Committee of Adjustment

3:32Hi, Tedista.

3:34Hi, Member Meir. We can hear you okay.

3:37Okay, that's fine. I just wanted to check.

3:39You haven't started, right?

3:41We'll be starting shortly.

3:44Okay. Take care.

4:38Good afternoon, Guelph.

4:39I'd like to call to order the September 4th, 2025 hearing of the Guelph Committee of Adjustment.

4:45This special hearing is being held to consider the applications that were originally scheduled for the August 14th meeting,

4:52which was rescheduled due to a network outage.

4:56This hearing is being held in a hybrid format with attendees appearing in person and or remotely,

5:02and is being live-streamed and recorded.

5:04Please be advised that public hearings form part of the public record,

5:08and the words, names, and images of those participating shall be recorded and posted online.

5:15Before I outline the hearing format for today,

5:18if you are watching online and wish to speak to an application that's listed on the agenda,

5:23and you've not yet submitted a request in advance of the hearing,

5:27please call the number displayed on the screen now, which is 519-822-1260 extension 2524.

5:37That number again is 519-822-1260 extension 2524,

5:44and you will receive instructions on how to participate.

5:48For those attending the hearing in person, you will also be given a chance to address the committee.

5:52A final call for delegations will be made when each applicant is called.

5:57The agenda for this hearing has been posted online at gulf.ca forward slash c-o-f-a.

6:05I will remind all committee members and staff who are participating in the hearing

6:10to please mute your microphone when not in use.

6:13Applicants will be unmuted when their application is called.

6:17I'd also like to share the format that we'll be using to navigate through each application.

6:23Each applicant will be called by the Secretary of Treasure,

6:26and the calling number for those wishing to speak to an application shall be displayed on the screen.

6:32Afterwards, the applicant will be given the opportunity to add anything further to their application to a maximum of 10 minutes.

6:41You'll hear a chime when there are 30 seconds left and another when the 10 minutes have elapsed.

6:47If you are the applicant and have nothing further to add, then you can simply say so.

6:52Following this, for some files, staff may provide a brief presentation.

6:57The committee will then be able to ask questions of the applicant and or staff.

7:03After that, we will hear from members of the public who wish to comment on an application.

7:08Please note that all comments should be addressed through myself the chair.

7:13Please avoid repeating concerns already stated by others and focus on adding new information.

7:20Comments are limited 10 minutes or less.

7:23You'll hear a chime when there is 30 seconds left and another when the 10 minutes have elapsed.

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

7:34your presentation shall be displayed on the screen and remote is available at the podium for delegates in person to advance the slides.

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

7:51For those watching the hearing online, if you wish to speak to an application and have not yet submitted a request in advance of the hearing,

7:59please call the number displayed on the screen now.

8:04For those attending the hearing in person, you will be given a chance to come forward to the podium and address the committee.

8:11Once all comments from the public have been heard, the applicant or staff will be given an opportunity to reply to the comments made.

8:19Finally, as chair, I will turn to the committee for a motion and deliberation as well as a vote on the application.

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

8:39Our secretary-treasurer will call each of the members' name and each member will respond if they are in favor or opposed to the motion.

8:47And I shall announce the result of the vote.

8:51If you wish to receive a copy of the decision of an application, you must submit a written request.

9:01A written request can be made by contacting staff using the contact information shown on the screen.

9:08To receive a copy of the decision, please email cofaatgwealth.ca with your name and the file number you're interested in.

9:18Please note that owners and applicants automatically receive a copy of the decision.

9:24At this point, it's time for our territorial acknowledgement and I will ask Member Fitzpatrick to provide that. Member Fitzpatrick.

9:32Thank you.

9:34As we gather, let us take time to reflect on our privilege to live and work in Guelph, a city built over rich indigenous histories.

9:43We are guests here and we should reflect upon the responsibility to care for this land, the people who live here today, and the generations to come.

9:51If our actions today can move us towards reconciliation, we should take pause and make those decisions with intention and gratitude.

10:00This place we call Guelph has served as traditional lands in a place of refuge for many peoples over time, but more specifically the Attawanderank and the Haudenosaunee.

10:11This land is held as the treaty lands and territory with the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation.

10:17Guelph lies directly adjacent to the Haldeman track and is part of a long-established traditional hunting ground for the six nations of the Grand River.

10:25Many First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples who have come from across Turtle Island call Guelph home today.

10:33Thank you Member Fitzpatrick.

10:36Committee members, are there any disclosures of pecuniary interest in any of the files we're discussing today?

10:43Seeing none, I'm going to ask for a motion to approve the minutes of our last meeting.

10:53Do I have a mover?

10:55Member Goodfellow and a seconder?

10:58Member Spears, is that you?

11:01Okay, and do we have a vote on that all in favor?

11:06I believe that's carried, Madam Secretary Treasurer.

11:10I've confirmed with Secretary Treasurer that we do have some deferral requests, so I'll turn it over to Madam Secretary Treasurer to address these to begin with.

11:23Madam Secretary Treasurer.

11:26Thank you Chair. There are two applications where staff is recommending deferral.

11:31First staff is recommending deferral of file A-72-25 for 65 Independence Place so that the applicant can clarify their proposal and site plan with city staff.

11:43The agent has advised that they agree to the deferral request and will be not in attendance this evening, so I'll turn it over to the chair for deferral motion for Independence Place.

11:53Thank you Madam Secretary Treasurer. May I have a motion for deferral on this item? Member Fitzpatrick and a seconder? Member Ross?

12:03There is no discussion on deferral, so I will turn it over to Madam Secretary Treasurer to call the vote please.

