Committee of Adjustment

7:13Good afternoon Guelph. I'd like to call to order the October 9th,

7:192025 hearing of the Guelph Committee of Adjustment. This hearing is being held in a hybrid format

7:25with attendees appearing in person or remotely and is being live streamed and recorded. Please be

7:31advised that public hearings form part of the public record and the words, names, or images of

7:36those participating will be recorded and posted online. We have received regrets from Member Smith

7:42who will not be attending this hearing. Before I outline the hearing format, if you are watching

7:47online and wish to speak to an application that's listed on the agenda and have not submitted a request

7:53in advance of the hearing, please call the number displayed on the screen now, which is 519-822-1260

8:02extension 2524 and you will receive instructions on how to participate. For those attending the

8:09hearing in person, you will also be given a chance to address the committee. A final call for

8:13delegations will be made when each application is called. The agenda for this hearing has been

8:19posted online at guelph.ca forward slash cofa. I will remember all remind all committee members

8:27and staff participating in the hearing to please mute your microphones when not in use. Applicants

8:32will be unmuted when their application is called. I'd also like to share the hearing format we will

8:38be using to navigate through each application. Each application will be called by the Secretary

8:44Treasurer and the call in number for those wishing to speak to an application will be displayed on

8:48the screen. Afterwards, the applicant will be given an opportunity to add anything further to

8:54their application to a maximum of 10 minutes. You will hear a chime when there is 30 seconds left

9:00and another when 10 minutes has elapsed. If you are an applicant and have nothing further to add,

9:06then you can simply say so. Following this for some files, staff may provide a brief presentation.

9:12The committee will then be able to ask questions to the applicant or staff. After that, we will hear

9:18from members of the public who wish to comment on the application. Please note that all comments

9:23should be addressed through the chair. Please avoid repeating concerns already stated by others

9:29and focused on adding new information. Comments are limited to 10 minutes or less. You will hear

9:35a chime when there is 30 seconds left and another when the 10 minutes has elapsed. For delegates

9:42that have advised staff in advance of the hearing that they wish to display a presentation, your

9:47presentation will be displayed on the screen and a remote is available at the podium for delegates

9:52in person to advance their slides. Any members of the public who have submitted a request to speak

9:58prior to the hearing will be the first invited to provide comments. For those watching the hearing

10:03online, if you wish to speak to an application and have not submitted a request in advance of the

10:08hearing, please call the number displayed on the screen now. For those attending the hearing in

10:14person, you will also be given a chance to come forward to the podium and address the committee.

10:19Once all comments from the public have been heard, the applicant or staff will be given the

10:23opportunity to respond to comments. Finally, the chair will turn to the committee for a motion

10:29and deliberation as well as a vote on the application. When the committee is making a

10:34decision on an application, the chair will be asking the secretary treasurer to conduct the vote by

10:39roll call. The secretary treasurer will call each of the members' names and each member will respond

10:45if they are in favor or opposed to the motion and the chair will announce the result of the vote.

10:51If you wish to receive a copy of the decision on an application, you must submit a written request.

10:57There it is. A written request can be made by contacting staff using the contact information

11:02shown on the screen. To receive a copy of the decision, please email cofa at guelph.ca

11:11with your name and the file member you were interested in. Please note that owners and

11:16applicants automatically receive a copy of the decision. I'll now ask member Membranio to provide

11:23the Indigenous territorial acknowledgement. As we gather, let us take time to reflect on our

11:31privilege to live and work in wealth, a city built of rich Indigenous histories. We are guests here

11:38and we should reflect upon the responsibility to care for this land, the people who live here today

11:45and the generations to come. If our actions today can move us towards a reconciliation,

11:51we should take pause and make those decisions with entailment and gratitude. This place we call

11:58wealth has served as traditional lands and a place of refuge for many peoples over time,

12:04but more specifically the Atina Wanderang and the Hanodoshini. This land is held as the treaty

12:12lands and territory with the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation. Wealth lies directly adjacent

12:21to the Handy Multirac and is part of a long-established traditional hunting ground for the Six Nations of

12:27the Grand River. Many First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples who have come from across the island

12:35call wealth home today. Thank you. First order of business committee members, are there any

12:44disclosures of pecuniary interest and if so please raise your hand. Okay seeing none we'll move on.

12:51We need to approve the minutes from two past meetings, September 4th and September 11th,

12:582025 so can I ask for a member to move and second the approval of these minutes?

13:04Move by member Mir, seconded by member Fitzpatrick. I have all those in favor we can raise our hands.

13:13Okay motion carried. I've confirmed with the secretary treasurer that we do not have any deferral

13:22requests and so I'll turn it over to the secretary treasurer to call the first application.

13:29The first application is file a-74 slash 25, variance to permit reduced side yard setback

13:35for proposed attached garage at 83 5th road. I'll note for those attending the hearing remotely if

13:42you wish to speak to this application you can call the number displayed on the screen. That number's

13:46519-822-1260 extension 2524 and when you call in staff will give you instructions on how you

13:53can delegate remotely. Great thank you and is the applicant present? Yes I am on the screen. Great thank

14:02you. Can you state your name and relationship to the application? First name is Justin, last name is

14:09Kelly, KEL-1. We are the hired agent in regards to the application to speak towards the order.

14:15Thank you and was the sign posted as per the planning act requirements?

14:19It was yes. Okay then I guess you uh oh sorry and have you received staff comments and are you in

14:27agreement? We are yes we have received them and are in agreement. Okay wonderful uh do you wish to

14:33add anything then to the application and if so you have 10 minutes? The only particular item that

14:40we would like to speak on is just in regards to the building service comments. We don't necessarily

14:48disagree with these particular comments. We just want to make it known I guess a few things. One

14:56the owner of the property did receive a permit in 2023 to upgrade the dwelling unit to ensure that

15:05all the interior workings of the building met the requirements of building code. When he did that he

15:12was also required to upgrade or I guess modify the driveways to ensure that they met the requirements

15:18of building code. So the right side driveway was modified in 2023 to ensure it met the requirements

15:24of the line. The left side driveway um there was no at that time there was no concerns raised in

15:32regards to the width of that driveway. Since then obviously the owner has obtained a permit for the

15:38cardboard. Now there is a resubmission permit to change that cardboard into a garage and obviously

15:45um during that particular permit process during review as well as on-site reviews by the building

15:52department there were no concerns raised on the width of the left side driveway and it my understanding

15:59currently now is that no property owners or no neighbor uh no neighborhood properties have

16:04raised any concerns in regards to the width of the driveway. So we're simply I guess asking if you

16:11know in regards to the building service commons they've asked that a condition be set

16:17in regards to the width of the left side driveway being reduced or modified back

16:21to the 6.5 meters. Again we don't know I don't personally know what it was before all I know

16:30is that it never really came uh became a concern until this minor variance and the owner is simply

16:36asking that he's willing to modify the driveway but simply ask that whatever legal long-term

16:41forming status that it currently has just remained and that condition don't be added to the application.

