Committee of Adjustment

0:16Good afternoon, Snowy Guelph. I'd like to call to order the February 13th, 2025 hearing of our

0:24City of Guelph Committee of Adjustment. The hearing today is being held in a

0:29hybrid format with attendees appearing in person or remotely and is being live streamed and recorded.

0:36Please be advised that public hearings form part of the public record and the words, names,

0:42and images of those participating shall be recorded and posted online.

0:48Before I outline the hearing format for today, if you are watching online and you wish to speak to

0:54an application that's listed on the agenda and you've not yet submitted a request in advance of

0:59the hearing, please call the number displayed on the screen now, which is 519-822-1260,

1:09extension 2524. That's 519-822-1260, extension 2524, and you will receive instructions on how to

1:19participate. For those attending the hearing in person, you will also be given a chance to address

1:25our committee. A final call for delegations will be made when each application is called.

1:32The agenda for this hearing has been posted online at

1:35gulf.ca forward slash c-o-f-a. I will remind all committee members and staff

1:44who are participating in this hearing to please mute your microphones when not in use.

1:49Applicants will be unmuted when their application is called.

2:01I beg your pardon. I'd also like to share the hearing format we'll be using for today.

2:06Navigate through each application. Each applicant will be called by the secretary

2:10treasurer and the call in number for those wishing to speak to an application shall be

2:16displayed on the screen. Afterwards, the applicant will be given a maximum of 10 minutes

2:26if they have anything further to their application. You will hear a chime when there is 30 seconds

2:31left and another when 10 minutes have elapsed. If you are the applicant and have nothing further

2:37to add, you can simply say you have nothing further to add. Following this, for some files,

2:49staff may be asked to provide a brief presentation. The committee will then be able to ask questions

2:56of the applicant and or staff. After that, we will hear from members of the public who wish to

3:02comment on an application. Please note that all comments should be addressed through myself,

3:08the chair. Please avoid repeating concerns already stated by others and focus on adding new information.

3:16Comments are limited to 10 minutes or less. You will hear a chime when there are 30 seconds left

3:22and another when the 10 minutes have elapsed. For delegates that have advised staff in advance

3:29of the hearing that they wish to display a presentation, your presentation

3:33shall be displayed on the screen and a remote is available at the podium for the delegates to

3:41advance their slides. Any member of the public who have submitted requests to speak prior to the

3:47hearing will be the first invited to provide comments. For those watching online, if you wish

3:54to speak to an application and have not yet submitted a request in advance of the hearing,

3:59please call the number displayed on the screen now. For those attending the hearing in person,

4:06you will be given a chance to come forward to the podium and address our committee.

4:13Once all comments from the public have been heard, the applicant or staff will be given

4:18the opportunity to respond to comments. Finally, as the chair, I will turn to the committee for

4:24emotion and deliberation as well as a vote on the application. When the committee is making a decision

4:30on the application, I shall be asking the secretary treasurer to conduct the vote by roll call.

4:37The secretary treasurer will call each member's name and each member will respond if they are

4:44in favor or opposed to the motion. And as chair, I will announce the result of the vote. If you

4:53wish to receive a copy of the decision on an application, including information about the

5:00appeal procedure, you must submit a written request. A written request may be made by

5:07contacting staff using the contact information shown now on the screen. To receive a copy of the

5:13decision, please email cofa at gwellf.ca with your name and the file number you're interested in.

5:26Please note that owners and applicants automatically receive a copy of a decision.

5:35At this point, I will ask member Membrino for our territorial acknowledgement.

5:45As we gather, let us take time to reflect on our privilege to live and work in wealth,

5:51a city built over rich indigenous histories. We are guests here and we should reflect upon

5:58the responsibility to care for this land, the people who live here today, and the generations to come.

6:06If our actions today can move us towards reconciliation, we should take pause and make

6:12those decisions with intention and gratitude. This place we call wealth has served as traditional

6:19lands and a place of refuge for many peoples over time, but more specifically, the Atina Wanderung

6:28and the Haudenosaunee. This land is held as the treaty lands and territory with the Mississaugas

6:35of the Credit First Nation. Wealth lies directly adjacent to the Haudenosaunee and is part of a

6:44long-established traditional hunting ground for the six nations of the Grand River. Many First Nations,

6:51Inuit and Metis peoples who have come from across Souter Island call wealth home today.

7:00Thank you, member. I know.

7:05Committee members, are there any disclosure of any interest today? If so, raise your hand.

7:12Seeing none, I would like to have the minutes of our January meeting approved. Do we have a

7:22member good fellow and a seconder? Oh, sorry, member Milovan. I looked right past you.

7:35And all in favor? I believe that's carried, Madam Secretary Treasurer.

7:43I've confirmed with the Secretary of Treasurer that we do have a deferral request,

7:47and I would like to turn to the Secretary of Treasurer now to address this, Madam Secretary Treasurer.

7:54Thank you, Chair. There is one application on the agenda that is recommended for deferral.

8:00Staff is recommending deferral of files B-1-25A-2-25 and A-3-25 for 68-76 Windham Street South,

8:13so the applicant can clarify the exact variance as required. I believe the Agent Robert Turner

8:18is present to speak to the application. Is the applicant present? Yes, please come forward

8:28to the microphone. Good afternoon. Can you state your name and your relationship to this application,

8:45please? Yeah, Robert Turner, Friar Turner Architects, and I'm the authorized agent for the owner,

8:52Michael Flamin. Thank you. And can you tell me if the sign was posted as per the planning?

8:57It was, yeah. Thank you. And have you read staff's comments about deferral and are you in agreement?

9:04Yes, I guess we have the number of elements that are being questioned and clarifications.

9:14I don't know if I'm permitted any time for clarification in this forum.

9:19By all means, if you wish to take advantage of your 10 minutes, I'm happy to allow that.

9:26Yeah, if I could, Mr. Chair. I thought we were going to be third in the queue today.

9:32That's fine. If you need a moment to compose yourself, please take advantage of that.

9:42I'd give you a minute or two and then we can proceed with your 10 minutes.

9:49Yeah, okay. Just two seconds. Thanks.

9:53Just for members of the public and anyone watching at home, this was the third application and

10:00the applicant was looking for a couple of minutes as this has been moved forward in the queue.

10:09So we're going to take a brief intermission. Welcome back. So you're welcome. I know moving

10:53things around on the fly can sometimes throw a curveball. So that was not my intention. But

10:59if you'd like to make use of your 10 minutes, please go ahead.

11:03Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. The application as described is for severance

11:09and minor variances on a lot in Wyndham Street. And the intention is to construct two

11:17three-story triplexes on separate pieces of land. And the severance line,

11:24new severance line is shown up through the middle of the plan there. A few questions

11:31and points were asked. And I think some clarification is helpful in terms of the minor variances.

11:39Actually, if you could just scroll down to the bit with the minor variances, that would be handy.

11:44The one question that was noted was that the, yeah, that's fine. Thanks. That the rear yard of lot

11:52number one is incorrectly identified. That's true on the plan. It says that this is the interior

11:58side yard. But on the matrix, the zoning summary, it is actually correctly noted as the rear yard.

12:07The number that's included for the rear yard setback is a, in essence, a notional number in

12:14that the two buildings obviously being fixed in position. The one on lot two has a interior

12:21side yard requirement and the one on lot one has a rear yard requirement and they touch each other.

12:27The distance between the two buildings is actually significantly more than the sum

12:32of the required side yard and the required rear yard. So that was why we arrived at a number of

12:397.5 meters, which is the minimum rear yard required. But if that isn't an acceptable way of doing it,

12:47we can look at this as another minor variance to reduce the rear yard of lot one to the minimum

12:56point where it's the line projected from the rear of the building touches the new lot line,

13:02which is about 4.8 meters. So if that's what we're required to do, we can apply for an additional

13:09minor variance. The other item I think that I believe staff don't support at this time is the

13:18rear yard setback for building two. Building two, the lot there is perpendicular to the lot on Howett

13:27Street. So from the Howett Street side, this appears as an interior side yard, whereas from the

13:33Wyndham Street side, it appears as a rear yard. What we have done is picked a number somewhere

13:40between the two. And in the case of this lot, of course, it's right at the very back of a very

13:48deep lot on Howett Street. If overlooking is considered to be an issue, then we are able to

13:54move the windows at the rear of building two to the sides. And I think I might alleviate any

14:02concerns there may be on that side. One item I noticed, and this is only a note because the

14:11Grand River Conservation Authority aren't represented here, but we noted that GRCA comments

14:18also recommended deferral due to us not having the appropriate finished floor elevations. Well,

14:27actually, we do have the appropriate finished floor elevations to cover the requirements of the

14:34regulatory flood elevation. The regulatory flood elevation along Howett Street is 312.9, and along

14:43Wyndham Street is 311.9. That's our understanding. We found this information out quite a while ago.

14:49And they are indicated here when the civil engineering is done, obviously those finished

14:55floor elevations will be maintained on the grading plan. At this stage in the application,

15:01we don't normally have a civil engineer. But our belief is that we have the correct finished floor

15:07elevation shown to cover the requirements of the GRCA. And I think those are the points that I wanted

15:21to get through if that's okay with you, Mr. Chair. It certainly is. I just want to be clear that

15:29you want to go forward with the application at this point, or are you willing to consider

15:38a deferral? Well, obviously, it's our strong preference to go forward because we are very

15:44much into the process and we'd like to keep them in the interest of the project going. I think it's

15:50if what I've said hasn't resolved the issues that staff have, then I guess it is their final decision.