12:11Many members, please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the motion which is to defer the application. Chair Smith?

12:18In favor.

12:19Member Fitzpatrick? In favor.

12:21Member Goodfellow? In favor.

12:23Member Meir? In favor.

12:26Member Ross? In favor.

12:28And Member Spears? In favor.

12:30That's carried Mr. Chair.

12:32Thank you Madam Secretary Treasurer. I understand there's another motion to defer, is that correct?

12:45That's correct Mr. Chair. Staff's also recommending deferral of file A-74-25 for 83-5 Road so the applicant can clarify the requested setback.

12:57The agent has not advised if they agree with the deferral request but is in attendance virtually this evening. So I'll leave it over to you Mr. Chair to proceed with that application.

13:09Thank you. Is the applicant or the agent present? I believe you're muted.

13:29No.

13:30There you are. Can you state your name and your relationship to the application for the record please?

13:36Of course. First name, Justin, last name Kelly, K-E-L-L-Y. I am representing the owner in regards to 83-5.

13:43Thank you. And can you tell me if the sign was posted as per the Planning Act?

13:48It was.

13:49And have you read staff's comments specifically the recommending deferral and are you in agreement?

13:56We have read them and we tend to use our time here this evening to just kind of clarify some of those concerns and hope for the deferral can kind of be removed and move forward with approval.

14:07So if I just want to be clear that you disagree with the deferral recommendation and would like to make your presentation based on the merits and perhaps

14:22I have a decision today.

14:25That's correct.

14:27Okay. Well, in that case, you have 10 minutes to address the committee and you may make as much use of that time as you like.

14:35I appreciate that. Thank you very much. Again, just here to represent 83-5 Street in regards to the carport. Again, there are a number of considerations in regards to this application, but I want to focus just on the fact that again, it is a carport.

14:53There was a carport. It was approved for permit. It's been built.

14:57And since then, the owner has decided they would like to enclose that carport.

15:02So again, planning comments, which are in the applications kind of talk about the fact that there is a you're allowed up to 60% of the total perimeter and closed by walls, doors or windows.

15:12In this case, the front wall is there. The rear wall is already built. So really this application is to talk about the sidewall.

15:21And in this case, the sidewall is the wall closest to the property line.

15:27The overall footprint of the carport, the height, the massing, the structure, it's already there. It already exists. We can't really change or affect any of that of that.

15:36So, you know, in regards to the setback, the planning notes that a 1.5-meter setback is intended to be provided to provide access to the rear yard for maintenance.

15:47Currently, we have a 1.2-meter setback on the right-hand side.

15:51We've also intended to provide, well, it's actually noted in these particular drawings, a large overhead door at the front of the garage and at the rear of the garage to ensure that maintenance and any type of vehicle, anything like that can get to that rear yard and provide maintenance.

16:07Again, since the proposed garage is one-story and building height, it will not exceed the height of the existing building unit.

16:18Both concerns raised by the planning committee or the planning staff, I should say, regarding the maintenance application and the proposed massing have kind of been addressed.

16:29Therefore, these reasons were believed.

16:36I guess the intention here is that we almost looked at the planning comments as almost misleading.

16:42Again, we do have maintenance to the rear yard and the actual structure of the building can't be changed. It's already existing. It's already there.

16:49In regard to the setback, as you can kind of see there, it's a 2-foot required side yard setback, 0.61 meters.

17:00That is to the roof overhang. It's 0.314 meters or 3 feet to the face of the proposed wall that we're talking about, the wall closest to the property line.

17:10The planning comments also recommend that the garage be limited to a maximum height.

17:17Again, that maximum height of 3.7 meters already exists and currently meets the requirements suggested by the planning department.

17:24They did suggest a length of 9.7 meters. Currently, the garage is 10 meters.

17:31So, 0.3 meters or 1 feet larger than the suggested limit by the planning department. Again, we can't change that dimension. It's already built. It's already in place.

17:41So, unfortunately, we can't necessarily meet that recommendation.

17:45Just moving on to the building service comments. They note that the width of the existing driveway exceeds the 6.5 meters in maximum driveway width.

17:55It's important to clarify that this existing width existed prior to this application when the carport was approved, the driveway already existed.

18:04The owner has since gone ahead and redone it. So, it does look obviously new, but the width was already existing.

18:12There was no comment raised at the time of the permanent approval for the carport regarding the width of the driveway.

18:18Maybe that's because it was existing. Maybe that was an oversight.

18:22I mean, the owner in good faith is willing to adjust, kind of work with the city and adjust the width of that driveway if needed.

18:28But he just doesn't want to limit the decision from the committee this evening based on the width of the driveway simply because it was already an existing driveway.

18:36The building service comments also ask the owner to register the property under the small multi unit residential by law with the city of wealth.

18:47The owner is more than willing to do that. Currently, there are 3 units in this particular building. He's willing to move forward with those. Again, we're not necessarily sure if that's, you know, some, we're moving with with approval on this.

19:01Does that need to be a condition on the on the variance? I'm not necessarily sure the owner is willing to do it. He's already talked with Bruce with the planning department to move forward with that.

19:10So again, more than willing to do it. If we want to make a condition tonight, that's fine. But just something to consider.

19:17Finally, the building service comments ask for a deferral on this application to correct the setback application. Again, it's a little bit misleading. The setback already exists.

19:28The garage, the carports already there.

19:31We can't change that. So I guess in this case, the deferral is a little bit misleading just mainly because I'm not sure if it's a clarification of the particular site plan, whether it's 3 feet or 2 feet.

