

16:18agenda before us this evening? Seeing none just to let everyone know we've

16:26received regrets from Councillors Gibson, O'Rourke, Ault and Councillor Gowler.

16:33We're going to move to item 3.0 on the agenda. 3.1 and 3.2 have been pulled

16:39from Council's consent agenda. The first item 3.1 is a decision report for 25

16:46Alice Street proposed zoning bylaw amendment. We have one delegation I

16:51would call up Claudio Balbino here from Agora Research Group who is here on

16:58behalf of the applicant. Welcome. Now do you have a presentation? We weren't sure

17:12if this was another public meeting so I'm just here to happy happy to answer

17:16any questions you may have so there's no presentation or anything like that. Thank

17:19you. So no presentation. Maybe what I can do is then ask online Councillors and

17:25Councillors in the Chamber if they have any questions for Mr. Balbo. Seeing none

17:35that that is fine Alice you have any closing comments or anything? No that's

17:40it. Thank you. Okay thank you. Thank you for coming. So can I please have a

17:45Councillor move the recommendation in the report? I have Councillor Richardson.

17:50Can I have a seconder please? Councillor Chew. Is there anything further on this

17:56item? I see nothing. Then I'd like to call the vote. Is anyone opposed to the

18:04recommendation? Seeing none that passes. Thank you. The next item is the sign

18:14variance for 175 Morris Street. We have one delegate Adam Cloet who is virtual I

18:21just give a second for the clerk. Hello Adam it's Councillor Linda Pousatile. If

18:41you can turn your video camera on and just. So Adam you have five minutes for

18:55your presentation. There will be a chime at the 30 second mark and a chime to

19:00signal the end of your delegation time. If you could just remain online for any

19:06questions from Councillors and the timer will start as soon as you start your

19:11presentation. Awesome thank you. Well my first delegation so thank you. Thank you

19:18for your time this evening I appreciate it. My family lives at 183 Morris Street

19:23which is directly across from the Guelph-William Theater. I'm going to quickly

19:28state my case on why I believe this Breivet area should be not approved. At a

19:34high level, binaries are put in place to help Governor City as I'm sure you all

19:39know and any variance according to Ontario government needs to be proven to be

19:42both minor in nature and wide needed. In other words something of significant

19:48nature. And others are able to find any detailed general purposes of the sign

19:54bylaw for the City of Guelph and that was also after consulting with a city staff

20:00member. I quickly will reference two common ones from other similar municipalities.

20:06A, to protect and enhance the aesthetic qualities and visual character of the

20:12city by encouraging quality sign design and B, are consistent with city planning,

20:17urban design and heritage objectives. Knowing the consideration of any

20:24severances I'd like to bring up the following six points to kind of

20:28bravish my position here. Number one, the electronic message sign that the

20:34applicant listed the variance for will sign directly into the front of my

20:39windows of my home. Number two, the Guelph-William Theater is tightly

20:44surrounded in its entirety by residential homes. As a matter of fact, the 22

20:50meters distance they're requesting to shorten the variance to is the equivalent

20:57of a pitching mound to home plate in the baseball diamond. Very close. Number three,

21:03the Guelph-William Theater is in its nature an artistic facility, both with its

21:10visual qualities and purpose. They graffiti on the lines of their fence,

21:15they have graffiti over the front of their building and the side. It's community-driven.

21:21And objectively speaking, an electronic message board simply does not fit with the

21:27visual representation of the theater and the neighborhood. Number four, I have yet to see

21:34any objective need for an electronic message sign. More street is a low-traffic

21:41residential street. I haven't seen any specific intangible evidence whatsoever

21:48that the applicant has shown an anticipated improvement in their business moving from a

21:53traditional billboard sign to an electric one. So I'm not sure if this is a want or a need,

22:00but only one of those could begin to justify a bylaw variance. One of the flies to signs.

22:08Number five, I am in the city of around Ontario and within Quebec. Soon hopefully in

22:16the United States, without question, one could argue like Guelph is one of the most restrictive

22:21bylaws when it comes to signs around. And those are businesses operating in commercial zones.

22:28So I can't fathom how this variance could be approved with any objectivity applied

22:34in a residential zone for a community theater. Approval in my honest opinion would be hypocritical.