16:01Okay, it sounds like perhaps a reluctance to acquiesce, certainly. We like to keep these

16:09things rolling. If you want to right-way, a bit tongue-tied today, I'm afraid, if you will wait

16:18there, I will see if there are any members of the public who would like to speak to your application,

16:22if you don't mind. Okay. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak to this application?

16:31I do not see anyone leaping to their feet, Madam Secretary Treasurer. Is there anyone

16:37on the telephone or online? I can confirm no delegation requests, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

16:43Committee members, do we have questions that we'd like to ask of this application? Yes,

16:52Member Spears. Through you, Mr. Chair, to staff. Could staff, unless you wanted to

16:58go with this after, I'd like to staff, if the request really is, to staff support the application

17:04with the clarification that's been made, yay or nay. Through the Chair to Member Spears,

17:13we would prefer deferral still, just because the missing variances should be reflected in a new

17:19public notice to more accurately reflect what's being proposed. Thank you.

17:27Any other questions? Seeing none, Committee members, what is your wish? Do we wish a

17:37motion on deferral or do we want to move this forward and enter in debate on the issue?

17:48Yes, Member Goodfellow. I motion to defer this application. I agree. It's hard to know

17:57what the alterations are without maybe seeing some additional drawings and revisions,

18:02so that would be my motion. And do we have a seconder, Member Spears? There is no debate on

18:09deferral. Madam Secretary Treasurer, would you mind calling the vote, please? Thank you,

18:15Chair. Committee members, please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the

18:18motion, which is to defer the application. Chair Smith? In favor. Member Balaban? In favor.

18:25Member Goodfellow? In favor. Member Mambrenio? In favor. And Member Spears? In favor. That's

18:31carried, Mr. Chair. Your application has been deferred. Thank you. I may add for information

18:40that any and most deferral applications that have or applications that have been deferred,

18:48there is a possibility of a fee refund or partial or a hole. So that may not be the

18:57what you wanted to hear, but at least there is a faint hope there. You're welcome.

19:04Madam Secretary Treasurer, may we have the next applicant, please?

19:11The next application is file ADAC 90-24, variances to permit reduced buffer strip,

19:17number of parking spaces, landscaped open space, long-term bicycle spaces, and permit

19:22common amenity area for proposed renovation to existing apartment building at 493 Victoria

19:28Road North. I'll also note for those attending that correspondence was received after the comment

19:34deadline from the applicant. That correspondence was to address some of the concerns raised by

19:40the public and that correspondence has been circulated to the committee members and staff.

19:46As well, if you wish to speak to this application, you can do so

19:50by calling the numbers displayed on the screen. That number is 519-822-1260 extension 2524.

19:58And when you call in staff, we'll give you instructions on how you can delegate remotely.

20:03Is the applicant available in the chamber or their advocate? Are they online?

20:15Okay. Ah, I see. I can see you now. Could you state your name for the record,

20:25please, in your association with this proposal? Good evening, Mr. Chair. My name is Rob Russell.

20:31I'm a registered professional planner who's an authorized agent for 493 Victoria Road Apartments

20:38G.P. Incorporate. And thank you and have it welcome. Have you read staff's comments and are you in

20:47agreement? Yes, we're in agreement. Thank you. I don't believe I asked if the sign was posted

20:53for the Planning Act. Was that the case? Yes, the sign was posted and pictures were sent to staff.

20:59Thank you. You have 10 minutes to address the committee.

21:06For this agenda item, I really have nothing further to add. We're in support of the staff

21:12report and the recommendations. We believe these variants are quite minor in nature. This is

21:20a new hearing after a deferral in December and we made some revisions to the concept.

21:26Primarily, we went from the original 31 proposed units to 29 proposed units now,

21:31which reduced the required parking somewhat and allowed for more landscape open space.

21:38And I'd be happy to answer questions, but I think the staff report speaks for itself.

21:44Thank you. And if you want to wait online, I will see if any of my colleagues on committee

21:53have any questions for you. Committee members, do we have any questions of this applicant?

22:00Oh, yes. Member Goodfell. Yes, through the chair to the applicant. When I was visiting the site,

22:06I noted that there is a hydro pole located what I perceived to be in the middle of the new revised

22:12driveway location. I wondered if you might be able to comment. Is that just maybe perhaps my

22:19misunderstanding of the drawings or is there perhaps a conflict between the hydro pole and the

22:25new location? It looked to me like it was going to be right in the middle of your new driveway,

22:28so that's why I'm asking. That is not some as I just to clarify, I as a planner, I do review

22:36the plans, but I did not design them and I don't have the original survey as part of my files to

22:42look at it. So I cannot say yes or no because it isn't something that I had noticed yet. It is a

22:48possibility though, and it would probably explain why the existing driveway actually encroaches on

22:55the neighbor property. So it is possible the hydro pole is there. That would be a detail that would

23:00be reviewed and we'd have to get permission from Hydro to relocate it as part of the future

23:05psychoprene process that this will be going through. Okay, thank you for that clarification. So through

23:11the chair, maybe to city staff, does the location of that hydro pole raise any concerns for you?

23:21Through the chair to member, good fellow, transportation engineering staff reviewed

23:26that and did note that the hydro pole would have to be moved at site plan stage.

23:31Fantastic. Thank you for addressing my question.

23:35Thank you. Are there any other questions of the applicant? Before we move on to

23:42if there are any delegations who wish to speak, I'd like to call on staff for a brief presentation

23:49on this application. And I'm not sure which member of staff is, okay.

23:58Mr. Rempel, please go ahead. Thank you. So the applicant is proposing a renovation of the existing

24:0516 unit apartment building into the 29 unit apartment building. To facilitate this proposal,

24:10the applicant has applied for five minor variances. Variance A is to permit a reduced interior

24:16buffer strip along both the north and the south side yards. Variance B is to permit a reduced

24:22parking requirement of 37 spaces, whereas the bylaw requires 42 spaces. This represents a provision

24:29of 1.27 spaces per unit as opposed to 1.45, which would be the requirement without a minor variance.

24:39Variance C is to permit a reduced landscape open space of 39.08%, whereas the bylaw ordinarily

24:45requires 40% landscape open space coverage. Variance D is to permit a reduced long-term

24:51bicycle parking requirement of 14 bicycle parking spaces. Rather than the required 29

24:58required bicycle parking spaces, this reduction reflects the fact that the existing 16 units on

25:03the site predate the requirement for long-term bicycle parking. So this would provide at least

25:08one space for every additional unit that is being constructed. And variance E is a technical

25:14variance for common amenity space that is required as the common amenity space regulation

25:19is currently under appeal before the Ontario Land Tribunal. The applicant is requesting a

25:24requirement of 20 square meters of common amenity space per dwelling unit, which is in line with

25:29the requirement of the 2023 zoning bylaw. When this application was previously before the committee

25:35in December of 2024, staff were not supportive of the proposed reduction to the long-term bicycle

25:41parking requirement and the reduction in the landscape open space requirement that was proposed.

25:47As the revisions that have been made have reduced the scale of the variances requested,

25:52staff are now satisfied that the proposal meets the four tests of a minor variance.

25:57Thank you very much. Committee members, do we have any questions of staff and their presentation?

26:06Seeing none. At this point, I would like to ask if there are any members of,

26:12are there any registered delegations? And so we're going to call on the first delegation,

26:18Madam Secretary Tresher. Thank you, Chair. The first delegate is Wendy Carmichael.

26:34Welcome. Can you state your name for the record, please? Wendy Carmichael.

26:38You have 10 minutes to address the committee. Please make as much use of that time as you'd

26:42wish. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the City Council.

26:48A little nervous. We just got a promotion.

26:55Thank you for letting me have this time to voice my opinion for the parking expansion at 493 Victoria

27:01Road North. Guelph has said to be proud of its long and distinguished history of environmental

27:11stewardship. Why would the city allow an expansion, an expansion taking away more green space

27:17and creating more pollutant runoff for another parking lot? Parking lots are composed of

27:23unstable materials contributing to the urban heat island effects and storm water pollution.

27:29It can also prevent rainfall absorption leading to increased, increased storm water flows and water

27:36damage. Thousands of dollars will be spent to take away more green space, cause more pollutants

27:44and for what? To make unaffordable housing. While displacing and possibly making men,

27:51women, children, seniors and families homeless, unaffordable housing is a crisis.

27:58Do you want to be a part of that? I don't. Thank you. Do you want to wait right there?

28:06Some of my colleagues may have some questions for you. Committee members, do we have any

28:11questions for the delegation? Seeing none, I want to sincerely thank you for making the time to come

28:18here and give us your opinion. Thank you. Thank you. Madam Secretary Treasurer, do we have any other

28:26registered delegates? Mr. Chair, we do have another delegate. The next delegate's name is Gord Knox.

28:33Please come forward. Good evening. Can you say your name for the record, please? Gord Knox.

28:44You have 10 minutes to address the committee as well. Please make as much use of that time as you

28:49wish. I second what my neighbor said. That's pretty much it. Sorry. Don't apologize. It's

29:02really worthy to make the commitment to come forward. If it's just a brief presentation like

29:11that, it helps us in our deliberation. If you want to wait right there, our committee members may

29:20have a question or two for you. Committee members, do we have any questions for this delegate?

29:24I don't see any, but thank you very much for coming by. Thank you. Madam Secretary Treasurer,

29:37are there any other registered delegates? Mr. Chair, we don't have any other registered delegates.