19:42But again, it is 3 feet. It already exists. We can't necessarily change that.

19:48And so that's why we're kind of suggesting this case, not necessarily to move forward with deferral.

19:54Hopefully for approval, mainly because there's not a whole lot we can do if we deferral.

20:00We would simply just say, okay, it's 3 feet and kind of move forward from there. So those are our particular comments tonight. Again, we're welcome. Any questions.

20:09Thank you for giving us this time.

20:13Thank you. Many members. Do we have any questions of this applicant member Fitzpatrick?

20:19Through your chair. So if I'm reading the notes correctly and I'm reading these reports, this carport was built with the proper building permit was inspected and passed. And did it get a minor variance at the time for that?

20:38That setback.

20:41That's already an that's already in existence.

20:50Did you hear the question, Mr Kelly?

20:53I did. Yeah, sorry.

20:56Yeah, it's a good question. So in this case, the carport was, it did require building permit to be built city. Well, if acquires would do setbacks for cardboard structures.

21:05So in this particular case, it did.

21:08Seek a building permit and get a building permit approved and met all the requirements at the time. So it did not require minor variance when it was built.

21:16So moving forward, the owner before the permit was closed, decided he wanted to turn that into a garage. Okay, he's provided 2 walls, the front and the rear.

21:24He hasn't enclosed the third wall, making it an actual garage at this point.

21:31Because of that, the current permit for the carport is still open.

21:37So if the carport and the roof were to be approved, there would be a revision to that particular building permit to then turn that carport into a garage and that permit would then form closed.

21:50So, your question to a degree, 3 of my chair.

21:54Can I ask a question of staff?

21:57To staff.

22:00So, had this application come in as designed and an application to have a garage in there.

22:09Would that have been approved and obviously it would have needed a minor variance. Would that have been something that would have been.

22:17Approvable.

22:18One of a better word at the time.

22:20Through you, Mr. Chair to member Fitzpatrick.

22:32It would, if there was a, if it was supposed to be a carport, it would not be.

22:40I'm sorry, it would be.

22:42Portable if my apologies. One sec. I just need to review my notes.

22:49This woman.

23:02My apologies for that member Fitzpatrick.

23:05But over look while looking at my notes. Notice that carports require a minimum interior side yard setback of 0.6 meters.

23:13Whereas an attached garage require a setback of 1.5 meters. So it is quite a quite a significant difference between the 2 different types of structures.

23:27Is that an entry question member Fitzpatrick?

23:29Yes, sir.

23:30Thank you. Any other questions member Ross? Yes, please.

23:36To Mr. Kelly.

23:39So.

23:41The current building.

23:43The wall that's adjacent to the property line.

23:47Is it currently 0.91 meters from the property line to the wall?

23:53That's good question. Again, currently that wall isn't constructed, but the intention is that when it is, it would be 3 feet from the property line.

24:02In this case, 0.3 or 3, 1, 4 meters.

24:06So you're proposing to take that wall down and construct a new wall.

24:12If you can imagine currently that wall is fully open. So it's a carport structure. So it consisted of a few columns, a raised beam and the roof structure on top of that.

24:22So there was no walls. So the wall closest to the property line does not exist.

24:27Meaning that there's just some columns there right now. And with the intention is as for if this was to be approved, a wall would go there with a 3 foot setback to the property line.

24:37And the overhang.

24:39Is the difference between the 0.91 and the 0.61.

24:46That's correct. So on the particular site plan, the 2 feet is measured to the overhang where the 3 feet is measured to the face of the wall.

24:53And I should mention, and maybe a planning staff can comment on this, but the setback requirements are traditionally measured to the face of wall.

25:01So in this case, we're asking for essentially a 2 foot reduction in the setback. We require 5 feet. And we're suggesting that in this case, we move forward with a minor variance for 3 feet.

25:12So the columns in relation to the property line, are they 0.91 from the property line?

25:20That's correct.

25:22Okay. And then the overhang is what takes you to 0.61 meters from the property line.

25:29That's correct.

25:31In terms of the movement from the front of the property to the rear.

25:37Currently, you have 0.91 meters. So if you're taking a lot more, whatever, that's the area that you've got to get from the front to the back.

25:48That's correct. In terms of maintenance, not only do we have the 3 feet. We also have the garage itself again, because we haven't overhead door at the front and the rear, as well as the 1.2 meters on the right hand set property.

26:01Thank you.

26:04Any other questions of the applicant member? Good fellow.

26:08Yes, actually through the chair to the applicant. Can I just confirm with you that the height of the existing structure then is the 3.7 meters?

26:17That's correct. Again, that's based on how building height is measured in the by law.

26:25So that is not the physical height of the building. I could double check that, but I believe that is standard building height in the building over the gable and roof system is measured to the center point from Eve to Ridge.

26:37And so the 3.7 meters that was suggested.

26:40This particular building already meets that requirement.

26:44Okay. And follow up question then, if I may, through the chair.

26:49The, there was some discussion about the driveway with and that the owner would be amenable to reducing that driveway with. Is that something that.

27:01That they would agree to if we made it a condition.

27:07Yeah, they would be open to that we've talked about that particular item, mainly just because.

27:13It is tough there is already an existing driver there. It was approved for the carport. The driver didn't change with.

27:20So, so really in this case, just because we want to add essentially a wall. Now he has to change them with the driver, which in my understanding hit from his point of view is very frustrating.

27:30But he's also under the impression that if he were to have to move forward with that, if that were to become a condition in this case.

27:37He would do that, but that would likely result in probably a sidewalk or something going back. If you can imagine, there's 2 feet of gravel there.