16:46So a long way to say the owner is okay with it but we're going to leave it up to the the hands

16:52of the committee today. Okay thank you um just checking with city staff do you have any comments

17:03to add at this point? Not seeing any okay I think then we will um open the floor to the committee

17:11to ask questions of the applicant and city staff member Spears. Through you Madam Chair to the applicant

17:20right at the end you said I was a little confused about what you said your last statement which was

17:26to do with leaving things the way they were could you just restate that? I wasn't I wasn't clear.

17:32Sure yeah through the chair in this particular case the owner is is willing to modify but

17:39understands that there's a league there's currently a legal non-conforming

17:42width that is present for the existing driveway and he's hoping that that just can remain as is.

17:51And that means we would remove that that that that item from the from the request or from the

17:58city the staff comments is that what you're saying? In this particular case yeah the building service

18:04comments say that they're willing to approve the application but suggest that the driveway be

18:09remedied back to 6.5 meters. Okay thanks that's clear. Yeah thanks. Other questions? Member Ross?

18:25Through you Madam Chair um to the applicant so what is the width of the of the driveway

18:32beyond the 6.5? Through the chair that's a good question I do have that number I just have it in

18:42feet so just one second here currently it is 7.3 meters so essentially it is it's 20

18:58oh sorry that's yeah so it's 20 feet and then they believe at some point there was four feet

19:03that was added which may have been a sidewalk at one point regardless currently right now it is all

19:09gravel or sorry I should say that it's been asphalted over there has been some work that's

19:14been required to be done based on some sanitary conditions but the idea is that it would become

19:21asphalt again a portion of that can be removed and turned back through sidewalk if required today

19:28by the committee. Thank you can many members other questions? I do have a question myself I believe

19:40it's for city staff I think the applicant note applicant noted that the existing driveway as

19:48it stands right now is legally non-conforming if I'm understanding correctly I wondered if you could

19:55just weigh in on the point or the width at which it was it became legally non-conforming

20:03and whether it is currently legally non-conforming or if it has been expanded beyond that again thank you.

20:11Yes to the chair um the driveway on the right side has been determined to be legal non-conforming

20:18the driveway on the left side originally just went to the garage in the dwelling and then

20:26when the garage was finished to dwelling space and storage space it got modified somewhat so that

20:34the applicant could park beside the house then with the carport it got a little bit wider and

20:42there's just been creep and not necessarily when building inspectors go out do they look at that

20:48specifically but when this application came and staff reviewed it it's just been noted that the

20:55driveway has just been slightly been made wider and wider and wider and so staff is recommending

21:02it be remedied there isn't a legal non-conforming status because it's just been within the last

21:08few years that this creep has happened. Thank you that's a helpful piece of information to have.

21:17Any other questions from the committee? Okay seeing none I'm going to ask Madam Secretary

21:23Treasurer if we have any delegations. Vice Chair Goodfellow we don't have any delegation requests.

21:30Okay then I think at this point we can thank you keeping me straight here yeah so are there any

21:44members of the audience who would like to delegate on this application? Okay seeing none now I think

21:51we can go to committee committee members does someone have a motion they would like to make on

21:56this application? Member Spears. I move that we accept this application with the conditions

22:04recommended by city staff. Is there a seconder? Member Fitzpatrick. Okay any comments or discussion

22:12on the motion at hand? All right seeing none then I think we can turn it over to Madam Secretary

22:21Treasurer for the vote. Committee members please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed

22:28to the motion which is to approve the application with the three recommended conditions. Vice

22:34Chair Goodfellow in favor. Member Fitzpatrick in favor. Member Membrino in favor. Member Meir

22:42in favor. Member Ross in favor. And Member Spears in favor. That's Kerry the chair. Okay your

22:50application has been approved with the conditions recommended by city staff and you are free to

22:55leave the meeting thanks so much for your time. Thank you. I'm content. Okay then I think we're

23:04on to the next application Madam Secretary Treasurer. The next application is file a-79-25

23:14variances to permit reduced side yard setback for existing exterior stairs and rear cover deck

23:20at 11 Norton Drive. I'll note for those attending the hearing remotely if you wish to speak to

23:26this application you can do so by calling the number displayed on the screen. The number is 519-822-1260

23:35extension 2524 and when you call in staff will give you instructions on how you can delegate

23:41remotely. I'll also note that staff does have a brief presentation following the applicant's

23:47introduction. Thank you. Is the applicant present? Yes please come forward to the podium.

24:05Great can you please state your name? Ali Basemala. And your relationship to the applicant?

24:10I'm the owner of the house. Okay thank you. Was the sign posted as per the planning act

24:17requirements? Permit it. Great thank you. And have you received staff comments and are you in agreement?

24:26They were saying before the only reason that they're having issue with it is just for the setback.

24:34Yeah and so that's great and so I'm going to give you 10 minutes now to kind of go through some of

24:38your concerns and provide some context for the application. Okay please go ahead. Could you just

24:45turn on the bird's eye please? Yeah so what's happening is I built that around three years ago

24:53and it was kind of like protruding to the other side of the fence now to the neighbor so

25:00suggesting to have a 1.2 it's about three inches off from the outline as you can see there

25:10a point is it 0.09? The setback of 0.69 is so narrow for an entrance to the

25:25adjoin to the other I mean to the basement put it that way. It's only about 20 if you put a 26 and

25:35you have to put the post for about four inches that would give me about only 25 it's not enough for

25:42people to go in and out plus also it's like it defeats the purpose of having that stairs and so

25:51but if it was not a reclining nine foot drop then it would be easy just to put in a break or something

26:02like that but I really have to have that stairs to ensure that you know it's a stair so it goes

26:13down about nine foot to the basement and that's the reason why I can't use just a regular brick

26:19to the additional dwelling unit also the deck too

26:31it has to increase to about 1.98 because there's an air conditioning in that area so

26:45it's about 1.7 so that's where about 30 inches for the AC itself and then additional for the 1.2

27:00and lastly when you can see it the very end of it is I'm going to be cutting out two spec

27:09which is the 0.6 setback okay thank you oh sorry continue yes yes so the main reason why I

27:25I'm pushing this to everyone is since we have tenants in the basement they do tell me that you

27:33know they can go to to the main entrance in my house it would not give us a privacy

27:42and they also have a daughter a teen daughter with special need so every time somebody knocks on

27:49the door whatever she's doing she runs upstairs she's so scared of it and I'm trying to minimize that

27:59by people coming in and out of my on the main main house thank you thank you yeah that provides

28:14helpful context appreciate your additional comments sounds like city staff has some comments to add