29:44At this point, then, I will ask if there's anyone in the chamber who would like to make a presentation

29:50as a delegation on this. Yes, I see a hand. Please come forward. Thank you. Good afternoon.

30:08Can you state your name for the record, please? Betty Hodgson.

30:13You have, as your neighbors have, 10 minutes to address the committee. Please make as much

30:19use of that time as you'd like. I just have to say, did or with them. Okay.

30:27Sounds like we have a trend, so thank you very much for that. Just one moment. I need to ask if

30:35there are any questions for you. Committee members, do we have any questions for this delegate?

30:40Again, sincerely, thank you for coming in and didhoeing the first presentation.

30:50Is there anyone else in the chamber who would like to, yes, please come forward. Good afternoon.

31:04Can you state your name for the record, please? Yes, my name is John Fitzpatrick. I live at 493

31:10Victor Air Road. Mr. Fitzpatrick, you have, as your neighbors have, 10 minutes to address the

31:17committee. Well, I just want to say that I want to get all sort of ones that already spoke for us,

31:23especially when the issues are our spokesperson. Well, if you want to wait right there, committee

31:30members, do we have any questions? Seeing none, again, thank you for coming in and expressing

31:37your opinion. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the chamber who would like to speak to this

31:45application? And they'll ask again, is there anyone in the chamber who would like to speak to

31:51the application? And the third time, any other members of the public who would like to speak?

31:58Seeing none, Madam Secretary Treasurer, are there any online delegations? Mr. Chair, I can

32:04confirm no other delegates. Thank you. At this point, we will turn to the committee.

32:12Committee members, what is your wish? Oh, thank you. I wonder if the applicant wanted to respond

32:23to the remarks that were made by the public. Yes, Mr. Chair, if I could have just a couple minutes

32:31at the committee's letter. So the comments really had two main things. One was the loss of

32:40green space and the other was affordable housing. With respect to the loss of green space to expand

32:47the parking lot, if we could reduce the amount of parking required and maintain more green space,

32:53we'd be happy to do that. But as you've seen through and as you will see on item 3.1 later,

32:58there has been a lot of discussion with city staff over the past nine months on this project.

33:06And so this was essentially, this was the layout, this was the design that was set,

33:13that city staff found satisfactory in terms of the number of parts, the balance between parking

33:18and green space. However, I should also like to point out that we are at 39, more than 39%

33:26landscape open space and the bylaw requires 40%. So again, I know that Guelph, and as was

33:33mentioned by the first delegate, I know that Guelph rides itself on being a more nature friendly

33:42city with green space, a lot of green space and tree canopy, et cetera. And bylaw, I would have

33:49to surmise, reflects what the city's intents are and what their requirements are. So we are

33:57just barely less than what the bylaw requires. It is such a minor amount, it wouldn't even be

34:02you know, visible to the naked eye, the difference of 1% on the site. With respect to affordability,

34:10it is the owner's intent. And as is, if I can draw your attention to the letter that was submitted

34:16by the owner earlier today, or sorry, was that yesterday? I forget actually. But they described

34:23some of the efforts they've been going through and they are in discussion and have been, although a

34:28final commitment hasn't been reached yet. But they have been speaking with, and let me just find it

34:35in this letter here. So they have been speaking with the economic development and tourism department

34:45about the affordable housing CIP plan. And so they are intending to try and meet the requirements of

34:52that CIP plan, provide affordable housing that actually meets the definition of affordable

34:59housing in the city as well. So they believe that they are going to actually be providing a better

35:08product in terms of these units at a better price that meets the current needs of the city.

35:15This building was built decades ago. And at that point, you know, every people's lifestyles were

35:21different. And time progresses, the housing needs of people change, and having a variety of housing

35:31at a variety of prices is good for the city, is good for any city in order to accommodate their

35:37broad range of population and socio demographics. But in summary, yes, we are fully intending to

35:44make these or as many of these units as possible affordable in some way. And hopefully they will

35:51meet the city of Guelph's criteria to be deemed affordable. And I'd be happy to answer any additional

35:57questions in that regard. Thank you. Committee members, do we have any questions to that response?

36:06Seeing none, I do have a question for staff based on some of these, a little bit of that comment.

36:13And I think it would help with members of the public who have expressed some of their opinions today.

36:20And a reference was made to the city of Guelph's CIP plan. Is there a member of staff who could

36:31expand on what that means at all? Yes, to the chair. I am aware of the CIP program and do have

36:39some information about it. Projects where the units aren't currently vacant are not eligible

36:48for the CIP grant. And when rents will be higher than they are existing are also not eligible.

36:59Okay, thank you. I think that clarifies it a little bit.

37:04Are there any other questions? Yes, Member Goodfell. Yes, I think the staff member's

37:14clarification was very helpful. So thank you. But through the chair, then back to the applicant.

37:22How many of these units in the building are currently vacant? Because it sounds like those

37:30units would be the only ones that may be available or applicable to be part of the CIP program?

37:45As I'm not the owner, I don't know for certain, but my understanding is all the units are currently

37:52occupied. What I failed to mention in my first response was that this is a part of the discussion

37:59that's ongoing and why there hasn't been a commitment yet. Because it doesn't see if,

38:04for instance, if the owner, and this is a hypothetical scenario, if the owner was able to legally evict

38:10tenants, then those units would be vacant and we would qualify for the program. But that doesn't

38:15seem fair. The owner is willing to work with the tenants to bring them back in after and work with

38:21them in that interim period to provide housing. But we were trying to find the owner, and again,

38:27I'm a third party to these discussions, these discussions between the Economic Development

38:32Department and the owner have been just between them. So I'm getting my information as third hand.

38:40But I do understand that that is really the only sticking point right now. The price that the owner

38:45is anticipating that these units will be rented for fully complies with whatever requirements are

38:51in that plan as affordable housing. So the price isn't going to change regardless of whether they

38:56qualify for the CIP plan or not. The question is, does the owner actually, will the owner benefit

39:03from the incentives that are available through that CIP plan? And that's the question that hinges on

39:09whether we can negotiate and qualify for the program based on units that are currently occupied.

39:17So again, the discussions are ongoing. But this is the discussions that have been had to date so

39:23far and where we're trying to get them to arrive at. Okay. Thank you through the chair. Back to the

39:31applicant. I do appreciate that clarification. Thank you. Yes. Member, member, Ms. Panzer. Yeah,

39:42to the committee. I just would actually like to expand a little. The purpose of the CIP

39:48program is to encourage the conversion and rehabilitation of underutilized buildings. So

39:55those that maybe have become inhabitable. And when an applicant enters into the CIP program,

40:05they would be required to enter into an agreement registered on title that these units

40:13are kept at the affordable rate as identified by the province for 25 years. But again,

40:21this wouldn't apply to buildings where tenants are evicted to then renovate the building. Thank you.

40:35Thank you again for that explanation. Can I just ask because I don't know what to CIP stand for?

40:44Community Improvement Program. Perfect. Under the Planning Act and it's a way for cities to provide

40:54monies to applicants. It can we've been previously used for brown fields to rehabilitate brown field

41:00sites. And now we've just done a new program for residential units to assist property owners with

41:08affordable units if they choose to provide so. Thank you very much for that. At this point,

41:15are there any other questions to be raised? Seeing none, I'm going to turn to my colleagues in

41:21committee. And what is your wish committee members? Members, speakers? I would like to move,

41:35make a motion that the committee accept this application with the stipulations or the conditions

41:43suggested by city staff. Thank you. Do we have a seconder? Member, sorry, member Balaban.

41:54Andrew Braincram. Member Balaban has seconded that motion.

42:01Is there any discussion on the motion in front of us? I do have just, I will be supporting this, but

42:13I did have some concerns similar to what was raised by the public, but I think I've been satisfied

42:21by the presentation by staff that the bicycle parking is minor in nature, the reduction.

42:31And I'm also satisfied with the smaller number of units that the requirement for parking becomes

42:40minor in nature. And I also want to thank the applicant for raising the CIP program. I think

42:47that may address some of the public's concern about affordability. So I, as I said, I will be

42:52supporting this motion. Seeing no more comments, Madam Secretary Treasurer may ask you to call the

43:01vote. Committee members, please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the motion,

43:07which is to approve the application with the two recommended conditions. Chair Smith. In favor.

43:13Member Balaban. In favor. Member Goodfellow. In favor. Member Mambrinho. In favor. And member Spears.

43:21In favor. That's carried, Mr. Chair. Your application has been approved.

43:29You're Mr. Chair, thank you. Madam Secretary Treasurer, may we have the next vote, please?

43:38Application. The next application is file A-95-24 variances to permit reduced setbacks

43:48and no electric vehicle parking for proposed triplex at 39 Hayes Avenue. I'll note for those

43:54attending remotely, if you wish to speak to this application, you can do so by calling the number

43:58displayed on the screen. The number is 519-822-1260 extension 2524. And when you call in, staff will

44:06give you instructions on how you can delegate remotely. Thank you. Is the applicant present? Oh,

44:12I see an image on the screen. Can you state your name and your relationship to this application,

44:18please? My name is Joanne Grosse and I am an authorized agent for the owners at 39 Hayes Avenue.

44:27Thank you. And can you tell me if the sign was posted as per the Planning Act? It was.