27:45It would be quite a bit of work to take all that out and then go back with grass or something landscaping.

27:50Okay, that's great. And then I guess I have a couple of questions through to city staff. So through the chair.

27:59They have a question about the 9.7 meters and the recommendation to limit it the length of the.

28:06The garage just 9.7 meters. I think we heard the applicant say that it is the existing structure is longer than that is there.

28:15Perhaps some clarification on why 9.7 versus 10 or the actual existing length of that.

28:22Building through the chair to member good fellow. I'll just note. It was probably just a calculation mistake on my behalf. I just did check the building permit file and 10 meters. I am confirming that.

28:36I also just want to note for clarification. The side yard setback is to the wall of the building, not the eaves.

28:45So that's the discrepancy with what the applicant has been asking for and what I have viewed on the building permit application.

28:54What shows a 0.9 meter setback to the wall of the proposed garage.

29:03And I'll just also note the driveway width. If you look back on the building permit, it hasn't been brought up, but now this is development that requires a committee of adjustment application.

29:15And I've historically looked back at the driveway widths and it has encroached over the years to become wider and wider and the property does have an additional driveway on the right hand side that is already legal non conforming.

29:33And has substantial width. So staff is requesting the driveway reduction to meet the zoning bylaw since it has evolved over the years.

29:49Thank you. Actually, that's very helpful because that answers one of my next questions or at least part of my next question, which was about the driveway width.

29:58So I just wanted to confirm that it would be in cities recommendation that we include a condition if we were going to approve this that a condition be included to reduce the width.

30:10Through the chair staff would appreciate that. Thank you. Yes. Thank you.

30:17I think that's it for now. I appreciate the answers. Thank you.

30:22Any other questions of staff or the applicant? I would like to ask staff.

30:30I'm personally reluctant to when we're presented with something like this to design things on the fly.

30:40I prefer to see a nice clean application to come forward either to be deferred, accepted or rejected and the conversation about that.

30:50I'd like to ask staff their opinion on what's being proposed on the fly here.

30:58If it's supportable and it is considered minor in nature.

31:03To you, Mr. Chair, would you be able to please clarify or perhaps the applicant which design is being proposed at this moment on the fly, per se?

31:29I guess that's a root of my question is why I'm reluctant to support not deferring this because I.

31:40There have been a lot of questions asked about trying to get to the nut of how far is the setback? What about the driveway width?

31:48Is how high is this? And we're essentially performing a little bit of design here in coming up with something that we could vote on other than deferral.

32:00So my question, I guess, is given the four tests, is this supportable? Is this minor in nature?

32:11And I understand the situation that you're finding yourself in, staff, because there's nothing in front of you other than words that have described what's being proposed.

32:25Thank you for a moment to debrief, Mr. Chair.

33:02Yes, if the proposal contained an attached garage with that was one story in height and with a 0.9 meter setback, that is something that staff could support through a building permit application.

33:23Okay, I appreciate you calling an audible on this. That's very much appreciated. Thank you.

33:31Are there any other questions either of the applicant of staff? Madam Secretary Treasurer, do we have anyone online who would like to delegate on this?

33:40Mr. Chair, I can confirm no delegation requests. Okay. And is there anyone in the chamber who would like to speak to this application?

33:49Seeing none committee members, what is your wish? Remember, good fellow.

34:02I'll put something on the table. So I move we defer. I've been convinced by some of the discussion here that I don't think all of the details are quite straight in my head either.

34:13So I move that we defer this evening.

34:15Thank you. Is there a seconder on that? Member Fitzpatrick, there is no discussion on a deferral. Madam Secretary Treasurer, would you call the vote please?

34:26Thank you, chair committee members. Please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the motion, which is to defer the application. Chair Smith.

34:34In favor. Member Fitzpatrick. In favor. Member Goodfellow. In favor. Member Meir. In favor. Member Ross. In favor. And member Spears. In favor.

34:46That's deferred, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Madam Secretary Treasurer. Mr. Kelly, your application has been deferred.

34:54Thank you very much. Madam Secretary Treasurer, at this point, do we have another deferral or are we moving into the rest of the agenda?

35:10Mr. Chair, I can confirm no other deferral requests. So we'll move into the rest of the agenda if you're ready.

35:17I will ask you to call the next applicant, please.

35:20The next application is file A-65-25, variance to permit reduced exterior side yard setback for proposed residential addition at 80 St. Arnold Street.

35:35For those attending remotely, if you wish to speak to this application, you can do so by calling the number displayed on the screen. The number is 519-822-1260 extension 2524.

35:46And when you call in staff, we'll give you instructions on how you can delegate remotely.

35:50Good afternoon. Can you state your name and your relationship to the application, please?

35:58Jeff Buseman of Van Hart and Surveying, applicant for the property owner.

36:03Thank you. And can you tell me if the sign was posted as per the Planning Act?

36:07Yes, it was.

36:08And have you read staff's comments, and are you in agreement?

36:11Yes, I have. I have read them and I am in agreement.

36:14Well, with that, I have the honor of letting you have 10 minutes to address the committee.

36:20I think we'll keep it simple. Do you have a drawing there for that one?

36:25Yes. So we were with the committee on this property before you may recollect the initial idea was to have a semi-detached severance.

36:35You can see that St. Arnold is on the right there and the property would have been split in half.

36:40To make that happen, we needed a very small exterior side yard on this public lane, laneway here.

36:47That was not supported. So we went back to the drawing board and discussion with staff and there was agreement that an exterior side yard of three meters would be appropriate.