28:21so I'll ask you folks to go ahead please yeah I'm through you chair and committee I'd like to provide

28:29some background context on this application so we've actually had some back and forth communication

28:33of the applicant prior to the submission spanning from January to August of this year

28:40through these discussions we were able to review their preliminary site plan and a number of site

28:44photographs kind of showcasing the staircase in the deck area so in February of 2025 we've

28:53planning staff indicated to that applicant we would be unable to recommend approval of the

28:56proposal based on our tests of minor variants we did advise them that in terms of options they

29:03could revise or relocate the staircase to be in conformity with the zoning bylaw or despite our

29:09indication of refusal they could still have the option to apply to the committee of adjustment

29:14if they feel they could provide an appropriate justification for the variance requested

29:19and in the last couple of emails of the applicant we advised that they had the option to retain a

29:24consultant for our second opinion or to present the variance on their behalf they could review

29:29similar past applications available online and just be prepared to address likely questions from the

29:35committee and that was back in August so that's kind of the background discussion we've had of the

29:42applicant to date I believe the applicant has also been in touch with one of our zoning inspectors

29:49but we're happy to answer any questions thank you I think at this point then we will open the door

29:59here to committee questions so committee members do you have questions for the either the applicant

30:04or city staff member Ross to city staff after the chair can the staircase be relocated to

30:14meet the bylaw requirements

30:19other side it's the same thing that's where all the meters and stuff as well that's the only

30:26place that we can put that stairs well as a walkway to on the other side of the house

30:33yes that's where all the it's the same thing as on the other side it's still gonna be dropped about

30:39nine foot nine foot and it's it's better on the other end because you don't have all the electric

30:46electric and meter stuff on the left side of on the right side of when you're facing it so

30:53that's the reason why I put it on the left of the side left side of the house and I also spoke

31:01with my neighbors and everybody is has no problem with it and I spoke with my neighbor which is

31:10close to where the stairs is absolutely no rejection of it and I explained it to him as well

31:20and I they also put some gravels and stuff in their side and I said I'm gonna do the same thing in

31:27my area so that everything you know it's a gonna what's what's the proper term for that where

31:34there's no erosion for for the soil so and even my uh the rain what do you call the the rain

31:46the the rain that goes through it I'm gonna I'm going to extend it all the way to the rear of the

31:54house thank you so that there's no uh you know for for my neighbors on my neighbor side I actually

32:04did that on both side of um I already did it on the other side of my house um may I return to staff

32:15do you have any uh anything to add to clarify the situation for the committee any question

32:25oh sorry I have it through the chair to member Ross um yeah I should have been more clear the

32:33the option was to remove or relocate and I understand the applicant was in discussions

32:37with the zoning inspector if that was an option for them okay thank you member Spears uh through

32:48you Madam Chair to city staff again so having seen it and understanding the problem that the

32:55applicant was trying to solve what does staff imagine would be uh a feasible way to to gain

33:03access to the bit to the bottom to the backyard really on either side outside without having

33:10a means like this because as with a nine-foot drop over the length of the house you know it's

33:15like dropping off a cliff you have to put something there it's not wouldn't be feasible to walk up and

33:20down that hill certainly not in the winter time so to say relocate practically what do you mean

33:57through member Spears or through the chair to member Spears rather um an alternative would be

34:03what we frequently see to access ad use is a a hardscape walkway as a hardscape hardscaping is

34:10not considered a structure and doesn't uh have to conform with the setback requirements so that would

34:15be one option to get around the uh 0.6 meter setback requirement okay um thank you sorry through the

34:28chair I just want to add to this um this is definitely an interesting situation when you pour

34:37concrete steps on grade it's considered landscaping and then water can't drain through it when you

34:46build wooden stairs that then can have water percolate through them it's considered exterior

34:55stairs and that triggers zoning so I do see the conundrum with the steep side yard and that is why

35:04planning I mean sorry building wrote their comments um if such the committee chooses to approve this

35:10then I'm not saying it will definitely require a building permit staff would review and um anything

35:17over 12 sorry 24 inches in height from grade anywhere on the stairs could require a building

35:24permit but um staff would review that if the community does choose to approve it thank you

35:36that was a another helpful clarification um any other questions from committee members

35:43uh I do have one I believe it's for the applicant can you just maybe give us some timeline on um

35:51when you know you first purchased the house and when you installed the stairway just so I purchased

35:57this about three three years ago and not long after that I started to put in that um the uh stairs

36:06okay thank you it's helpful um all right I think oh yep member Fitzpatrick please go ahead

36:12through you uh madam chair so the adu this is to staff the adu has been approved

36:21is it registered through the chair to member Fitzpatrick um I yes this has been I just I want to

36:35go in the folder right now to 100 confirm that but when I reviewed um this um initially yes I

36:42did not see anything open and I believe that is how it was staff who noticed the stairs it

36:48wasn't from a complaint and then that's what triggered the zoning in compliance was through

36:53like an inspection of the property through permitted work thank you okay um yep member Spears

37:07um through you madam secretary or madam chair to the applicant again in your opinion

37:13uh do you think any is there any part on that stairway that is greater than 24 inches above

37:22grade and I'm when I say above grade I I'm probably going to need some some clarification from city

37:29staff on how you measure grade going down a hill because I know we get into this this confusion

37:34but it's above the ground let's uh some of them at the at the bottom I mean at the very

37:41and at the rear of it this about 28 to 30 28 to 30 but mostly they're uh on the top is about 12

37:54to 8 12 inches I can I can show can you pull up the uh the other one please no the other one

38:13yeah so I I also uh up through uh the recommendation of the city to uh have a permit of it so I

38:23applied for the permit for both and then they said no you don't need a permit for it so can you show

38:30that up again please not the other one the stairs please yeah so um at the front there's only about

38:52a foot but when you go to the bottom ones near the uh near the uh deck that's where it's about

39:01I believe when I uh measured it last time it's about 28 inches uh but I do have all the balusters

39:12installed in that area okay that that works for me thanks thank you other questions from the committee

39:25yep member ross uh through you chair uh to staff just in terms of the the comments that you've

39:35got in your report um I wonder if you could talk a little bit about what constitutes a

39:41functional setback in a situation like this I'm sorry can you uh through the chair to member ross

39:51um so it's just on the it's a bit uh qualitative it's on a case-by-case basis but just looking at

39:57the the mount requested versus what's required right um so they're providing nine centimeters setback

40:03whereas 60 is required so just the magnitude of what's provided versus what's required in the

40:08zoning bylaw and were there any other reasons for um the conclusion that it's not minor in nature

40:17other than that uh other than what you've said sorry can you is there is there any any other

40:23reason why um sorry about that is there any other reason why um uh you have concluded that it's minor