22:42In fact, I drove down once into my office this morning and down Claire road to put up my daughter

22:47on her tour this evening and I didn't see a single electronic message sign anywhere. And

22:52those are all commercial zones. Number six, for three years on the little theaters left a

23:01two-foot-five sign made out of scrap wood and rock and hand-painted with the rock closed

23:09on the front of it. It looks like refuse. I like to think before they try to justify any

23:13expenses, fancy electronic sign, but they would at least spend a couple hundred bucks for a

23:18professional no parking sign. And at the end of the day, it's clear to me and hopefully you as well

23:26this variance fails the requirements of the Ontario government and would certainly fail the test,

23:32the litmus test and in similar municipalities around the province with respect to the sign

23:36of the bylaws. I appreciate your time. Thank you very much. Thank you, Adam. If you can just

23:46stay online, I'll ask counselors if anyone has questions of a clarifying nature for you. Yes,

23:55counselor Chu. Hi, Adam, can you hear me? Yes. Through the chair. Thank you for your delegation.

24:06I'm just taking a look at where the sign placement is and I do and you do make a clear point. It is

24:13less than 30 metres away from where your home is on Moor Street. I guess this is more of a question

24:19to staff. Has there been any alternative locations been looked at? Like perhaps where the parking lot

24:27is, for example, where there's a clear tree line and fence row? Counselor Chu, if I can get you to

24:33hold that question, if we could just ask the delegation for clarifications on theirs and then

24:38we can perhaps ask staff. Okay, yeah, no problem. I guess my question to the delegate would be if

24:48the sign was moved away from Moor Street and elsewhere, would that be acceptable to you

24:54and your neighbours? I don't, again, the fundamental call, I think you have to provide a need for the

25:03sign to be justified for variance and I don't understand the need for an electronic message

25:09sign in a residential zone. Moving it five, six, seven metres away, I don't think it improves it

25:17whatsoever. Anywhere in that parking lot will face directly into the front of the old Biltmore

25:23Towns homes on Moor Street. Okay, thank you so much. Thank you. I have counselor Downer and then

25:34counselor Klassen. Thank you. You, Madam Chair, Mr. Klouac, I just, my understanding in the staff

25:44report is that it was perpendicular to the residences. So you're saying that you will

25:49actually be able to see the sign from your place? Yes, it's perpendicular, but we're looking basically

25:5733 degrees. I see. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Counselor Klassen, please. Yes, through you,

26:11Chair, to the delegate. I just, you mentioned, of course, that Guelph Little Theatre is a

26:18community-led operation and, yes, and I'm aware that it's, you know, led by volunteers. Have you

26:25had the opportunity to connect at all with them and ask them about why they need the sign? Because

26:33they've been there for a long time and they're really, I believe, quite open to having discussions

26:37with the people who live around them. I have not, actually. I didn't reach out to Little Theatre.

26:44I, to be honest, my first city council meeting, I kind of assumed that they would present to kind

26:49of defend their position. As provided from the city, there was no real need listed or

26:57purpose for the sign, just a request for a variance. Thank you. Yeah, I, you know, I know that the

27:08theatre has been there for a number of years prior to the construction of the Biltmore Hat

27:13Development and it is, you know, it is definitely a community operation, but I could imagine that,

27:19you know, having a sign that's visible because it is not directly on York Road would certainly be

27:25helpful for people for wayfinding. Would that be something that, you know, is a good reason

27:30for having an electronic sign, especially when it's not directly on the road?

27:36I would strongly disagree with that. It's almost impossible to miss the theatre. It's on the right

27:42hand side of the road. It's probably seven, eight thousand square feet in two stories.

27:49You know, I certainly couldn't imagine any evidence being presented that would overcome that objection.

27:56Okay, thank you. And then just one more question. I think the report outlined some timing. I can't

28:03think of it off at the top of my head and maybe staff can, can mention it later, but I don't think

28:07the sign is meant to be on all of the time. I think that there are, you know, it will be lowered and

28:12it will be like elevated at different parts of the time. Have you, have you been able to take a look

28:19at that report, part of the report? Because it wouldn't necessarily be shining directly into your,

28:25your home at all hours of the day and night. I haven't seen that report or I reached out to

28:32both you and Councillor Gowler last week and didn't hear back. Councillor Gowler did mention that he

28:39was going to look at the report again and felt that it was lacking some information. I haven't

28:44been presented with any of that information. So, okay, thank you. We can, that's, that's it for me.