36:59And so that you can see on the red box there in the red circled number there, that's three meters to the new building.

37:07Down at the more at the front, that's the that roof represents the existing building. It's an older home and it's got a much smaller side yard.

37:16So that's an existing and place we can't do anything about that.

37:19So the request is for a three meter side yard instead of six.

37:22What is going to happen is that the as you can see on the left hand side of this drawing that there's going to be that laneway.

37:30You can come from that laneway and drive right into that back parking area.

37:35And there will be at least three parking spots there.

37:37City staff have asked that the parking spot along St. Arnold be removed so that this property will have one driveway.

37:45The benefit of having the drive on St. Arnold removed is that it'll provide a better landscape or streetscape.

37:53That's the word streetscape for that that section.

37:56So I think it's straightforward staff supporting our client.

37:59We have no objections to how it's set up.

38:02So we seek your support and happy to answer any questions.

38:07Thank you, Mr. Puse.

38:08When you members do we have any questions of the applicant?

38:14Yes, member Goodfellow.

38:16Yes, thank you through the chair.

38:18And actually, I'm not sure if this is for the applicant or city staff, but a question about the traffic flow on that public laneway.

38:25Now that the entrance is coming off of the public laneway into the parking lot for the development.

38:32Is there a kind of a thought to one way direction of traffic flow on that laneway?

38:39Perhaps I missed a one way sign, but I don't think I saw one.

38:42And I did note how tight the laneway is that's coming down adjacent to the property.

38:49So I guess my question is, like, is there kind of a traffic flow consideration here for how that traffic is coming through the laneway to access the development?

38:58You're right. There's no one way signs, at least when I visited.

39:03Prior to the 1st hearing, I haven't visited since it because of the grade and so on. It seems like there's an honor system that everybody comes to it from the other street to the back.

39:13I can't remember what it's called and comes down the hill and turns out the short time that I was there.

39:18I saw all the cars maneuver out. Probably a good idea.

39:21So you staff take back to their traffic department for the idea of making this a one way lane.

39:26Certainly we can't make that a condition of this. It's probably a good idea.

39:29If I was living there, I think that'd be the way to go.

39:32Now I do, I say that, but you can sort of see the, if you were to come up the public laneway from St.

39:39Turner. No, the property on the left, they have a garage there and their garage doors face that lane.

39:46So you can just sort of see it there. They might not like it because they would have to come in from St.

39:51Orno, but I think that's a neighborhood discussion, traffic department discussion more than ours.

39:57And thank you. I appreciate that clarity.

40:00It was more at a curiosity and just how that was going to work. So I appreciate the answer. Thank you.

40:06Thank you. Member good fellow. Any other questions for the applicant seeing none.

40:14Does staff any comment representation on this? Okay. And then I will ask our secretary treasure if there are any delegates on this.

40:25Mr. Chair, I can confirm no delegation requests.

40:28Okay. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to delegate on this seeing none.

40:35Madam secretary, oh, well, I think we need a motion. So at this point, I'm going to look to my colleagues for a motion member Ross.

40:49I move that it be approved. Okay. And is that.

40:55Are there conditions on that?

40:58Recommended conditions.

41:00Were there conditions identified by staff?

41:04And we have a seconder member good fellow.

41:08Is there any discussion on this motion seeing none? Madam secretary treasure. Would you call the role please?

41:17Thank you chair committee members. Please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the motion, which is to approve the application with the 3 recommended conditions.

41:27Chair Smith in favor member Fitzpatrick in favor member good fellow in favor member mere.

41:35Member Ross in favor and member Spears in favor. That's carried. Mr. chair. Thank you. Your application has been approved. Thank you.

41:51Madam secretary treasure. May we have the next applicant please.

41:56The next applications are files B dash 41 slash 25 B dash 42 slash 25 and B dash 43 slash 25 consent to create 3 new residential lots and easements for servicing and drainage with 1 retained lot at 108 Fleming road.

42:14I'll note for those attending the hearing online. If you wish to speak to this application, you can still do so by calling the number displayed on the screen that numbers 5198 2212 60 extension 2524.

42:29And when you call in staff will give you instructions on how you can delegate remotely.

42:36Is the applicant present?

42:38Oh, yes, there he is. Good afternoon. Can you state your name and your relationship to the application?

42:44Jeff Beesman and her serving representing the property owner.

42:48And can you tell me if the sign was posted as per the planning? Yes, it was. Thank you. And as you know, you have 10 minutes to address the committee.

42:57We could put up the sketch. So they, this is very wide property and older property in this neighborhood. This neighborhood has had more recent urban development across the road or a bunch of townhouses and semis, I believe.

43:17So it's a real mix of old and new in the street. Proposal here is to split this into 4 semis. You can see the lots quite deep.

43:25These units won't go that far back.

43:29When prior submitting this application, we talked to city staff about we felt that there was be a need for an easement because right now there's a catch basin in the back.

43:41If you've been to the property, this backyard is relatively low and it takes the drainage for a whole pile of properties in the area.

43:49And that catch basin then has a storm sewer currently on the left side of the property and it leads to the storm storm sewer network in the road.

43:59Need to keep that to protect the grading that and drainage system that's happening. So our proposal is to put a new catch basin in the middle and put it right between the 2 houses and bring it to the front.

44:12We felt that an easement would be appropriate. City staff recommended we don't. So we chose to the initial application, not include an easements.

44:22Then after the review of the application, city staff recommended we should put the easements in and ask for it to be deferred. So we deferred it.

44:31We put in the easements and we paid the deferral fees of 3 times $1010. And now the city staff is asking not to do the easements because of technical interpretations of the building code.