40:30in nature um through the site photograph in the site plan we were able to see that uh the staircase

40:39spans across most of the length of the property so it wouldn't be really minor right but in terms of

40:47negative impacts on uh adjacent owners uh general intent of the bylaw um any other

40:57arguments for the committee to consider it not to be minor in nature no just the proximity to the

41:04lot line um the applicant was advised they could reach out to the neighbors as well to confirm

41:09if that issue with it thank you member Fitzpatrick thank you through you madam chair so if I

41:19heard correct earlier had the applicant just poured a concrete set of stairs down

41:27probably without railing balusters and whatnot that wouldn't have been a problem at all

41:33is that correct yep through the chair to member Fitzpatrick that is correct but then it could

41:40have triggered engineering issues with drain engines whales okay for zoning it wouldn't have

41:48been an issue there's no zoning requirement for um concrete pavement like patio sowns directly

41:57on grade okay thank you and subsequent sort of follow-up question would it be in your opinion

42:09if we're if we're looking at at some of this as a safety issue and a

42:18not not so much aesthetics but more from a safety perspective the current structure would be

42:23a safer way to egress and the the property then had we had they just done a concrete set of stairs

42:31or gravel stairs I'll take this I guess to the chair to member Fitzpatrick um subjective

42:47for the slope of the property with the hand railing I personally think that is safe

42:57thank you thank you uh other questions I actually have one I think for city staff

43:09if this was another set of stairs that happened to be further away from the property line

43:15what is building code requirement for width of stairs like this like a structure like this what

43:21would be the building code minimum width required to the chair I don't know this off the top of my

43:35head I recall the application last month for stairs down to the basement any of my fellow

43:46co-workers remember the width of those that would be so helpful on rickson I think it's one point

43:56that through the chair my understanding is the application for rickson I believe was reduced

44:03from I think 1.5 to 1.2 but I'm not sure exactly what the minimum would be in the OBC okay thank

44:12you um I think now though we will turn over to see if we have any delegations looking to comment

44:19on this application madam secretary treasurer do we have delegations I can confirm we haven't

44:26received any delegation requests okay thank you is there anyone here in the audience who would

44:30like to delegate on this application okay seeing none uh then I think we are back over to the

44:39committee for a motion on this application would somebody like to offer a motion uh yes member

44:46spears I move we approve this application with no conditions okay is there a seconder member

44:52Fitzpatrick okay any conversation or comment on the application in front of us or the motion in

44:59front of us yes yeah I'd just like to say that having seen this walked up and down it I think

45:10given the situation it's it's a rather nice solution to a difficult problem and the more we've

45:16heard from city staff about the complexity of this I think the applicant made a good decision and

45:22and it works well and that's why I would be in favor of this this idea thank you member spears

45:29other comments or discussion member Ross yes thank you in terms of whether or not this is minor in

45:40nature so that has been raised by staff and I suppose that in terms of conformity with the

45:51intent of the bylaw it perhaps doesn't meet the intent but I could be persuaded otherwise

46:00but as terms of adverse impact or any of the other ways to look at whether or not an application

46:07is minor in nature it doesn't seem to be it doesn't seem to meet those those negative aspects to

46:18qualify it as minor in nature I do understand what staff is saying in terms of the the the

46:24quantitative part being 85 percent change from the zoning bylaw whether that in itself is enough

46:32to deem it to be not minor in nature so for that reason I'm going to support the motion that's on

46:42the floor thank you member Ross okay any further discussion okay I think at this point then we are

46:51ready for a vote so Madam Secretary treasurer committee members please indicate your vote by

46:57responding in favor or opposed to the motion which is to approve the application with no conditions

47:03vice chair good fellow in favor member Fitzpatrick in favor member membrane you in favor member

47:11mere in favor member Ross in favor and member Spears in favor that's carried thank you your

47:20application has been approved so you're free to leave the meeting thanks so much for your time

47:24thanks for your blessing okay I think we're on to the next application Madam Secretary treasurer

47:36the next application is file 8-80-25 variances to permit existing sheds and existing fence height

47:44in exterior side yard at 180 Farley Drive I'll note for those attending remotely if you wish to

47:49speak to this application you can do so by calling the number displayed on the screen the numbers 519

47:55822 1260 extension 2524 and when you call in staff will give you instructions on how you can delegate

48:01remotely thank you is the applicant present looks like they are in the meeting um I looks like

48:14you're on mute can you unmute please okay and then I've just been advised it's star six to unmute

48:26a phone still on mute and again that's star six to unmute a phone hi yes now we can hear you

49:05hi can you please state your name for the record please my name is Melando Koji the address is 180

49:15Farley Drive in Grouch and sorry I may miss that in your relationship to the applicant

49:22oh I'm the owner of the house the applicants are me myself and my wife Natasha which

49:29okay thank you uh and was the sign posted per the planning act requirements

49:36oh yeah yeah both signs it's a corner lot corner house so we put it and we took a picture like a

49:44week ago and days ago and send it to committee and I got a reply from the member that it was perfect

49:53thank you they just suggested to move it a little bit which I did and then they replied it's perfect

49:59okay thank you um I wanted to make sure that you've received staff comments and confirm whether

50:07you are in agreement with those comments or not yes I received I read the timing agreement

50:15with that thank you thank you and so now at this point you have 10 minutes if you would like to

50:21provide some additional information for the committee to consider so I'll ask for you to go ahead

50:26there is no additional information really sorry are you going to add some comments or are you are

50:39you okay to move forward no no I'm good I'm good there is no additional comment okay thank you um

50:47then I think at this point we will ask the committee if they have any questions for the

50:52applicant on this application now I see none at this stage uh city staff do you have any

50:58comments that you'd like to add on this application uh through you madam chair I think the only

51:05comment is rather a clarification or not a clarification but just bringing attention to

51:10some of the comments in the staff comments the variance for a fence height is really only for

51:16the portion of the fence that is closest to the front of the property you see two arrows on the

51:22on the drawing there one pointing to the left and one pointing up the area above

51:29surrounded by the larger circle the fence height that is proposed is permitted as of right so the

51:35fence height variance is just for the other portion of the fence closer towards the the front yard

51:40okay thank you um all right seeing no questions then I think we can move forward to delegations

51:48madam secretary treasurer are there any delegations madam chair I can confirm we don't have any

51:53delegation requests okay thank you are there any delegates in the audience anyone who would like

51:59to speak to this application okay seeing none then I will turn over to the committee and ask for

52:07a motion madam or sorry member membranea I'm moved to approve this application with the condition

52:14as recommended by staff okay is there a seconder member mural second all right is there any

52:22discussion on the motion before us no discussion okay madam secretary treasurer if you can call

52:30the vote please many members please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the motion

52:36which is to approve the application with the three recommended conditions vice chair good fellow