44:32And have you read staff's comments and are you in agreement? Yes. Well, you have 10 minutes to

44:41address the committee. Please make as much use of that time as you wish. Sure. I actually just

44:47want to take a moment to communicate that we have read through the recommendations from planning,

44:53engineering and building and we are willing to follow these conditions and provide any necessary

45:00documentation as suggested. Okay. That was succinct. So thank you for that. Committee members,

45:11do we have any questions of this applicant? Seeing none, are there any members of the public who

45:19wish to speak to this application in the gallery? I don't see any hands. Madam Secretary Treasurer,

45:26are there any online? Mr. Chair, I can confirm no delegation requests. Thank you. At that point,

45:35at that point, I will ask my colleagues for a motion. What is your wish,

45:41committee members? Member Goodfell. I move we approve this application with conditions as

45:51recommended by city staff. And we have a seconder. Member Membrano. And is there any discussion on

46:00this? Seeing none, Madam Secretary Treasurer, would you mind calling the vote please?

46:07Committee members, please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the motion,

46:12which is to approve the application with the two recommended conditions. Chair Smith. In favor.

46:18Member Balaban. In favor. Member Goodfellow. In favor. Member Rembrano. In favor. And Member Spears.

46:26In favor. That's carried, Mr. Chair. Your application has been approved. You're free to leave the meeting.

46:32Thank you. Madam Secretary Treasurer, may we have the next application please?

46:43The next applications are files B-52-24 through to file B-58-24 and file A-96-24 through to file

46:56A-103-24 consent to create seven new residential lots with one retained residential lot and multiple

47:04related variances for proposed severed and retained lots at 302 and 306 and Burl Road South.

47:11I'll note for those attending remotely, if you wish to speak to this application and you can

47:16call the number displayed on the screen, that number is 519-822-1260 extension 2524. And when

47:25staff, when you call in staff will give you instructions on how you can delegate remotely.

47:29Thank you. This isn't the 2nd of February. I would have thought it was Groundhog Day. Can you state

47:35your name for the record please? Jeff Buseman from Van Hart and Sir Vang. And your relationship to

47:41this application? The authorized agent. And can you tell me if the sign was posted as per the

47:46Planning Act? Yes, it was posted. And have you read staff's comments and are you in agreement?

47:51Yes, I've read the comments and I am in agreement. Thank you. As you know, Mr. Buseman, you'll have

47:5710 minutes to address the committee. Sure. Thank you for bringing the... This is on Edinburgh Road.

48:06We've been at this committee before. Last time it was deferred. There was concerns about the traffic.

48:12I'm just going to summarize the application quickly and then talk about the traffic.

48:16In summary, there's two large lots there now. 302 and 306 Edinburgh. The plan is to have a

48:24total of eight parcels or four semi-detached units. You can see that the parcels on the left

48:31are 10.23 meters wide. The rest are all 8.33 meters wide. We did a little bit of juggling to try to

48:39avoid a hydropole along the way. And to keep it moving, those is quite a challenge.

48:46There's a road widening proposed along the front. That's in accordance with what the city would like.

48:52And road widenings have actually already been taken to the left and to the right. So this will

48:56line it up nicely. The main concern was the traffic and the volume of traffic on Edinburgh Road.

49:03So a report was submitted by GHD on the issue and a discussion was made. I'll admit I went through

49:11the details of that report a couple hours ago and I noticed he made a comment about... He analyzed

49:17it in terms of recognizing that there could be one ADU per unit. And I asked him to...

49:23If he could revisit the report to say what if you had two ADUs per parcel? And I got a feeling

49:30that's where we may be going anyways. He provided a response to me. I can read it. I've got a piece

49:36of paper. I'd be happier to actually hand the pieces of paper to you so you can read it because

49:41I could read too fast maybe and not... But in summary, he says there's no issue.

49:45But if I may share to pass these to the committee members, is that appropriate?

49:51Yes, I'll allow that. Which way do I go? And just to clarify the traffic consultant,

50:22I believe is online if we need to ask him questions directly. Will is his name.

50:28He says traffic brief was undertaking assuming a total of 16 dwelling units,

50:33generating six net new trips in the AM peak period and seven net new trips in the PM peak period.

50:40With the inclusion of an additional ADU per semi-detached dwelling, there'd be an increase

50:46of 24 units. The estimated new trip generation is 10 net new AM peak hour trips and 12 net new PM

50:56peak hour trips. This represents eight to 10 additional peak hour trips from the existing

51:02conditions when accounting for the two existing homes on the site. Distributing across eight

51:09driveways, this equates to just over one vehicle per drive per hour inner out a negligible increase

51:16per driveway. Operational considerations, the traffic brief concluded that there were...

51:24There are sufficient available gaps on Edinburgh Road South to accommodate the driveway movements.

51:31A negligible increase in unit count will not noticeably increase driveway activity and the

51:37recorded gap availability of 20 plus second gaps in both peak periods remains sufficient to accommodate

51:43additional trips. The benefits of multiple closely spaced driveways and allowing independent

51:49vehicle movements will continue to be a factor. Even with the increased driveway activity, the

51:55multiple driveways ensure that vehicles can utilize the same gaps efficiently, minimize queuing and

52:01conflicts. The impact of increasing the unit count from 16 to 24 results in a negligible

52:08change in capacity for the individual driveways based on the road capacity. The study's original

52:13conclusions regarding safety, driveway functionality and traffic capacity remain valid with no negative

52:19impact anticipated from the additional ADUs. Thank you. I just want to change directions just a

52:29little bit in that the staff's report I find overall in the whole project, when they evaluated it,

52:36they evaluated this project in terms of the OPP and a variety of things and they have,

52:43you know, they've got these bullets in there in the report, they're in bold, for example,

52:48number one, building form, scale, height setbacks and so on. I don't want to read all these points,

52:54but I think what I appreciate about how the staff has addressed that they felt like every one of

52:59these points and there's 11 of them, they evaluated all the criteria and felt that it met the

53:09parameters in which they were asked to evaluate. There's no discussion about, there's no discussion

53:17about a minor variance when we talk about minor variances, we talk about the four tests and

53:22one of them is that minor in nature does a fall in 10th and zoning model. That's not a question in

53:26this kind of thing because severances are evaluated more on these big picture 11 things and I

53:32appreciate how they have done that. In addition to those 11 things that they identified, there's four

53:39more about the official plan and they highlight them as Roman numerals one, two and three and four

53:48and I've highlighted a few things but summary comments like the proposed severance is reasonable

53:53and is in the best interest of the community. The tone is throughout their staff are very

53:58strongly supportive of this application. There are minor variances, all those minor variances are

54:06technical as a result of the sections that are on appeal so we're not asking for anything out of

54:13what what if the zoning bylaw would have been in full effect so I think the the minor variances

54:18are really minor in nature. I think this is a great application, all in one minor detail. The

54:26stone monuments, they're already moved over to the church on St. George's Church and they look good.

54:34Any questions or comment from staff or the committee? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Buseman,

54:42getting all that under 10 minutes. Congratulations, that's an achievement. If you want to wait right

54:47there, my colleagues may have some questions for you. Committee members do have questions.

54:52Member Goodfellow. Yeah, so through the chair to Mr. Buseman, I do appreciate the level of detail

54:58in the traffic study and the question about 16 versus 24 units was exactly where I was going

55:06ahead today so I do appreciate the extra time that you and GHD took to address that concern even

55:12before I was able to raise it and then my other concern was around storm water and again I wanted

55:18to note that the report that was included did address those concerns. You didn't go through that

55:23but I wanted to make note that that was also important to the review that I did for this file

55:28so maybe no questions for you but an appreciation for the the level of detail that was provided

55:34but through the chair if you'll permit me I do have a question then for city staff given that

55:41the original submission was for 16 units and now we have some new information for 24 units.

55:48Does staff have any concerns or questions or are they worried at all about the traffic,

55:56the new traffic information? Through the chair from a planning perspective I have no concerns with

56:06with that change I'll pass it on to engineering staff to see if they have any concerns with the

56:10traffic. Before you do and I don't want to cut your grass member good fellow but we are going to

56:17have a staff presentation so some of these questions that we might generate normally for staff

56:24may get elucidated in that in that process so it with with your approval I would like to defer

56:32those questions till staff make their presentation if that's okay. Absolutely this new order of

56:39things well how takes some getting used to no I'm perfectly happy to to wait for that. Indeed thank you.

56:45Committee member did you have any other questions of the applicant? No I don't know okay committee

56:50members are there any other questions of the applicant seeing none as I sort of

56:58trampled on my own lead I believe we have a presentation from staff so if you'd like to take

57:06that over I would appreciate it. Thank you Mr. Chair. Mr. Buesman already did a pretty thorough

57:13presentation in my opinion so I'll keep it brief. The applicant is proposing to sever the existing

57:18two single detached lots to facilitate the creation of eight semi-detached residential

57:23lots each of these lots would front onto Edinburgh Road south. The proposed lots can form with all

57:28the zoning requirements of the 2023 zoning bylaw as approved by council back in 2023 however as you're

57:35well aware by this point a number of the provisions in the bylaw are still under appeal as such technical

57:41variances are necessary to facilitate the creation of these lots. Since this application was previously

57:46before the committee there have been two changes firstly the heritage designated stone pillars

57:52were located that were located on the site have been moved back to their original location

57:57and the subject lands have been removed from the the municipal heritage register. I did reach out to

58:02heritage planning staff and they had no concerns with this proposal now. Secondly the applicant has

58:07provided a transportation brief from the firm GHD in in support of the application the city's

58:14transportation engineering staff have reviewed the document and agreed with its findings however

58:20perhaps I can pass it on to engineering staff to see if they have anything further to add in that

58:23regard. Through the chair there are additional concerns with the traffic. And additional zoning

58:36comments are the maximum amount of units per semi-detached property are three which would then

58:45require two parking spaces and each property is able by this design to accommodate five parking

58:54spaces that would be one in the driveway sorry one in the garage and four spaces in the five meter

59:01wide by 11 meter in length driveway. Thank you. Thank you members of staff for that presentation.