44:46Our staff has been meeting with city staff a number of times on all this going back and forth at the end of the day. We'll just we'll just live with not having easements.

44:56And that's okay for this development. Maybe, you know, there's different ways of looking at it and it's way too complex of a topic to, I think, get into at this point in time.

45:06So city staff are recommending no easements. So we're we're agreeing to that.

45:14So that a bit of a long story and I guess out of that I'd like to also request a refund of those deferral fees, if that's possible, and we can talk about that later.

45:24Otherwise this development, I'd realize there's some opposition in the neighborhood towards it. I mean, this is a very large lot. This is an opportunity to have intensification.

45:36And so city staff writes a very strong report to support the application and that it fits. And if you look at the residences across the road, it fits quite well.

45:47There'll be plenty of parking on the property for the units.

45:52And yeah, it's I'm going to say city staff is a very positive report. I don't think I need to repeat that report.

45:58I'd be happy to answer any questions or if there's any comments that committee members may have and seek your support. Thank you.

46:07Thank you. Committee members. Do we have any questions of the applicant member fits Patrick through you, Mr. Chair, and to the applicants. So if I'm hearing correctly, there won't be an easement, but the storm sewer and the catch basin and the drainage system in the back will will be rebuilt.

46:30Yes, it will. Thank you. You answered the question that I was going to ask as well.

46:40You know, I feel as if it's going to be a swim pool on the back, like it has to be done.

46:46Member Ross. Through you, Mr. Chair, to staff.

46:50So in terms of renewal or maintenance that's required to the storm water management system in the back, how would that be handled in the absence of an easement?

47:02I mean, it's it's almost like in a way it's a good question in a way it's not a whole storm. It's not a storm water manage. It's a storm sewer. Okay. It's a catch basin and sewer going through.

47:13It's not an infiltration gallery. At least there may be an infiltration guy, but that's different. Okay.

47:19It almost ended up being in in almost what I call I call it an unregistered easement. Like if the thing fails, they got to fix it and they got to get along to fix it.

47:31And right now the plan is for the current property owner to own it for at least the next five years.

47:36So there are many that are more of these in Guelph where there's rear yard catch basins and no registered easements newer subdivisions have them and I deal with them more often, but there's no registered easements for those things.

47:51Thanks.

47:54I wonder if staff could respond in terms of whether or not they're satisfied with this as a long term solution.

48:05Through the chair to you member Ross.

48:08I just want to clarify that the infrastructure there is private infrastructure.

48:13It's not city benefit infrastructure. It does. I fully agree that it needs to continue to serve the purpose that it's serving right now and capture the storm water from the neighboring properties that drain towards there and convey it successfully to the municipal sewer.

48:30As far as the question being, are we satisfied with, I think the question was, are we satisfied with what the agent saying now about moving forward with out easements.

48:41That is just a matter of the recommended conditions being satisfied later on. That's what the conditions are there for so that we can review the detailed servicing.

48:49That's been a recommended condition. The detailed storm water management report that is a recommended condition. I can't comment now if the design that we haven't seen yet is going to be able to successfully do that, but I anticipate that there's a way to do it.

49:05So we are satisfied with those conditions in place that that that seems like an acceptable way to move forward.

49:11Thank you. Yes, member.

49:19Through you, Mr chair and to staff.

49:23So I'm looking 10 years down the road and one of these semis now comes on the market for sale.

49:30How do we know that that new owner is going to be aware of what's under there and what they're going to have to potentially deal with if that system fails.

49:40If there's not an easement registered on title.

49:44Through the chair to member fits Patrick.

49:47So I think that easements are only required to be registered on title when there's benefit of some other property going through this one.

49:54The design that we would envision here would be just like any other private infrastructure, no different than a window or a driveway that it's just something that happens to be exclusively on one property exclusively owned by that one single owner.

50:10So that's part of the property that should be maintained properly. I don't see how easements in at least the division that we see for this.

50:21We don't see easements coming into play there.

50:26Maybe I'll clarify that a little bit we're not saying no easements and we didn't recommend no easements. We did not recommend approval of this particular configuration of easements.

50:37In other cases, if there's not a lot of room to work like a not a wide side yard setback and if there's a pipe in there and the setbacks only 1.5 meters, it's possible that maintenance easements could be required.

50:52We don't have that level of detail now we don't know those things, but we may ask those questions later when we're working through the conditions at a later point if this were to be approved.

51:02I hope that answers the question.

51:07I understand the technical part you're giving to me.

51:10But my concern is, and I've seen this on my own street where somebody goes to do.

51:18Some renovations and discovers they've got a storm sewer running down their driveway.

51:24And they weren't aware of that when they purchased the property.

51:28So I'm I'm looking for future down the road that a new homeowner is going to be understand what's under there and what they're responsible for is 1 part of it.

51:40And I guess, then the secondary question back to you on this is, if we approve this, then are we going to be able to capture that the spirit of what everybody here is trying to accomplish.

51:57And I think that's a fact.

51:59I think Mr. Buseman has a comment that he'd like to help you out with.

52:05I appreciate the concern is it's a good concern. And I've seen problems arise in this case we're going to have a obvious catch basin back there.

52:13I mean, that's clear. If this was just 1 house, it would have been a catch basin there.

52:19I was a purchaser saw catch basin in my backyard. I'd say, what's this all about when I buy it? Now, if you buy it with 3 feet of snow, that may be a little bit different.

52:27But you would at least know that's a catch basin is there. And, you know, what's his purpose you look at you see there's a pipe going to the street. Oh, I guess it's drain into the street. This is how I'm buying the house.