52:41in favor member fits patrick in favor member membraneo in favor member meir in favor member ross

52:49in favor and member spears in favor that's carried wonderful all right to the applicant thank you

52:56so much your application has been approved and you're free to leave the meeting thank you thank

53:03you and thank you to the committee okay at this point we're ready for the next application

53:09madam secretary treasurer can you please call the next application the next application is file

53:15a-78-25 variance to permit reduced interior setback for proposed two-story addition to existing

53:23dwelling at 66 mary street i'll note for those attending remotely if you wish to speak to this

53:28application you can do so by calling the number displayed on the screen that number is 519

53:33821260 extension 2524 thank you is the applicant present okay i see someone on our screen welcome

53:44can you please state your name and your relationship to the applicant

53:48david creathers and i'm the agent on here on behalf of the owner great and was the sign posted

53:54for the planning act requirements yes it was okay and have you received staff comments and are you

54:00in agreement with those comments yes i am okay then at this point you have 10 minutes to add some

54:07additional information for the committee to consider please go ahead great thank you madam chairman

54:13good afternoon madam chairman and members of the committee again my name is david creathers from

54:19creathers and associates of 505 york boulevard and hamilton ontario i am here as the agent on

54:25behalf of the owner to ask for approval under subsection 45 of the planning act for the one

54:31variance as outlined in the staff report i have read through staff report which includes the following

54:37planning's positive report with no objections to the development heritage planning staff support of

54:43our application and development engineering building and utilities with no objections

54:50as part of my presentation i would like to speak regarding slide one uh site plan

54:58do the variance meet the four test and intent purpose of the bylaw the variance i'm here today

55:06to request is a reduced interior side yard setback of 0.65 meters whereas a minimum of 1.5 meters is

55:15required the general and purpose and intent of the zoning bylaw is to implement the policies of

55:21the official plan through specific permissions and regulations the subject property is currently

55:27zoned low density residential zone one and permits the construction and renovations of dwellings

55:34due to the nature of the historical lot the existing house sits at 0.65 meters from the

55:41side yard we have noted a red line as you can see on the site plan where the 1.5 meter zoning

55:48setback is located and it's currently in the existing house the intent and provisions for

55:55side yard setbacks is to ensure an attractive and compatible streetscape as well as to facilitate

56:02access to the side yard with adequate function from a grading and drainage perspective slide two

56:09please thank you it's important to note that the home side yard setback has been in existing since

56:22the early 1900s and will remain in its current state we will be introducing a new second story

56:29on the existing wall below that will add additional living space while maintaining the character of

56:34the existing streetscape all existing side yard access rating and drainage will remain and for

56:44these reasons it is our opinion that our request is minor nature and desirable for the neighborhood

56:50next slide please 66 Mary street is situated in the brooklyn and college hill heritage

57:03conservation district before our application submission for minor variants here today we

57:09have been working with the heritage planning staff to find a design solution that fits the home

57:14and compliments the surrounding neighborhood with such a narrow lot an addition in height was agreed

57:20upon by all instead of the typical approach to expand out to the rear of the house the new design

57:27will maintain the existing ground floor exterior heritage attributes example red brick and stone

57:33walls and the wood frame front porch while adding a second floor and attic space with the design that

57:41is keeping with the style of the existing cottage there is also a large rear yard tree

57:47and an old heritage shed that will also be retained by going up rather than out the back

57:55slide for please thank you in conclusion it is our opinion that the addition has been

58:02thoughtfully designed in a matter that will be a positive addition to the brooklyn and college

58:07hill heritage district and will not result in an overdevelopment of the lot the new design will

58:13provide additional living space and if granted will allow for reinvestment to occur in a matter

58:20that is compatible with the current streetscape it is our opinion that the requested variants

58:26satisfies the four tests of section 45 one of the planning act in our opinion represents

58:32good design and planning like to thank you for your time and I'm happy to answer any questions

58:38that you may have thank you thank you um I'm going to check in with city staff if you folks have any

58:47comments that you'd like to add on this application so seeing none uh then I will open the floor to

58:54the committee members to ask questions of this applicant any questions yep seeing none uh

59:01madame secretary treasurer do we have any delegations madam chair I can confirm no

59:06delegation requests have been received thank you are there any applicants here in the room with us

59:12who would like to come forward and speak to this application okay seeing none then I think we can

59:19move forward into committee committee members is there a motion for this application mad a

59:26member membering you I move to approve the application as recommended by city staff

59:31is there a seconder member mere seconds all right then are there any uh is there any discussion

59:38on this application okay seeing none then I think madame secretary please uh if we could call the vote

59:46committee members please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the motion

59:50which is to approve the application vice chair good fellow in favor member fits patrick in

59:57favor member membranio in favor member mere in favor member ross in favor and member spears in

1:00:03favor that's carried okay your application has been approved thanks for your time this evening

1:00:09thank you have a good evening thanks okay I think then we're on to the next application

1:00:16madame secretary treasurer can you please call the next application the next application is file b

1:00:22dash 65 slash 25 consent to create one new residential lot with one retained residential

1:00:28lot at 361 white law road I'll note for those attending remotely if you wish to speak to

1:00:33this application you can do so by calling the number displayed on the screen the number is 519

1:00:39822 1260 extension 2524 thank you uh looks like the applicant is here with us in chambers

1:00:48can you please state your name and relationship to the application yes good afternoon madame

1:00:52chairman name is kevin thompson and I'm the lawyer for the applicant great and was the sign

1:00:56posted as for the planning act requirements yes it was and have you received city staff comments

1:01:01and are you in agreement we have received them we are substantively in agreement I do have some

1:01:04brief comments however okay thank you you have 10 minutes please go ahead thank you so we have

1:01:09received the comments we take no issue with the seven conditions that are proposed including the

1:01:16three uh road widenings uh condition one is a road widening condition two is a day lighting

1:01:22triangle uh conveyance of the city and condition three is a one foot reserve conveyance um these

1:01:30three conditions specify specific parts on existing reference plans uh my only suggestion or request

1:01:37of the committee would be that rather than referent to specific parts um we add the words or equivalent

1:01:44after each of those specified parts it may be based on the advice of our survey that we're gonna

1:01:48when we're doing the new reference plan to define the severed and retained we would then

1:01:53re-describe those existing parts on that new reference plan so rather than it being part 27

1:01:59and part 4 and part 5 it may end up being you know for example parts 1 2 and 3 on that new reference

1:02:06plan that's done as part of our severance so my my respectful request of this committee is that

1:02:12after each of those specific parts we simply add the words or equivalent so for example

1:02:18condition one would specify part 27 of reference plan 61R 20091 or equivalent uh be conveyed as a

1:02:26road widening and that way we have some flexibility and we can defer to the expertise of the surveyor