59:13Member Goodfellow did you have a follow-up? Perhaps and I apologize for doing this but

59:26um through the chair to city staff so is it the case then that there could be 40 vehicles is that

59:33kind of they am I doing the math correctly and they're the discussion we just had about 24

59:40perhaps would also need to be upgraded to accommodate 40. Through the chair to member

59:49Goodfellow the required parking for this property with three units it's only two spaces what the

1:00:01proposal can accommodate is more but the required parking would be two per property with three units

1:00:12on each property. Okay I appreciate that clarification thank you and I will note that

1:00:24I think given the spaces and the the gaps in traffic and I will note that I actually

1:00:30tested it myself I pulled into the yard and then backed out again and went into one of those spaces

1:00:37in traffic. I my concerns even with the additional parking spaces have been addressed at this point

1:00:45so I will end it here thank you. Thank you member Goodfellow and are there any other members of the

1:00:53committee who'd like to ask questions of this of staff or the applicant? Seeing none let me ask

1:01:02if there are any members of the public who wish to speak to this application here in the gallery.

1:01:09I do not see any madam secretary treasurer do we have any registered delegations?

1:01:16Mr. Chair the only registered delegate we have is online right now William Maria if there is

1:01:23that's the traffic consultant I'm not sure if that individual has anything further to add.

1:01:29Can you hear us? Yes I can hear you I've got nothing further to add.

1:01:36Okay that's concise thank you are there any other members of the public online who would like to

1:01:44speak to this application? Confirming that we haven't received any other delegation requests Mr. Chair.

1:01:53Okay thank you and before I go into committee let me reach out to staff to see if there's any

1:02:02additional information they'd like to add. I think we're all good on our end.

1:02:08Thank you. Mr. Buseman. I'd like to point out that OUA Old University Neighborhood Group is also in

1:02:16support I mean that's a positive thing. Thank you for that qualification. Committee members what is

1:02:24your wish? Yes member Balaban. I move that we approve this application with the staff conditions

1:02:36recommended. Thank you do we have a seconder? Member Spears. Is there any discussion on the

1:02:46application or on the motion we have before us? Seeing none Madam Secretary Treasurer would you

1:02:55call the vote please? Thank you Chair. Committee members please indicate your vote by responding

1:03:00in favor or opposed to the motion which is to approve the consent and minor variance applications

1:03:06with the recommended conditions. Chair Smith. In favor. Member Balaban. In favor. Member Goodfellow.

1:03:14In favor. Member Mambrenio. In favor. And member Spears. In favor. That's carried Mr. Chair. Thank

1:03:21you your application has been approved. Thank you. Thank you. Members Madam Secretary Treasurer may

1:03:30we have the next application please? The next application is files b-3-25 and a-10-25 and a-11-25

1:03:46consent to create one new residential lot with one retained residential lot and multiple related

1:03:51variances for proposed severed and retained lots at 79 Northumberland Street. I'll note for those

1:03:56attending remotely if you wish to speak to this application you can do so by calling the number

1:04:01displayed on the screen that number is 519-822-1260 extension 2524 and when you call in staff

1:04:08will give you instructions on how you can delegate remotely. Good afternoon can you state your name

1:04:15for the record please? Oh we need to get your microphone but there we are. Oh I'm Anna Maria Bartolomucci

1:04:23and can you state your relationship to this applicant? I'm the owner and the applicant

1:04:29and I'll be representing myself. Many hats but you're here in the flesh so that's great and

1:04:37can you tell me if the sign was posted as per the Planning Act? Yes it was. And have you read staff's

1:04:44comments and are you in agreement? I have and I am. Thank you. You have 10 minutes to address the

1:04:51committee. Okay the property is located in the low density residential zone under zoning bylaw 2023

1:05:00as amended. The current total lot measures 19.05 meters in width and 32.43 meters in length. We

1:05:11are proposing to sever the property to create one new residential lot while retaining the existing

1:05:18lot. The property currently consists of a two-story heritage dwelling with an addition.

1:05:24However the addition is not habitable or feasible to renovate and currently has a building permit

1:05:31issued for demolition. Our plan includes constructing a new addition to the existing

1:05:37two-story dwelling on the retained parcel and building a new semi-detached residential unit

1:05:44on the severed parcel. The retained parcel would then have a frontage of 9.38 meters along North

1:05:52umberland Street with an area of 304 square meters. The severed parcel would have a frontage of 9.67

1:06:01meters along Northumberland Street with an area of 314 square meters. There are technical minor

1:06:09variances which are A, B, and C that are required with the new zoning bylaw which is currently under

1:06:17appeal for both properties. With the addition of a variance which is item D for the retained parcel

1:06:26to be able to install an eaves trough along the left side of the existing house. Stated in the

1:06:33letter from the neighboring property owner at 83 Northumberland Street they would like the

1:06:39installation of the eaves trough as well because ice snow and rainwater currently run off our roof

1:06:46onto their vehicles. I would like to address one condition though which is item number six

1:06:55regarding their requirement for the detailed noise study. It was a reference from staff DEM

1:07:05Engineering Manual which requires the noise study for property near a railway corridor airport

1:07:12arterial road or collector road and in this case 79 Northumberland is near a railway line.

1:07:19As the proposed dwelling will meet and exceed the OBC standards with the upgraded windows

1:07:26installation and it will have brick cladding also exceeds any of the other houses that would be on

1:07:34the street. I feel that a full noise study may not be required in this case. I also realize that the

1:07:42intent of the noise study is to protect future homeowners but since my plan is to reside at the

1:07:48home on the new home myself I would like to propose to either remove this study altogether or alternate

1:07:58approach would be to for the committee to consider warning clauses which I've noticed have been

1:08:05done before and implement them through this committee. I believe that the proposed application

1:08:13would be a great improvement for the property and provide more housing close to the downtown core

1:08:18and I would be happy to answer any questions on this application. Thank you very much and

1:08:24if you wait right there my colleagues may have some questions for you committee members any

1:08:29questions of this application. You did answer you anticipated my question about the heritage

1:08:39structure and that you are just planning to remove the addition that doesn't have any

1:08:47heritage elements to it. No the existing heritage has limestone in the back which I wouldn't even

1:08:54dream of taking out and I'd like to make the new property like coincide with that so that it looks

1:09:03good in that neighborhood. Awesome thank you for that. If you want to wait we may have questions

1:09:11from the public so before I do does city staff have any presentation or wish to comment on this?

1:09:27To the chair to the committee staff don't really have any further comments to what was provided.

1:09:34Thank you for that. At this point I will turn to members of the public is there anyone in the

1:09:39gallery who wishes to speak to this application? I don't see anyone. Madam secretary treasurer is

1:09:48there anyone online? Mr. Chair I confirm no delegation requests have been received. Thank you

1:09:57committee members what is your wish? Member Spears. I move that the committee accept this

1:10:07application with the conditions recommended by city staff. I'm going to be a little

1:10:20out of order here and I'd like some guidance before that. Madam secretary treasurer I do have a

1:10:27question that came up in my mind and I would like to ask that of staff before we consider the motion

1:10:34so I'm going to jump in and do that unless that is against parliamentary procedure. Do I have a

1:10:48seconder for my okay member ballon man? Pardon me yeah member ballon man I don't know what it is this

1:10:55evening. So let me jump right in. The applicant had mentioned something about the noise study

1:11:08and perhaps a warning letter could be put forward and given the qualifications I wonder if that

1:11:15is an added condition that we might ask. To the chair the noise study itself would be used to

1:11:26determine the specific warning clauses. Right so could we I mean we can do as we like I would

1:11:40assume however I would like to get staff's opinion if the condition was that the

1:11:51the sound attenuation was greater than required in the OBC. I guess that's an open-ended question

1:12:01but is there some way we could craft that and be able to avoid the the noise condition seeing as

1:12:09the applicant is the one who's going to be moving into the new house? Through the chair

1:12:23my thinking here is the noise study is still required per the golf noise control guidelines

1:12:34and if there's a future homeowner then regardless of when

1:12:43uh yeah it's a hard question to answer here. Asked an answer thank you. Member Goodell.

1:12:59Thank you so through the chair to city staff I am not aware of all the details of what would go

1:13:06into a noise study could staff just give a thumbnail sketch of what is required for a noise study.

1:13:14So for example do you is it required to hire a third party consultant to do noise

1:13:21measurements that kind of thing or is it more of a desktop

1:13:25paper assessment of the noise implications? Through the chair to member Goodfellow noise study is

1:13:34also is done in the field and it's done via desktop and through a consultant licensed engineer.