28:52I have some questions for staff afterwards. Thank you for your delegation.

28:57Thank you. There's nothing further. So I'm going to go to Councillors and look for a Councillor to

29:03place the recommendations and then a Councillor to second so that it's on the floor and we can

29:08have a discussion about that. I've got Mayor Kam Guthrie moving and seconded by Councillor

29:17Clausen. Thank you. So now I'm turning to Council for anything further on this item. I'm going to

29:24turn to Councillor Chew and then Councillor Klassen and Councillor Kerr on and that's it so far.

29:33Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess I'll just repeat my question. Has there been any

29:38alternative sign placements that have been explored on the building, on other points of the building?

29:44Thank you. Yes, through the chair to Councillor Chew. When the application did first come in or

29:53when we were in discussions with it, a ground sign was a possibility,

29:58but staff did feel that the impact would be greater to the residents than changing where the

30:04existing changeable copy sign is on the building from the manual to the electronic.

30:13Okay. Yeah, I appreciate that. If you don't mind me asking, do you think it would be worth exploring

30:22an alternative sign placement? Because I understand where the resident is coming from,

30:26if it's shining directly across the street from where he and his neighbors live.

30:31Like that could be of annoyance for sure, but I do see there may be alternative placements that

30:38could be explored just as a compromise. Is that something that you guys would be willing to

30:45explore with the applicant? Yes, through the chair to Councillor Chew. Reviewing the site,

30:55signage on different locations on the building could actually have a greater impact because

31:02as the caller was saying, it would actually then have more likelihood of facing

31:10the more street dwellings versus being more perpendicular to them.

31:16Okay. Thank you so much.

31:19Councillor Klassen. Yes, thank you through you chair to staff.

31:25My next question pertains to my comment earlier with regard to the timing of the,

31:31the, I think in the report there was a section that sort of explained when the sign would be on,

31:36how it would operate, and I was wondering if you could elaborate a little bit on that just so that

31:42everyone here in the room could hear it. Just thank you. Yes, through the chair to Councillor

31:47Claeson. The sign by law require permits maximum illumination of 500 nits between sunrise and

31:56sunset. After sunset, that is to go down to 200 nits due to the proximity of residential dwellings.

32:09Thank you very much. Yeah, that's all. Thank you.

32:14Councillor Kerron. Thanks. The delegate brought up some very compelling points and so I just took

32:21an opportunity to just look at whether or not we have anything that I can think of where an LED

32:30sign is located on the roof of a building above the door and it is more than 50% of the sign face

32:43and I can't think of anything. I didn't see anything in the report or are you aware of any

32:47other signs in the city that have been granted both the park stone on the top of a building and

32:54more than 50% of the sign face. I'm not aware of any. Through the chair to Councillor Caron,

33:01there has not been a previous sign variance back when this sign was first installed permitted the

33:08location and the changeable copy of the sign. So I'm thinking of a precedent that we've set in

33:18other residential areas and I remember when Sport Check was at the mall we had an LED

33:23sign at the back of the mall that we had a significant number of complaints about from the

33:27residents of along Scottsdale and the only other sign variance that I can recall recently is one

33:33at the high school on College Ave and in all cases that I can recall they've been located on

33:39arterial roads. They've been below eye level and they've been quite a distance from more than three

33:46meters from residential. So I actually think that looking at the map that this sign it also affects

33:54the properties on York Road as well. It's right in the backyard of York Road properties right outside

34:02second-story windows and so through you Madam Chair I'd actually like to put a recommendation

34:11on the floor for an amendment for both clause one and clause two that the application be refused.

34:17This is not an arterial road it is a residential neighborhood it doesn't meet the 30 meters it

34:22doesn't meet the the tests and the principles of our sign by law and I think that this is a precedent

34:29in a residential non-commercial zone that could could end up having a negative impact

34:38not only on the residents around that area but on future sign by law variances that might be of

34:43a similar nature and try to use this as a precedent. So if I have a seconder I'd like to recommend a

34:49refusal. Is there a seconder? I have Councillor Richardson so the amendment is on the floor do

34:56I'm going to start a speakers list to the amendment to refuse the recommendation. And just just for

35:01clarification with I still have the floor Madam Chair it's to refuse this application that does

35:05not preclude the applicant from coming back with a with an alternate idea that is better in

35:12better alignment with our our sign by law principles. Madam Chair may I have just a point of order.