1:02:31in terms of is it advisable that we re-describe and then convey to the city or do we use the existing

1:02:36parts on those two existing reference plans to convey the road widening day lighting triangle

1:02:41and reserve to the city substantively it would be the same the dimensions would be identical

1:02:46it's just a matter of order of operations and and sort of what the surveyor advises is most

1:02:51advisable because these these reference plans are somewhat dated and so it may make sense to

1:02:56re-describe them and bring them forward onto the overlaying reference plan and use that for

1:03:01conveyance and purposes those are my only comments thank you okay thank you um that's nice and and

1:03:08succinct um I will then ask city staff if you folks have comments on this application

1:03:17you know oh yes to you chair I just wanted to add those were my conditions that the agent is

1:03:22referring to and I have no objection to the request there okay thank you helpful clarification to have

1:03:28up front um great then I guess we will open the floor to um committee members if you have any

1:03:35questions of the applicant or city staff seeing none um are there any delegations madam secretary

1:03:45treasurer madam chair I can confirm no delegation requests okay thank you is there anyone here in

1:03:51chambers who would like to come forward and delegate on this application okay seeing none

1:03:58then I think we are around oh I'm sorry I apologize yes please come forward to the podium

1:04:10hi welcome hi please state your name uh shona alika okay and we live on white law seven doors down

1:04:17from the proposed okay uh sephrinz great and you have 10 minutes to address the committee please go

1:04:24ahead uh it's it's more of a uh I mean it's already been approved we know that something's

1:04:29going to go there but it's more for the city to be aware that the traffic on white law is

1:04:35insane the way it is right now um I guess they've done traffic reports in the past nothing's come of it

1:04:41currently there are two signs on white law that are turned backwards with speed bumps

1:04:48so at some point we're assuming that there's going to be some speed bumps put on

1:04:53the traffic is insane of the way it is right now you're going to be adding more residents

1:04:58and we just want to make sure that there is some um plan in place to have some traffic calming

1:05:05whether it be speed bumps whether it be stop signs something to slow people down because I

1:05:12the sign right now says 40 kilometers an hour I can assure you on any given day there's people

1:05:16going 80 and 90 the joke um on our street is that it's Costco highway people are trying to get to

1:05:22Costco and rather than going down Elmira or up the Hanlon the cut across fife and come whipping

1:05:29down white law um and there are children on that street there's a lot of elderly people on that street

1:05:34we have a nice neighborhood and and it's very scary to be honest with you so I don't know if

1:05:39that becomes part of your um you know the builder's responsibility or the city's but someone is going to

1:05:45get hurt and then we're going to have a problem and so I think preemptive event preemptively

1:05:51something should be done prior to this building started because you're adding 678

1:05:56residents or 678 dwellings in a short span so that's just for consideration okay thank you

1:06:06actually I'm just going to get you to hang right there um are there any questions for this delegation

1:06:12yeah seeing none okay good thank you for your time any other delegations here in the room with us

1:06:20tonight okay seeing none um I will then ask for the applicant if they would like to respond to

1:06:29the delegation comments thank you madam chair and just very briefly uh the zoning is already approved

1:06:36for the site I appreciate that there may be concerns with with traffic that's not what we're

1:06:41looking at doing here today this is a technical severance just to separate the property based on

1:06:46the pre-existing zoning categories splitting off some of the high density from the mid-density

1:06:53there will be future site plan applications that would be required for any development to proceed

1:06:59it would be staff at that time looking at what entrance improvements would be required for

1:07:04future access points to these lands for development that's the stage at which time

1:07:10staff would expect staff to be looking at those kind of issues but right now we're dealing with

1:07:16a technical severance for lands with existing zoning on it it's it's it's just not the venue to

1:07:22deal with traffic at this time okay thank you and I guess I'll ask city staff if if you folks

1:07:30have any comments that you'd like to add to to the discussion yes to you chair um yes I just

1:07:36like to say that to develop these property site plan approval is required so um they will be going

1:07:41through the site plan process and when we do that we'll be evaluating the uh applications with respect

1:07:46to all of our guidelines including the transportation impact study guidelines so based on those guidelines

1:07:52I don't know what the answer is yes they need to do a traffic study or no they don't need to I don't

1:07:56know that yet but we will be evaluating against the guidelines to determine if that's going to be a

1:08:00submission requirement separately I'm just as the resident had mentioned traffic coming as part of

1:08:08city just determining where they want to do traffic coming irrespective of a development

1:08:12adjacent is is sort of a separate process through our traffic department I don't have an answer

1:08:17as to what the plans are immediately or what what um intent they have in the future to put in

1:08:24speed bumps or or things like that that were mentioned um that can be answered by contacting

1:08:28the traffic department but it isn't directly related to the development itself okay thank you

1:08:36actually that's helpful I was going to ask that question so I appreciate the preemptive answer

1:08:41there um okay then I think at this point we will go to the committee and see if there is a motion

1:08:54member Spears I move that we approve this application with the uh with the suggestions of

1:09:00city staff with the change in wording on the first three that say that adds or equivalent

1:09:07okay thank you is there a seconder member Fitzpatrick seconds okay is there any discussion on the

1:09:12motion seeing none then I think we are over to Madam Secretary Treasurer for a vote please

1:09:21committee members please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the motion

1:09:25which is to approve the application with the staff recommending conditions as well as the

1:09:30amendment um in wording to the first three conditions vice chair good fellow in favor

1:09:36member Fitzpatrick in favor member Membraneo in favor member Mir in favor member Ross in favor

1:09:44and member Spears in favor that's caring your application has been approved thanks for your time

1:09:52okay Madam Secretary Treasurer if you can call the next application please the next application

1:10:00is file the files b-63 slash 25 and b-64 slash 25 consent to create two new residential lots with

1:10:09one retained residential lot at 81 Dean Avenue I'll note for those attending remotely if you

1:10:15wish to speak to this application you can do so by calling the number displayed on the screen

1:10:19that number is 519-822-1260 extension 2524 and when you call in staff will give you

1:10:27instructions on how you can delegate remotely I'll also note for the committee that correspondence

1:10:32was received after the comment deadline from Grant Wharton the owner of the property in response to

1:10:38questions or concerns that were raised and that correspondence has been circulated to the committee

1:10:43members and staff thank you the applicant is present so I'll ask you to state your name for

1:10:51the committee jeff Biesman from Van Hart and surveying agent for the for Mr Wharton the property

1:10:57owner who's with us this afternoon okay thank you and was the sign posted as per the planning

1:11:02act requirements yes and have you received city staff comments and do you have any are you are

1:11:08you in agreement I am in agreement I've received the comments wouldn't mind taking a couple minutes

1:11:13just to review the application yep you have 10 minutes so please go ahead if you could throw it

1:11:18on the screen so maybe you could zoom in a little bit but this is the property it's on Dean Avenue