1:13:41Thank you for that clarification so through the chair back to staff again just to make sure I

1:13:48understand there is no de minimis level where perhaps a third party engineer would not be

1:13:55required because I can understand that that would be a higher cost for a homeowner and so just trying

1:14:02to understand through that process is there a you know is there a point at which an assessment

1:14:09can be made as to whether or not a third party consultant was required or is it just always

1:14:14standard that's the level of analysis that's required. Through the chair to member Goodfellow

1:14:21that is the that is the standard that there is a consultant required. Okay thank you that's very

1:14:29helpful. Are there any other questions? Yes I'll allow it. Yes I'll allow it go ahead please. Okay just

1:14:41I just wanted to say that I live currently in the same track we'll say that goes just behind here

1:14:50and right through as Northumberland would be. I built my home about seven years ago did not need

1:14:58a noise study for that. When I did the pre-consult in 2021 there was no mention of the noise study

1:15:08so I just wanted to bring that to your attention and it is roughly around $5,000 to do a noise study

1:15:18which if we're trying to make homes affordable those add extra costs. Thank you for that information.

1:15:28At this point are there any other questions?

1:15:30Seeing none committee members what is your wish? I retract my motion let's start again.

1:16:03So do we have a way forward for a... Through you Mr. Chair I'm a little confused about how the

1:16:11world I I must say I from personal experience many years ago before I was married I lived on North

1:16:17umberland right around where this is I don't ever recall hearing the train so it seems moot to me

1:16:24I just think it's a waste of money to force someone to do this however I understand it's a protocol

1:16:32do we could we just think of removing this clause altogether this requirement altogether?

1:16:38We could remove the clause altogether certainly or we could add a qualification that

1:16:44upon a building permit that the sound transmission coefficient would exceed the

1:16:53the minimum required by the Ontario Building Code. I'd like staff's opinion on my opining on that.

1:17:24Hi for the committee's information Metrolinx comments they require that a warning clause

1:17:30is inserted in offers of like purchase and sale and agreements that it's within

1:17:41the 300 meters within the Metrolinx railway corridor.

1:17:47So Metrolinx is another body who is requiring just FYI you're close to the train track.

1:17:58So if I'm understanding you correctly that because Metrolinx is is is requiring this warning

1:18:08in order for the warning to be registered on title a engineering report or pardon me a noise report

1:18:18by a qualified engineer would have to take place am I am I getting that clear?

1:18:23No I just think it's really any property within 300 meters of the railway corridor when it comes

1:18:31to committee of adjustment that then they require this as a warning clause.

1:18:38So we could just add the requirement for a warning clause?

1:18:45Or potentially it's already covered through the Metrolinx requirement.

1:18:50I'm sorry I'm not super familiar I'm just reading the Metrolinx comments right now

1:18:59with how they do this or their process if any other staff has

1:19:08experience with this I would love it.

1:19:11The chair if I may speak for a moment.

1:19:13By all means.

1:19:14I think that crafting some type of site specific condition for for this noise study

1:19:22might not be the proper route to go it might be you know a bit more arduous in order to

1:19:29follow along this condition when it's something that isn't standard that staff deal with.

1:19:34So I think ultimately it's up to the committee whether or not to approve the condition as

1:19:40presented or or to take it out I don't know if it would be prudent to have some type of alternate

1:19:46condition.

1:19:48Thank you I appreciate the advice.

1:19:52Okay committee members how do we want to proceed?

1:19:56Member Goodfellow.

1:20:05I move we approve the application with the conditions recommended by city staff except

1:20:11we would remove condition number six yes so removing the requirement for a noise study.

1:20:22Okay clear.

1:20:26Do we have any discussion on this?

1:20:32Oh yes we do need a seconder member Spears and is there any discussion?

1:20:41Yes member Bellamon.

1:20:43I think we'd be covered off in a lot of ways doing that because the warning clause

1:20:48is going to be there anyway for Metrolinx because of any potential expansion

1:20:54and when she goes to get a building permit for this house if there's any discrepancy they're

1:21:02they're not going to give you a building permit.

1:21:05Pretty clear any other discussion?

1:21:15Seeing none Madam Secretary Treasurer would you call the roll please?

1:21:20Thank you chair and before we go ahead I'm just confirming that the original motion by

1:21:26member Spears that's that was seconded by member Bellamon that has been withdrawn.

1:21:32Alright committee members please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the

1:21:37motion which is to approve the applications with the removal of condition number seven regarding

1:21:43the noise study.

1:21:45Number six sorry number six thank you.

1:21:48Chair Smith.

1:21:49In favor.

1:21:50Member Bellaban.

1:21:51In favor.

1:21:52Member Goodfellow.

1:21:53In favor.

1:21:54Member Mambrenio.

1:21:55In favor.

1:21:56And member Spears.

1:21:57In favor.

1:21:57That's carried Mr. Chair.

1:21:59Your application has been approved.

1:22:01You're welcome.

1:22:06Madam Secretary Treasurer may we have the next application please?

1:22:13The next applications are file B files B-4 slash 25 and B-5 slash 25 and B-6 slash 25 consent

1:22:21to create three new residential lots one retained residential lot at 8 Mitchell Street.

1:22:27I'll also note for those attending remotely if you wish to speak to this application you can

1:22:30call in by calling the number displayed on the screen that is 519-822-1260 extension 2524.

1:22:41Welcome back Mr. Buseman can you state your name for the record?

1:22:45Jeff Buseman from Van Hart and Sirvang.

1:22:47And can you tell me your relationship with this application?

1:22:49The authorized agent.

1:22:51Thank you and was the sign posted

1:22:53as per the planning act?

1:22:54Yes it was.

1:22:55And have you read staff's comments and are you in agreement?

1:22:58Yes I am.

1:23:00Thank you.

1:23:00As you know you have 10 minutes.

1:23:02Okay thank you.

1:23:05This property on Arthur Street and Mitchell Street at Fronts of Bow Streets

1:23:11had a zone change with the city council and was approved in believe in December

1:23:17to fundamentally approve this development of what it looks like here.

1:23:21So a lot of the nitty gritty of that has been addressed.

1:23:25There's a few engineering things that need to be addressed yet and that's going to be

1:23:29addressed through conditions and the fact that there's a holding provision on the property.

1:23:36What is a little bit unique is that does front on the two streets.

1:23:40You can see that the semi-detached dwellings there's going to be

1:23:45two pairs of semi-sore four units all together.

1:23:48They're going to be fronting on Arthur Street.

1:23:50But this property also has frontage on Mitchell and because of concerns of

1:23:55parking and so forth in the area effort has been made to provide easements in the back for

1:24:01a shared parking arrangement.

1:24:03You can see on the sketch there's these things called E1, E2, E3, E4.

1:24:08And fundamentally what that provides for is access for all the units to go down that dotted

1:24:16dashed line in the middle to get to the parking spots at the back.

1:24:20There's four parking spots there.

1:24:23There's also some area for snow removal.

1:24:28Yeah, I think it doesn't want to zoom.

1:24:32So this application is a little unique to have these easements.

1:24:36I think it's a great idea to take advantage of the frontage on Mitchell Street.

1:24:42And also the fact that the way it's being developed with these have relatively very large

1:24:48rear yards or yards facing Mitchell.

1:24:51So I think it's a good use of space.

1:24:55It's a great development.

1:24:56I and again, similar to my review of the development on Edinburgh,

1:25:03the staff have gone through all the criteria to look at and are speaking quite positively about it.

1:25:09Knowing this location a bit, it is quite close to downtown, very walkable, which is great.

1:25:14And very close to that park.

1:25:16It means it's a great location, I think, for urban living and for an intensification project of this

1:25:21nature.

1:25:23It's also unique about Arthur Street is quite a variety of housing, and that's talked about

1:25:28in the staff report as well.

1:25:30And I think that this will fit in.

1:25:32Probably a unique thing is that these will be set back a little bit more from the road than

1:25:36everything else.

1:25:37All those other homes were built before zoning bylaws existed and people built homes right to the

1:25:42front of the property line.

1:25:43So these are going to be set back a little bit more.

1:25:46But I think because there's a fair bit of, there's actually quite a bit of space between

1:25:50you know, the one on the left and the one on the right.

1:25:52So it's not going to stand out.

1:25:55And also what's proposed here is that the fronts of these two units are not the same either.

1:26:00The ones on the right are a little closer to the road compared to the ones on the left.

1:26:06So I appreciate a little bit of jogging of the frontages of these buildings.

1:26:09I think that helps to make the look better.

1:26:13So I think it's a great application for intensification.

1:26:17And I didn't see any issues to really, or concerns or other issues to address.

1:26:25But I'm happy to answer any questions that the committee may have.

1:26:29Thank you.

1:26:30Thank you.

1:26:31And committee members, do we have any questions of this applicant?

1:26:36Member Goodfellow.

1:26:37Yes, through the chair to the applicant.

1:26:39I did notice there were a couple of monitoring wells on that site.

1:26:43And I didn't notice any mention of kind of removal plans or capping requirements,

1:26:50those kinds of things that sometimes I would expect to see.

1:26:54Do you have a comment on what the story is there,

1:26:57maybe what the plan is for those monitoring wells going forward?

1:27:01They will be do- I don't know the details.

1:27:03I'm not sure if that was addressed in the whole zoning, holding provision stuff.

1:27:06That's my guess.

1:27:07It's addressed in the whole zoning because there's a whole provision for engineering related things.

1:27:12And I'm assuming that's going to be taking care part of that as well.

1:27:15Maybe staff know me the detail of it or Andrew,

1:27:19do you know the detail of the monitoring wells?

1:27:23And so what's going to happen to them when they're they'll be removed?

1:27:28Yeah, they will be removed.

1:27:34Okay, so thank you.

1:27:35And I will trust that city staff may have an answer for that in their presentation then

1:27:41about the but where that may land in the process.