35:21Yes sorry I just had the clerk right now if if the clerk can. Through you Madam Chair I just

35:28wanted to remind members of of council and provide advice to you as chair that amendments

35:32can't be contrary to the motion. My advice would be that a motion to approve an amendment to

35:39not approve would be contrary to that. If this motion is defeated then that motion could be put on

35:43the floor. Thank you so Councillor Kerron and Richardson if you can withdraw the motion and so

35:52what would stand is the defeating of item 3.2. Yeah my my my misunderstanding Madam Chair I

36:02I know we have to put the staff recommendation on the floor which is a little different than

36:05Robert's rules so I I'll wait thanks. Thank you so I had Mayor Guthrie I think and Councillor

36:14Caten. Mayor Guthrie did you want to get on the speaker's list or just do point of order.

36:22Through you Madam Chair I was just going to do a point of order on Councillor Kerron's

36:27motion because it was contrary but the the clerk beat beat me to it. While I have the microphone

36:33though may I just ask one question. Certainly. Thank you Councillor Kerron in her commentary

36:42said that this is not in a commercial zone but the report clearly states that it is in a specialized

36:47commercial zone. Can staff please correct either me or Councillor Kerron so we have clarity on that.

36:57Through the chair to Mayor Guthrie the sign is in a specialized park zone which permits the theater

37:05use. Okay thank you yeah it says right here key findings the property is located in a specialized

37:14commercial recreational zone has the word commercial on it so I'm just reading your report so

37:25that's am I right or give me a moment please. Thank you. Next I have after the response from

37:34staff Councillor Caton and anyone else if you could just signal. It's on a page one under key

37:55findings the first sentence. Yes sorry it's the P5 zone is a specialized commercial recreation zone.

38:03That's what I thought thank you. Thanks. Thank you I have Councillor Caton. Thank you Madam Chair

38:14through you to staff. So from what I'm hearing it will be perpendicular to the houses potentially

38:22up to a 33 percent viewing of the light and after dark it's going to be 200 some odd lumens.

38:31So can you estimate like if the amount of light that folks are going to see in that area given the

38:38conditions is going to be about the same brightness as a bunch of house lights in front of it or is

38:47it going to be brighter than that. I'm just wondering if this is a case of perceived effect

38:51versus what's going to happen because it's hard to visualize and you know nobody wants brightness

38:57in front of their house. Through the chair to Councillor Caton. It's somewhat difficult comparing

39:09the brightness of a light to the brightness of a sign. Light emits light and a sign is more of

39:18the brightness of it. There is a comparison though so signs your laptop screens are measured in nits

39:29and our street lights are measured in lumens. So our average street light in a residential zone

39:37is approximately 6275 lumens. If you converted that to nits that'd be 1832.

39:51But again that's somewhat comparing apples to oranges because you're looking at the brightness

39:56of the light versus sorry the light emitting from a street light versus the brightness of

40:03a sign. A laptop is anywhere between 200 and 600 nits 200 being the dullest laptop screen.

40:15So I'm wondering if that explanation helped a bit. Thank you. Thank you. I'm trying to visualize.

40:24That was very helpful. Is that all Councillor Caton? Okay thank you. I see no further questions.

40:33So the motion on the... Oh Councillor Caren. Sorry just a question of clarification. We're

40:43talking... Mr. Clewitt lives on Morris Street and we're talking about perpendicular view to

40:48that group of residents. But we have residential homes on York Road. Are those within the 30 meters

40:56as well? Those those backyards on York Road? Are they within the 30 meter distance under the bylaw?

41:06Through the chair to Councillor Caron. No they are not. That measurement is actually

41:1460 meters from the sign location to the property line. But I would just like to state that I did

41:20notify them personally with a letter at their door. Okay thank you. Thank you. Are there any

41:29further questions at all? Okay seeing none we have the motion on the floor. The original motion

41:36moved by Mayor Guthrie seconded by Councillor Klassen that this be approved. I'm going to call the vote.