1:11:26the proposal is to split the property into three parcels you can see that the two outside ones are

1:11:32a bit wider with this is 8.9 on the two two outside ones that they're a bit wider the one in the

1:11:39middle of 7.1 meters you can also see that we are suggesting side yards of a one and a half meters on

1:11:46the two sides the idea is this is going to be a a townhouse of three units there were some comments

1:11:56from the OURNA that's old university neighborhood residents association group if I got that acronym

1:12:03right concern about whether this was going to be built for students intentionally and it's not

1:12:10Mr Wharton plans to sell these individual units as they are you may have seen the house plans and

1:12:17they are shown here in this little presentation before we go to that I just want to just talk about

1:12:24this for a minute in that we're suggesting the front yards to be about 11 meters from the front

1:12:29that is seems kind of large but it's kind of split between the house on the left and the house on the

1:12:34right in terms of it's kind of sort of in the middle of the same similar setbacks to those two

1:12:40homes the other comment I can make is that because this is such a large lot our backyards are quite

1:12:46large too with if I can read that sorry 10 meter 15 meter 15 meter rear yard setback so this is the

1:12:55these are large backyards there's no plan at to put 80 use in the backyard maybe we could go with

1:13:03the house plans quickly so it's the front facade you can see those dormers on the top are fake

1:13:11they're for show so it's not that we're having a third floor if you go on to the next one

1:13:19a side view you can go on another side next one the backyard there's going to be decks on the

1:13:27on the back if you go on that's the basement I believe and the basement could eventually like

1:13:38the future owners if they want to make it a an apartment we believe that they can but that's

1:13:43not how mr. Wharton is building it necessarily but this is how it's this these are the basement

1:13:50plans if you go to the next one that's the main floor as you can see the main thing I want to

1:13:56point out there is there's no plans for bedrooms on that floor and if you go to the last the next

1:14:01one that's the upstairs three bedrooms and a very large one of which is a very large master

1:14:08bedroom so this is not being set up for in say three apartments in it okay that's my main point

1:14:15of showing those buildings maybe the next one that shows a that's pretty pretty nice rendering of

1:14:23what it's going to look like um city staff have been supportive of the application um also uh grant

1:14:33forwarded these drawings to the orna uh group and and we just received a comment from um

1:14:43mr. Lawson who represents the group and I just have to remember the exact words

1:14:55but mr. Lawson basically say hey the drawings look great that's kind of what he's what he said

1:15:00and he represents the orna group so I'd be happy to answer any questions I think it's a great infill

1:15:07project I think that's what this is the kind of thing that was envisioned with the changes in the

1:15:12bylaw that we just went through okay thank you for the the additional detail uh and the responses to

1:15:21some of the concerns that were raised by by communication from the community um uh city

1:15:28staff do you have any comments to add at this time no okay uh then I think we can open the floor to

1:15:37questions from committee members any questions for the applicant or city staff

1:15:43no seeing none okay then uh we'll go over to delegations madam secretary treasurer do we have

1:15:49any delegations I can confirm we haven't received any delegation requests okay thank you is there

1:15:56anyone here in the room who would like to come forward and uh delegate on this application

1:16:01okay then I think at this point um we can go over to oh actually sorry oh no okay

1:16:13you're getting ready uh great well with that then we can go to committee and uh see if there's

1:16:20a motion it seems like members Fitzpatrick may have one for us I propose that we uh accept the

1:16:26um request as suddenly now I'm speechless um we accept the application with the condition set

1:16:39up by the city thank you is there a seconder member Ross okay so then uh is there any discussion

1:16:47on this application okay seeing none then madam secretary treasurer can you please call the vote

1:16:54committee members please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the motion

1:16:59which is to approve the applications with the recommended conditions vice chair good fellow

1:17:04in favor member Fitzpatrick in favor member mambrenio in favor member mir in favor member ross

1:17:12in favor and member spears in favor that's carried wonderful thank you your application

1:17:18has been approved thanks for your time thank you okay on to the next one so madam secretary

1:17:25treasurer can you call the next application please the next application is file a dash 81

1:17:33slash 25 variances permit reduced front and side yard setbacks for proposed roofed front porch and

1:17:39second floor balcony at 35 charles street I'll note for those attending remotely if you wish to speak

1:17:44to this application you can do so by calling the number displayed on the screen that number is 519

1:17:49822 1260 extension 2524 thank you is the application applicant here

1:17:59is the applicant present okay wonderful welcome can you state your name for the record please and

1:18:05your relationship Chloe from bankside design studio um authorized agent um representing the

1:18:11clients or the homeowners okay thank you was the sign posted as per the planning act requirements

1:18:17correct yes okay and have you received staff comments and are you in agreement yes okay wonderful

1:18:23you have 10 minutes to add any additional information you'd like to share please go ahead um just

1:18:30reviewing um the comments that the uh minor variance we applied for for the um reduced

1:18:40front yard inside yard setback for the covered patio or porch um is no longer required uh just

1:18:46because um zoning and were able to identify this as at legal non-conforming uh and they had mentioned

1:18:55in their staff notes uh that it no longer requires a minor variance other than that uh I have no

1:19:02further comments to add okay thank you I will just go over to check with city staff anything to add

1:19:12no shaking hands okay great then I think we can open the floor to committee members if you have

1:19:17any questions for the applicant or city staff okay um I did have one question I just want to make

1:19:28sure I understand which um which minor variance is no longer required it looks like there are ab and

1:19:38c could maybe city staff or the applicant just clarify which one is no longer required um yeah

1:19:49I can definitely comment on that I'm just pulling up the documents here um so variance a um which is

1:20:01the left interior sorry side yard setback um and then the variance b as well so the front yard

1:20:10setbacks of 0.6 meters um variance c uh which is for the um the second floor sunroom being converted

1:20:21into a balcony is what uh we are required for and to the chair I just confirmed that that is correct

1:20:30sorry I was looking at the same time um as the applicant and she beat me to it um the front porch

1:20:37as it's remaining on its existing footprint with existing setback existing height volume

1:20:45so staff can consider that legal non-conforming and it's just the change of the second story

1:20:52sunroom to balcony which is variance c which requires the minor variance okay thank you that's

1:21:02helpful clarification uh and I see that there are no uh conditions recommended so I guess there are

1:21:10no conditions that need to change then as well okay seeing nodding heads that's good okay uh thank

1:21:18you for that clarification um madam secretary treasurer actually I'll just check in are there any

1:21:23other questions no okay um any delegations please madam chair I can confirm no delegation requests

1:21:32any delegations in the audience no delegation delegations here either okay uh moving forward

1:21:40then to a motion member mir please yeah move for the approval of the seconder member membrano

1:21:52any discussion on this application seeing none madam secretary treasurer can you please call the vote