1:27:43So thank you for your clarification.

1:27:48Thank you, member Goodfellow.

1:27:49Any other questions of the applicant?

1:27:53Seeing none, I just want to be clear about the circle with the ease on them.

1:28:00Is that is that a right-of-way that'll be registered on title?

1:28:06Yes, they'll be easements registered on title.

1:28:08Yeah, yeah.

1:28:08Okay, that was all I wanted to be clear on.

1:28:12I don't think there are any other questions for you from my committee.

1:28:19But staff may have some comments they'd like to add.

1:28:25Please go ahead, Mr. Rampol.

1:28:27Thank you, Mr. Chair.

1:28:28So I can just jump into my presentation here.

1:28:30I think Mr. Beesman covered it off mostly.

1:28:33So the applicant is proposing to sever the subject lands into four parcels to facilitate

1:28:38the creation of four semi-detached dwellings each with two associated

1:28:42ADUs for a total of 12 dwelling units on the site.

1:28:46As the site was previously zoned neighborhood institutional,

1:28:49a zone amendment was necessary to permit the semi-detached use.

1:28:53And a zone amendment was approved by the City Council on December 10th of last year

1:28:58to permit the proposed rezoning to the RL1 zone.

1:29:03As part of that process, the applicant did come forward with some site-specific provisions

1:29:08to facilitate the creation of the simple supplementary parking area

1:29:12fronting onto Mitchell Street.

1:29:16And this has associated easements that would allow for access to supplementary parking area

1:29:22for the future residents of all four lots.

1:29:24And just to note, that parking area is not required in order for the proposal to meet

1:29:29the parking requirements in the zoning by-law that goes above and beyond

1:29:34the parking requirements outlined in the zoning by-law,

1:29:37but it was covered off in the site-specific zone amendment that was approved by Council.

1:29:42Additionally, GRC regulations require that any new lots created in this area have frontage

1:29:48onto a public street outside of the floodplain area,

1:29:51which is why the proposed lots are through lots.

1:29:55I think the Council, before Council had concerns that this property might be severed further

1:30:02with current GRC regulations, these lots would not be allowed to be severed further,

1:30:07as all the created lots would have to have frontage onto Mitchell Street,

1:30:11as well as any frontage on Arthur Street.

1:30:17So as such, as the rezoning application was approved in December,

1:30:19there's no associated variances or technical variances required,

1:30:23and staff are of the opinion that the proposed application meets the residential development

1:30:27criteria in the Official Plan, as well as the consent policies outlined in the Official Plan

1:30:32and the requirements of subsection 51-24 of the Planning Act.

1:30:38So staff recommend approval of the application subject to the conditions

1:30:41noted in the staff report.

1:30:47Thank you.

1:30:48Any other members of staff wanted to weigh in on this?

1:30:52I don't see.

1:30:54Okay.

1:30:55Sorry, sorry.

1:30:55Yes, please go ahead.

1:30:56I didn't have it written down, but since you mentioned the ground monitoring wells,

1:31:02so as part of the approval of the Zone Amendment application,

1:31:05there was a holding provision put on the site, and that was to address stormwater concerns

1:31:10that a stormwater management report could be provided to the engineering department

1:31:16and be approved by them prior to the holding provision being lifted,

1:31:21and that will be reviewed by engineering staff, and any concerns with those wells

1:31:24will be addressed before that's lifted.

1:31:31Thank you very much.

1:31:34Yes, Member, Mr. Hoosman.

1:31:36I appreciate what Mr. Rumpel added about the access, just to be clear, the Arthur Street

1:31:42and the floodplain, and so that's why we're having the access on Mitch.

1:31:48I'm assuming I've already caught that, but I just wanted to be clear on that,

1:31:51and the heights of the floors and so on will meet what GRCA is asking for.

1:31:57Thank you.

1:32:00Committee members, do we have any questions of staff or the applicant?

1:32:03Member Goodfell.

1:32:04Yes, through the chair, just back to staff, just so that I'm clear on the ground water

1:32:10monitoring wells and the connection to your explanation about stormwater.

1:32:14So it is more that the stormwater plan will need to remove the connection between the surface

1:32:23and the groundwater, and then that's kind of where that will get captured,

1:32:26the decommissioning of those wells will get captured.

1:32:30Through the chair to Member Goodfell, that is my understanding.

1:32:33Yes, I'm not a professional engineer, but professional engineers did review both

1:32:39the consent application as well as the Zoning By-law Amendment application,

1:32:42and they crafted the holding recommendation to satisfy any concerns that they had identified.

1:32:48Okay, through the chair, thank you for that.

1:32:51I guess I just have one follow-up question, and I am skimming madly while I am talking,

1:32:55which is probably dangerous, but I didn't see where an environmental report was required

1:33:04in the conditions recommended by staff.

1:33:08Is that because that would have been addressed as part of that holding provision or as part

1:33:12of the zoning amendment?

1:33:15Through the chair to Member Goodfell, that's correct.

1:33:18Wonderful, you've answered my questions. Thank you so much.

1:33:22Committee members, any other questions?

1:33:25Seeing none, are there any members of the audience who would like to speak to this application?

1:33:36I don't see any. Madam Secretary Treasurer, do we have any other, pardon me, delegations online?

1:33:43I can confirm no delegation requests.

1:33:45Thank you, and committee members, what is your wish at this point?

1:33:49Member Buendrino.

1:33:56I move to approve these applications with the recommendations as presented by staff.

1:34:03Thank you, and do we have a seconder?

1:34:05Member Spears, do we have any discussion or debate on this application before us?

1:34:14Seeing none, Madam Secretary Treasurer, would you do the honors, please?

1:34:19Committee members, please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the motion,

1:34:23which is to approve the applications with the recommended conditions.

1:34:27Chair Smith. In favor.

1:34:29Member Balaban. In favor.

1:34:31Member Goodfellow. In favor.

1:34:32Member Mbrenio. In favor.

1:34:34And Member Spears. In favor.

1:34:36That's carried, Mr. Chair.

1:34:37Your application has been approved.

1:34:39Thank you very much.

1:34:43Madam Secretary Treasurer, may we have another, or do we have another, is my question, and I think we do.

1:34:51Mr. Chair, we have one final application. That's file a-12-25, variances to permit

1:34:57increased front yard setback and location of loading spaces for proposed addition at 25 Fair Road.

1:35:03I'll note for those attending remotely, if you wish to speak to this application,

1:35:07you can call in by calling the number displayed on the screen.

1:35:10That number is 519-822-1260 extension 2524.

1:35:18I see the applicant online. Can you state your name and your relationship to this application, please?

1:35:24My name is John Donato. I am with CRD Construction. I'm the authorized agent for the owner on the property.

1:35:33Thank you. And can you tell me if the sign was posted as per the planning app?

1:35:36Yes, the sign was posted and acknowledged.

1:35:40Thank you. And can you tell me if you've read staff's comments and if you're in agreement?

1:35:46We have read staff's comments and we're pleased and yes, we are in agreement with your comments.

1:35:53With those formalities out of the way, you have 10 minutes to address the committee.

1:36:01Ladies, gentlemen, we thank you for the comments. Just a quick snapshot of this site.

1:36:08This site's located at the north end of Guelph, just north of Woodlawn Road,

1:36:13between Silver Creek Parkway and Arrow Road. We are immediately to the right side of the

1:36:20Gurdow Public Metals Recycling Facility. The existing building was developed approximately

1:36:2830 years ago, 1994-95, as a transportation maintenance shop. And today it continues providing the same

1:36:38function, which is truck, trailer, maintenance, repair, and servicing facility.

1:36:47This building, the existing building is a one-story industrial building.

1:36:51I'm going to use imperial units here, approximately 6,500 square feet on a property area of about 3.61

1:37:00acres. And we are proposing an addition that is attached to the existing building

1:37:08of approximately 5,400 square feet. We were caught off guard with the amended zoning bylaws,

1:37:17but that required a front yard setback of 25 meters, which would put our proposed addition

1:37:25well in front of the existing building. And this would not work for the owner and the expansion

1:37:30of the facility with the function that they're using or the site operations. It would compromise

1:37:37the existing fire route and existing site entrance as well. So we request a 41.07 meter setback to

1:37:47align with the existing building and the proposed three-sided addition. Our second variance that

1:37:56we were looking for to do with the loading spaces to be located to the front wall of the proposed

1:38:02addition. We'd like to match the existing loading spaces with the existing building. And I just

1:38:11wanted everybody to know that these are not loading docks. These are drive-through doors

1:38:17from the back through to the front, which would accommodate all of the tractors and tractor trailer

1:38:24units that go in and out of the building. We see that the staff comments, the planning

1:38:32services, engineering and building services supported our request and we're grateful for that.

1:38:40And that's pretty well it on the snapshot of the existing building. Thank you very much for

1:38:50enlightening us on your proposal. And if you want to wait right there, I will turn to my

1:38:56colleagues to see if there are any questions for you. Committee members, do we have any questions

1:39:00of the applicant? Seeing none, may I come on staff to see if they would, if they have any further

1:39:09comments? To the chair, to the committee, just to note that this application is part of an active

1:39:24site plan application. So any additional concerns would be addressed through the site plan process.

1:39:30Thank you for that. Are there any members of the, well there are no members of the public

1:39:37in the gallery. There's only a member of staff in the gallery. So I will assume there are no

1:39:44delegations to speak to this in the chamber. Madam Secretary Treasurer, are there any online?