41:46Is anyone opposed to the recommendations? So I have opposed Councillor Richardson,

41:56Councillor Billings, Councillor Downer and Councillor Caren. Did I miss anything?

42:09Through you Madam Chair just to be certain on a close vote I'd recommend calling for votes in

42:13favour to confirm as well. Okay can I have the votes in favour please? I have Councillor Chew,

42:21Councillor Klassen, Councillor Guthrie and myself. Oh Councillor Caton sorry I missed you.

42:33That vote passes five to four. Thank you. Thank you to the clerk. Thank you. The next item is the

42:434.0 the statutory public meeting and decision report for 585 Helen Creek Boulevard.

42:49We have staff Eric Rempel and on behalf of my colleagues I would like to welcome Eric to

42:58council. This is his first time and go ahead and we'll collect questions. Excellent thank you

43:09Chair. Good afternoon members of City Council staff and members of the public. My name is Eric

43:15Rempel and I am the development planner reviewing this application. The City has received an

43:20application for zoning bylaw amendment from the consulting services on behalf of DBL CRS SimLounge

43:27to rezone the property known municipally as 585 Helen Creek Boulevard to permit the

43:32establishment of a golf simulator in two units of the approved 51-unit business plaza. Today's

43:38meeting is the statutory public meeting required under the planning act as well as the decision

43:42meeting for the proposed application. The subject site is a 2.54 hectoralot located on the northeast

43:54corner of Helen Creek Boulevard and Downey Road. The 51-unit business plaza with access off of

43:59Helen Creek Boulevard is currently under construction and site and the site has received draft plan

44:05of condominium approval. The subject property is designated corporate business park in the

44:12official plan with a small portion in the rear designated as natural area. The corporate business

44:17park designation applies to areas within the Helen Creek business park and permits a range of

44:23employment uses. The natural area designation applies to areas within the city's natural heritage

44:28system and is not being impacted by this proposal. The subject lands are currently zoned specialized

44:35corporate business park B5-3 in the 1995 zoning bylaw. The applicant is requesting to change the

44:41zoning of the subject lands from the current B5-3 zone to a specialized corporate business park B5-9

44:48zone. Subject lands are also zoned site-specific corporate business park BP-3 in the 2023

44:56comprehensive zoning bylaw. The applicant is also requesting to change the zoning of the subject

45:01lands from the current BP-3 zone to a site-specific corporate business park BP-9 zone. The zoning

45:08bylaw amendment is required to both the 1995 and 2023 zoning bylaws to facilitate the proposed

45:15development. So as mentioned the applicant is requesting to change the zoning of the subject

45:21lands from the current specialized B5-3 and BP-3 zones to a specialized corporate business park

45:28B5-9 and BP-9 zones in the 95 and 2023 zoning bylaws respectively. The specialized regulations are

45:36the same for both bylaws. These include firstly to permit a recreation facility use in addition to

45:41the permitted uses in the current B5-3 and BP-3 zones to facilitate the development of the proposed

45:48golf simulator. Secondly to limit the proposed recreation facility use to units number 36 and

45:5337 of the development to ensure the use remains in ciliary to the primary employment uses.

45:59And finally that a recreation facility shall not be shall not include a commercial kitchen

46:04or restaurant use. However may include an associated license establishment and prepackaged

46:09food available for sale. The proposed recreation facility use would be limited to units 36 and

46:1837 of the business plaza which on the site plan on the screen you can see is outlined in blue.

46:24Apologies. Staff's review of this application includes the evaluation of the proposal's conformity

46:39and consistency to the 2020 provincial policy statement and growth plan for the greater golden

46:43horseshoe. Evaluation of the proposal's conformity with the official plan. Review of the proposed

46:48zoning and review of supporting documents submitted with the development application.

46:54As of this afternoon four comments from the public have been received regarding the proposal

46:58and all comments have been supportive of the application. So as outlined in the staff report

47:03staff recommend approval of the proposed application. Thank you very much and I would be

47:08pleased to answer any questions council might have. Thank you I'm just going to look to the

47:15clerk. Do we want to ask questions now or after the delegations of staff? Through you Madam Chair

47:22we typically move to delegates. I will note we do not have the next delegate Paul Demchek

47:27available online to speak. I'm not sure if Mr. Demchek is here in person perhaps. At this point

47:42Madam Chair I would recommend possibly a break to allow delegates to call in

47:46remotely and we can work to get the listed delegate connected to the meeting. Yes thank you.