1:21:58thank you chair committee members please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the

1:22:04motion which is to approve the application and we're noting that variances a and b are no longer

1:22:10required so those variance requests are withdrawn and it's uh recommending approval of variance c

1:22:16with no conditions vice chair good fellow in favor member fits patrick in favor member membrano

1:22:25member mir in favor member ross in favor and member sebears in favor that's carried okay your

1:22:32application has been approved thanks for your time this evening thank you to care thanks um

1:22:39madam secretary treasurer I believe we have one more application we do there's one last application

1:22:46file our two last um applications here I'm sorry I meant one file b-66-25 it's a request for

1:22:59validation certificate for 935 south gate drive I'll note for those who want to delegate remotely

1:23:05if you wish to speak to this application you can call 519-822-1260 extension 2524

1:23:12okay thank you welcome I can see the applicant online it looks like you are on mute currently

1:23:20okay wonderful yes if you could go ahead and state your name and your relationship to the

1:23:26applicant please good afternoon madam chair good afternoon committee I am the lawyer for the

1:23:31property owner which is nomen tell GP Inc and the applicant in this matter okay thank you and was the

1:23:39sign posted for the planning act requirements so madam chair I knew you were going to ask me that

1:23:45there is no corollary regulation for validation certificates for posting of notice

1:23:53so there wasn't a sign posted but I I can absolutely confirm that one is not required under the

1:24:01planning act for this type of application okay and so if you need anything else from me on that

1:24:07happy to provide it now I'm seeing some nods here from city staff so I think we are all good with that

1:24:16and have you received city's or sorry staff comments and are you in agreement yes thank you very much

1:24:22madam chair we've had an opportunity to review the staff comments and the report we have no

1:24:27concerns with the conditions that are proposed we think that staff did a really excellent job of

1:24:33summarizing the reason that we're here this afternoon I'm happy to provide a brief summary

1:24:40if that would be helpful but I do think it might be helpful yeah absolutely okay and and so just

1:24:46to break in I want to make sure that you're aware you have 10 minutes for your comments but I'll

1:24:50let you go ahead at this point thank you yes okay happy to do that um so this is an application oh thank

1:24:58you very much this is an athlete and I think if everyone can see the colors there that may help

1:25:03so as I mentioned before this is an application under section 57 of the planning act for a

1:25:09validation certificate and anytime you're looking at a validation certificate you need a little bit

1:25:15of history because the purpose of a validation certificate is to correct a historic usually

1:25:22inadvertent contravention of the planning act so what you're looking at here is a property in green

1:25:30and red known as 935 south gate drive and in blue the property beside it is known as 945 south gate

1:25:40drive those properties are all currently improved with industrial proper industrial buildings back

1:25:47in 2020 2011 um a consent to sever 935 from 945 was granted by the committee of adjustment

1:25:59and then a year later in 2012 a lot addition was approved and that's that little red strip I don't

1:26:06know if uh someone could zoom in a little bit on the plan they're up on the screen or if everyone's

1:26:12able to see it but in there you'll see you can see part nine there's a little piece part 10 as well

1:26:18but it's a small piece of land was moved from being part of 945 to being part of 935 through a lot

1:26:26addition um at the time that all these consents were being granted they were being formalized

1:26:34through self to self transfers so the owner of the property went through the consent process

1:26:40and when the certificate of official was issued the owner then registered a transfer back to itself

1:26:46in order to formalize the transfer that happened with the primary consent in 2011 and then again

1:26:53in 2012 when the lot addition occurred so that little red strip was added to 935 uh another

1:27:00self to self transfer was registered fast forward to 2013 and the owner of the property 935 sells

1:27:11the property now to a new owner and does that while the original owner still owns the property in

1:27:18blue 945 now that is where the issue arises because as I'm sure this this committee or is very

1:27:28familiar with when you do a lot additions you usually do them as a stipulated consent meaning

1:27:34that you can transfer that red piece one time on its own to the the property next door but after that

1:27:43it still merges with anything else so any further transfer of the red strip is subject to the planning

1:27:50act so the issue arises when the red and the green are sold while the owner still owns the blue

1:28:00that is a technical contravention of the planning act I think it's very clear from the fact that two

1:28:07committees of adjustment approved certificates approved consents to create what is now 935 that

1:28:13there was a clear intent to create 935 as a parcel of land went through the whole process at that

1:28:21time has been developed there's no plan before you right now to do any new construction or create

1:28:29any new lots but this issue needs to be remedied through the issuance of a validation certificate

1:28:36so that's what's being asked for here under the planning act section 57 committees of

1:28:46adjustments council are asked to when they're asked to look at validation certificates the

1:28:52requirement really is to consider similar criteria that you would consider if you were looking at a

1:28:58consent in this case though these two properties 935 and 945 have already gone through that process

1:29:07back in 2011 2012 and as you can see from the staff comments there's no issue with respect to

1:29:14those two lots carrying on and I don't think there's any concern from anyone so this is really a

1:29:20classic example of a scenario where a validation certificate is needed just to correct a historic

1:29:27inadvertent contravention of the planning act and that's why we're here this afternoon so I'm

1:29:32very happy to answer any questions I can add detail if it's needed I would say once again that

1:29:41the staff report or the staff comments here do a very excellent job of pulling this all together

1:29:47and articulating it so I think I'll leave it there at that at this point subject to any questions

1:29:54okay thank you um yes this one was a little unclear to me but that was very helpful so I

1:30:00appreciate the detail um city staff do you have folks have anything to add on this one

1:30:06seeing shaking hands okay uh so then committee members do we have questions for either the

1:30:11applicant or city staff no um are there any delegations madam secretary treasurer

1:30:19madam chair I can confirm no delegation requests okay uh is there anyone in the audience

1:30:26it's a very empty audience at this point uh seeing no one I think then we can uh move forward to

1:30:34the committee for a motion uh member ross um I move that we approve with conditions as identified

1:30:42by staff okay thank you is there a seconder member mambrenio seconds okay any discussion on the motion

1:30:51seeing none then I think madam secretary if you could call the vote please

1:30:55committee members please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the motion

1:31:00which is to approve the application with the recommended conditions vice chair good fellow

1:31:06in favor member fits Patrick in favor member mambrenio in favor member mir in favor member ross

1:31:15in favor and member spears in favor that's scary wonderful your application has been approved

1:31:21thanks for your time this afternoon thank you very much madam chair thank you committee okay at

1:31:29this point uh we have no more applications and I've confirmed with the secretary treasurer that

1:31:34there are no staff comments this month uh so at this point I will ask for a member to motion to

1:31:40adjourn yes member fits Patrick motions is there a seconder member spears uh so all those in favor

1:31:50please raise your hands okay that's uh unanimous and we are adjourned thank you