1:39:51Mr. Chair, I can confirm no other delegation requests. Thank you. Committee members, what is your

1:39:58wish? Member Goodfellow? I move we approve this application with no conditions as recommended

1:40:06by the city staff. Thank you. And a seconder. Member Spears, is there any discussion or debate on

1:40:16this? Seeing none, Madam Secretary Treasurer, would you mind calling the vote please?

1:40:22Committee members, please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the motion,

1:40:26which is to approve the application. Chair Smith? In favor. Member Balaban? In favor.

1:40:32Member Goodfellow? In favor. Member Mambrenio? In favor. And Member Spears? In favor. Let's

1:40:37carry Mr. Chair. Your application has been approved. You're free to leave the meeting.

1:40:42Thank you very much, folks. Have a good evening. And the same to you. Stay out of the snow.

1:40:48I believe that concludes our agenda for this evening. More or less,

1:40:58Madam Secretary Treasurer, do you have any staff announcements?

1:41:03Mr. Chair, we do have that fee refund request before staff announcements, so I can address that.

1:41:09Yes, please. Okay. So there is a deferral fee refund request related to minor variance application

1:41:18for 439 Victoria Road North. The applicant has submitted correspondence requesting the

1:41:23committee refund the deferral fee as this application was deferred from December 12, 2024.

1:41:28Hearing. Staff comments regarding this refund request have been provided, and staff is recommending

1:41:34refusal of the refund request as outlined in the report. I do believe that the applicant is

1:41:40in attendance virtually should the committee members have any questions. I do believe the

1:41:45applicant had a presentation that they would like to provide. Is the applicant in attendance?

1:41:57Mr. Chair, if you just give us one moment, we'll get that applicant in. Thank you.

1:42:06Thank you. Good evening again, Mr. Chair. Thank you. You have 10 minutes to address the committee.

1:42:15Okay. Thank you for the opportunity to request this fee refund. This is just for the deferral

1:42:21fee that we're requesting. And if I had to summarize it in one concept is that, and I mentioned

1:42:27this during my presentation for the original, for the actual variance applications, we spent a

1:42:32considerable amount of time working with city staff trying to come to an agreement on what the

1:42:39appropriate amount of development was on this site. We, the owner did not want to advance an

1:42:46application or make a submission until city staff had said they were agreeable to it. We did not

1:42:53want to have be in a position in front of yourselves where we had a staff report that

1:42:58recommended denying some or all of the variances. We wanted to get as sure as we could that staff

1:43:06would be willing to support it. And that's where we thought we were when we made our original

1:43:10submission on that variance application. So with that being said, I did want to get into some of

1:43:15the details that kind of help illustrate this. So if we could go to the next slide, please.

1:43:22So these first few slides are kind of an overview of the technology, which I won't get into the

1:43:27details of what happened on each specific thing, but at least this illustrative of the fact that,

1:43:31yes, we had the designer, the architect visited the city planning counter in March of last year.

1:43:38We submitted our formal pre-consultation request on April 30th, and that pre-consultation was had

1:43:45the hell of July 17th. There were additional meetings that were had, all of the ones that I

1:43:50was able to find in my calendar. We met the staff virtually on May 17th, September 11th,

1:43:56September 17th, and in addition to that were there were numerous other phone calls, primarily

1:44:01between myself and the city planner. Next slide, please. So we got feedback from the city,

1:44:09and this is not including the discussions during the meeting, but these were obviously the pre-consultation

1:44:14notes. We've got, and after I submitted this application, I did find some additional emails

1:44:21with some notes and confirmation of other dates, but this is what I was able to find while I put

1:44:27this together, if we can get an email on August 23rd as well. Next slide, please. We submitted

1:44:34informally drawings on multiple times. Here are the, you know, you can see the dates, at least

1:44:39three times from my records, we made informal submissions so that we could discuss changes

1:44:45that we had made to the plan. Next slide, please. So the issues were, and you know, just the kind of,

1:44:54in case you don't recall the December agenda, is that out of the variances that were requested and

1:45:00were approved today, two of them were of a nature that they were not supported back in December,

1:45:07and those two were the minimum landscape open space and the long-term bicycle parking. Next slide,

1:45:14please. So to help illustrate why we believe there was some unfairness and some issues with

1:45:24how the owner was treated is, we, during that September 17th meeting, we were aware of the

1:45:32need for the bicycle parking. We had an opportunity to add it to the site plan before we made our

1:45:37submission. We asked City staff point blank at that meeting if we needed to add it, and they said,

1:45:43no, this is an existing building. It predates the zoning by required long-term bicycle parking,

1:45:49and we didn't need to add any. And, you know, you know, fast forward to December and we get the

1:45:56staff report that said they don't support that. So we were told, and we specifically asked that,

1:46:01because I, as a planner, I'm aware of where our zoning deficiencies were, and I identified this,

1:46:06and asked staff about it. We could have added it at that time before our, before our original

1:46:14submission in October without changing any of the, any of the other requested variances or

1:46:19parameters of the site. Next slide, please. Landscape open space. This has, you know, happened very

1:46:25similarly to how I just explained that the long-term bicycle parking is that on September 17th,

1:46:33we were led to believe that because we finally at that point were able to provide the common

1:46:40amenity space, which was the priority for staff, that the landscape open space would not be an

1:46:46issue. So again, we could have made other changes to the plan. Adding additional landscape open space

1:46:53was certainly a more, a, was a more, a more substantial, I guess, change to the plan. So it

1:46:59wasn't as easy as the bicycle parking. But again, if we had known we wouldn't have made our submission,

1:47:04we would have kept working with staff. Next slide, please. This happened close to hearing. So this

1:47:12is just really provided for illustrative purposes. It doesn't, doesn't directly support our request

1:47:17for the fee refund, but it really highlights some of the issues we've been having through all the

1:47:23consultations we've had with staff. And there is an error on this page, and I do apologize for that,

1:47:28is that the December 12th staff report doesn't say that staff would support a 35% open space.

1:47:34That conversation occurred during a phone call between myself and the city planner on December 11th.

1:47:40They said if we reduced the number of units to X number instead of the 31 that was proposed then,

1:47:47they estimated we would have 35% landscape open space, which they could support.

1:47:52However, when we realized we measured landscape open space wrong, and a plan that we had submitted

1:47:58back in October actually provided 38%, point 30.4% landscape open space, staff said, well,

1:48:05no, we're still not willing to support this. You need to remove some units. So again, we were told

1:48:11the landscape open space was the issue. But really what it seems like a staff did not want

1:48:17the 31 units that we had proposed. Next slide, please. Oh, that was it. Okay. So that pretty

1:48:24pretty much summarizes our issues, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

1:48:30Thank you for that. And committee members, do we have any questions for this applicant

1:48:38or for staff? Members? Really just a question. Is there a staff presentation on this? Is there

1:48:48some discussion from staff about their reasoning for the refusal? Through the chair to members,

1:48:58Spears, I think clerk staff did prepare a rationale for recommending the refusal. I will say that I

1:49:08disagree with the chronology and the assertions that the applicant has made. And I will also note

1:49:16that preliminary discussions are just that. They are preliminary discussions. If something is said

1:49:21in a preliminary meeting that does not require staff to necessarily write that in their comments.

1:49:31So yes, that's all I have to add. Thank you. Any other questions? Either of the applicant or staff?

1:49:44Seeing none, committee members, what is your wish? Member Bellaman.

1:49:56I move that we refuse to refund the deferral fee suggested by staff or recommended by staff.

1:50:05Thank you. And do we have a seconder? Member Spears. Any discussion on that? Seeing none,

1:50:14Madam Secretary Treasurer, would you call the vote please? Committee members, please indicate your

1:50:21vote on this refund request and indicate if you're in favor or not. Chair Smith. In favor?

1:50:28Member Bellaman. In favor. Member Goodfellow. In favor.

1:50:32Member Membranio. In favor. And member Spears. In favor. That motion to refuse is carried, Mr. Chair.

1:50:39Your application for refund has been refused. Thank you. I believe that concludes our

1:50:56agenda for the most part for this evening. Do you have any staff announcements, Madam Secretary

1:51:00Treasurer? Mr. Chair, I do have one brief announcement. And that is that the Ontario

1:51:06Land Tribunal has issued a decision regarding the appeal of consent and minor variance files for

1:51:1110 Orchard Street. Those are files B-32-24 to B-34-24 and files A-40-24 to A-43-24. These

1:51:22files were refused by the committee at the August 8th, 2024 hearing. The tribunal allowed the appeal

1:51:28and authorized the consent and minor variance applications subject to conditions. And a copy

1:51:33of that OLT decision has been forwarded to the committee members. And that's all the announcements

1:51:38I have, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Madam Secretary Treasurer. And before I ask for a motion to adjourn,

1:51:44I just want to note that you were good enough to circulate to committee members that there will

1:51:51be some ongoing changes to our work and how we proceed. You may have noticed most poignantly that

1:51:59staff have been able to, instead of sitting on their hands and wanting to chime in that we're

1:52:09encouraging a little more to and fro with city staff. So that's one of the changes and we'll

1:52:17be looking at possibly others in the future. And I want to thank our Secretary Treasurer for

1:52:25quarterbacking that. And with that, I will ask for a motion for adjournment.

1:52:32Member Balaban, seconded by member Goodfellow, all those in favor, we stand adjourned. Thank you,

1:52:39committee members. Thank you, staff.