52:38So in a way, it's there if whether it's physically there. So that's the best answer I can give you on that one is that helps.

52:47Perfect. Thank you. If I may add through through you, chair, the final.

52:51Thank you. The city also has separate processes where enforcement of drainage is a regular item. We receive complaints.

53:00All over town very regularly for drainage. And I'm not sure I don't want to misquote it could be through the property standards by law or another by law, but we are able to enforce drainage concerns through an actual by law.

53:13And we have mechanisms for that, but that would be separate.

53:16Okay. Oh, member Spears through you, Mr. Chair, to the applicant.

53:24Would it be very clear on the survey, which is associated with property for a future buyer that the stuff is there.

53:35That the pipe is there that the catch basins there would it be clear? That's that's a good question.

53:41So when we do the legal survey to separate the properties.

53:50This this sewer may not be in existence yet. So we do when we do the legal service called the reference plan and we submit that as clearing one of the conditions and that's what describes the property.

54:02Later on when the house is built, we often do what we call a surveyors real property report. That's a survey presenting the location of the homes.

54:12Our obligation is to show all the constructed features. So if we see a catch basin there, we're going to show that.

54:20In this case, I'd show the pipe because I know it's important. Technically, we wouldn't have to, but I would show it there.

54:28But sometimes those surveys aren't even done. It's not necessarily a law that you have a survey showing all the constructed homes.

54:34Do we do it on all the construct forms?

54:37I don't think so. So, see wealth doesn't have a bond. I don't think if I correct me if I'm wrong.

54:42That when a new house is constructed, we typically show where the new house ended up. I don't think it's a standard requirement for closing a building permit.

54:50Be great idea. Surveyors would love it, but I got a bias here.

54:55Clearly. Thanks. Appreciate that.

54:58Any other questions of the applicant? Yes, member Ross.

55:04Again, this is through you, Mr. Chair. This is to staff.

55:09So there's going to be.

55:12Three new lots and one retained lot. Correct.

55:17And is the catch basement on one of those lots.

55:23So in terms of maintenance or renewal in the future, is that the responsibility of one owner?

55:31Is it a shared responsibility or is it the city's responsibility?

55:37To the chair, excuse me, through the chair to member Ross.

55:41I believe and perhaps Mr. Beesman could correct me if I'm wrong, but on the on the sketch, I believe the catch basins where they're shown is their existing location, not their proposed.

55:52Reconfiguration as part of the development process. So you can see on the sketch. I'm not sure if we're able to pull it up again.

55:59But you can see the existing location. It appears to be that there's 2 catch basins on the property and that they're located on 1 each on the 2 outer.

56:10Proposed parcels. They're they're sort of in light gray there in the rear yard. If.

56:15If they're possible to see there as part of the.

56:20Severance, I think before the lot would be severed, we would need to resolve the fact that the servicing.

56:29No longer complies with what we expect for single individual properties. We would expect that to be resolved through the conditions that are being recommended, particularly the servicing condition.

56:39But we wouldn't know exactly how things are going to work until we have an opportunity to see the final version of that.

56:46So we're going to have to go through the

56:49servicing drawing, but it is expected that some reconfiguration.

56:54Of the storm water infrastructure is going to be necessary in order to make lot level servicing, which is what typically we require.

57:06And I sorry, I think there was a second part of the question, which is as far as ongoing maintenance. Again, I want to emphasize that this is not city infrastructure that is privately owned infrastructure.

57:15So, to the applicant, how do you see this working out over time?

57:21The the preliminary design the moment is to have a new catch basin right in the smack in the middle.

57:27With the pipe going through. It is definitely not the city's responsibility or costs.

57:33It would be the if if the sewer was on one property, I guess it'd be the guy, the person that's working.

57:41The sewer was on one property. I guess it'd be the guy, the person that has the sewer on their place.

57:47But I think that you would hope that be a shared understanding.

57:51And that's in a way a disadvantage of not having a formal easement on this, which might specify all the shared costs infrastructure.

58:00I'm going to say this kind of thing happens a fair bit in in the city, but it might be the burden of the cost might be with just the one.

58:09If it's on the one property alone.

58:11Thank you.

58:18Any other questions?

58:20The applicant seeing none. Do city staff have anything further to add on this file?

58:30Okay, at this point, I will then ask our.

58:34Madam secretary treasure if there are delegations.

58:39Mr chair, I can confirm we do have a delegation request. The name is Tessa Dickinson and that individual is joining us via video.

58:54They seem to be here and gone.

58:58Oh, there we are. No, I'm here. Sorry.

59:01Very good. Can you state your name for the record please? Tessa Dickinson.

59:06And you have 10 minutes that you can make use of to comment on this application. Okay. Thank you very much.

59:15Good evening committee members. My name is Tessa Dickinson. My husband Thomas and I have lived at 77 Fleming Road forever. 10 years raising our 4 young children here.

59:24I'm here tonight as a mother, a neighbor and a deeply invested resident to strongly oppose the proposed development at 108 Fleming Road.

59:36My first reason being the neighborhood character and official plan intent Fleming Road is zoned low density residential and it reflects that single detached homes, large yards and mature trees.

59:49The proposal for this multiple multiple severances, semi detached units and accessory dwellings could result up into 12 units on a single lot.

59:57This type of high density development is completely out of step with the RL one zoning, which was designed to protect low density family focused communities like ours.

1:00:06Just because there are town homes and high right and a high rise nearby does not make this proposal appropriate for our street.