47:52As this is a statutory public meeting we had Mr. Demchek as a registered delegate on behalf of

47:58this client but we will open up the delegations to phone on screen and to anyone in the gallery

48:07gallery who would like to speak to this. So why don't we take a quick five minute break

48:12and then come back. Councillors if we could reconvene we'll continue the meeting. Thank you.

54:54We had one registered delegate Paul Demchek representing his client Jed Smith. Are you there

55:02Paul? Can you turn your video on please? Can you hear me okay? Yes can you hear me? Thank you. So

55:14you have 10 minutes for your presentation. There will be a chime signal at the 32nd mark and a chime

55:19at the end of your delegation time. If you could just stay online and that would give Councillors

55:26an opportunity to ask you questions of a clarifying nature. Great. I would be very brief and thank

55:33you for having me this evening. So my name is Paul Demchek with the Tory management. I'm the

55:37planning consultant on behalf of the applicant. So thank you to Mr. Rempel for the presentation

55:43that covered a lot of ground that I won't repeat but just for the benefit of council. So

55:49the corporate business park designation in the official plan that pertains to the subject property

55:54permits complementary uses in addition to the primary uses on the property which includes

56:02sorry a recreation use. So the golf simulator use that's proposed in my opinion is a complementary

56:09use. It takes up a total of 3.8% of all total floor area for all buildings that are proposed

56:15within this development. And obviously the zoning bylaw implementing zoning bylaw

56:23permits what is intended in the official plan and specifically for the site. We have read the

56:28staff report. We've read the four letters of support submitted with the application

56:33and have no further comments but we're here to answer any questions should council have any.

56:38Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions from council? I see none. Thank you for your

56:48delegation. There is a delegate from the council chamber's Phil McFadden if you want to make your

56:54way to the podium. Same thing you have 10 minutes for your delegation. If you could stay afterwards

57:02just for councillors to ask any questions of clarifying nature. Just said everything we needed

57:10to say. Again I'm Phil McFadden representing the building owner. Build consulting services

57:17and Batoria's our planning consultant. Nothing else to add. We agree with staff comments and I

57:23thank Paul for being brief. Thank you. Again to councillors are there any questions of the

57:31delegation? Seeing none thank you very much. I'm going to turn to the clerks to see if there are

57:39any delegations that have phoned in. You're fine to go. There are no other delegations Madam Chair.

57:46Thank you. So next are there any questions from council to staff on this item? I see none.

57:58So I am going to ask for someone to please place. I've got Councillor Klassen

58:03placing the recommendation. Can I get a seconder? I've got Mayor Cam Guthrie seconding.

58:10Is there anything further on this item? Any comments or anything? Thank you. None. Okay.

58:16I'll call the vote. Is anyone opposed? Seeing none that's unanimous and that carries. Thank you

58:25to the delegates and to the staff for the report. Next is bylaws item five and I'm going to turn

58:34to Councillor Richardson to please place the bylaws for consideration. Thank you through you Madam

58:40Chair. I would like to put forward bylaws number 2023 20821 20826 20828 20830 and 20831.

58:53Thank you. I'm going to look onto the screen this time for a seconder.

58:57I've got Councillor Downer. Thank you. Is there anything further from council on this item? Seeing

59:08none I'm going to call the vote. Is anyone opposed? Seeing none the motion passes. The recommendation

59:17is carried. There are no item 60 Mayor's announcements. Can I have a motion please for

59:24adjournment? Councillor Klassen. Excuse me, Madam Chair, I have a point of order. I do have a

59:30Mayor's announcement. Go ahead. Sorry. I just wanted to thank you. You did a great job as chair.

59:40That's my announcement. I was looking for the mute button. Thank you. Very nice. Thank you,

59:48Madam Chair. So I have Councillor Klassen. Can I have a seconder for adjournment please?

59:54The Mayor. Thank you, Mayor. Can I call the vote then please? Is there anyone opposed to adjournment?

1:00:02That carries. Thank you. Good night to everyone. Thank you for the meeting this evening.