1:00:12This is far beyond what our official plan intends for this block. It would set a president that invites other developers to buy up lots.

1:00:19Multiply density and rapidly erode the character our zoning is meant to protect.

1:00:24Well, if prides itself on thoughtful, sustainable growth that fits within existing communities and this proposal doesn't fit it overwhelms.

1:00:32Alignment and provincial leadership even Ontario premier Doug Ford, who is known for opposing development recently said, quote, you don't put 4, 6, 8 story buildings in the middle of a community of a single dwelling homes.

1:00:44While this proposal isn't that tall, the principal is the same. It drops a disproportionately dense build into the middle of a single family street undermining community balance and good planning.

1:00:54Safety and traffic impacts Fleming Road is a narrow family or and family oriented.

1:01:00Our children play road hockey ride bikes and play at the many parks in our area and walk to school here.

1:01:05Adding the potential for 20 plus more vehicles from one from one property will create more congestion, more speeding and more danger.

1:01:11Parking overflow will push cars onto nearby streets, which we already have a problem with reduce sight lines and make it harder for children to cross safely.

1:01:19No traffic or parking impact study has been presented, but as parents, we see the risks every single day.

1:01:24Parking emergency and access maintenance. This street is a school bus and snow plow route congested parking will make winter clearing harder block buses and could abstain, obstruct emergency vehicles in emergency seconds count.

1:01:38And we can't risk that delay.

1:01:39Environmental and drainage concerns. This property has mature trees that residents on this street have been told they cannot remove.

1:01:46This build would take them down, replacing green space with hard surfaces and would create a massive lack of privacy.

1:01:51That means more storm water runoff, drainage risks for neighboring homes and a loss of local biodiversity.

1:01:58Guelph, home to Ontario's only green party MPP is known for leadership in environmental protection and low impact development.

1:02:05This project runs counter to those values replacing green canopy and permeable surfaces with pavement and density that increase increases energy use, noise and waste.

1:02:15Noise privacy and waste management. High density means more noise, more lights and more garbage bins with up to 12 units. That's dozens of bins on collection days, cluttering the streets and attracting pests.

1:02:25It also means significant loss of privacy for surrounding backyards, fundamentally changing the livability of this block.

1:02:32The notification and process gaps. Many neighbors within the 60 meter notice range never received the second notice, let alone the 1st entire households, mostly most impacted by this project were left out of this process.

1:02:43True public consultation is not about meeting the bare minimum legal bare minimum. It's about ensuring meaningful community engagement and that has not happened here.

1:02:53Strong community opposition. I've walked door to door with my neighbor and in this neighborhood speaking with dozens of residents on Fleming Road, Law Drive and nearby streets.

1:03:01The response has been overwhelmingly opposed. We have collected dozens of signatures from parents, seniors and longtime residents. This is not just the voice of a few concerned households.

1:03:10It's the united voice of the community and closing with all of this community members. This is bigger than 1 address. It's about protecting our children's safety, preserving our neighborhoods character, honoring well screen values and upholding the intent of our zoning.

1:03:23This isn't thoughtful growth. It's a shortcut that benefits 1 developer at the expense of an entire community. I urge you please reject this application and protect the street that we all call home. Thank you very much.

1:03:34Thank you very much.

1:03:36Thank you sincerely for your comments. And if you want to wait online, we may have some questions for you. So do you want to stand by while I ask my colleagues about that committee members? Do we have any questions of this delegate?

1:03:53Seeing none, I have made a couple of notes. So when we have finished delegations, I'm sure that we'll be asking staff and the applicant to clarify some of the points that you've made. So I want to thank you again for taking time to make your presentation and your opinion.

1:04:16Madam secretary treasure, do we have another any other delegates?

1:04:25Mr chair, I can confirm no other delegates.

1:04:28Okay. And is there anyone in the gallery who would like to speak to this application?

1:04:36Seeing none at this point, I would ask Mr. Buseman if he would like to address some of the concerns that this neighbor has has raised.

1:04:45City staff has written a strong report to say it does fit. It does fit the zoning bylaw. This is the kind of thing that was devisioned with the amendments to the zoning bylaw. The council approved.

1:04:57We have an opportunity to provide this level of intensification. We've seen similar projects of this nature before and the committee has either approved them or we've gone to oil tea to have approval.

1:05:10This is an opportunity for a great infill project and that's clear. In terms of concern about trees, there is a condition number one to believe about having a tip tree inventory protection plan. So that'll be addressed through that condition.

1:05:27Thank you. You anticipated a couple of my questions for city staff.

1:05:35After this delegate, do we have any other questions of staff or the applicant seeing none committee members? What is your wish? Member Spears.

1:05:49I propose that we accept this application with the conditions recommended by city staff.

1:05:54Maybe I should rephrase that. We want to approve the things that city staff said we should approve and deny the things that city staff, the easements.

1:06:05Which is the easement, right? Correct. Okay. And do we have a seconder for that motion? Member Ross.

1:06:14Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, I'm just going to make a quick comment and that is that as Mr. Buseman has pointed out, the staff is recommending approval of this.

1:06:29And in that it meets the zoning bylaw in a number of instances. And the thing that we're doing here today is we're approving not a building or a building form, but we're approving a severance.

1:06:52So I just wanted to make that clear to anyone who's watching at home. With that, and we have a motion before us and unless there's any more discussion, I'll turn it over to Madam Secretary Treasurer to conduct the vote.

1:07:06Thank you, chair committee members. Please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the motion, which is to approve the creation of the new lots and refuse the easement requests.

1:07:20Chair Smith. In favor. Member Fitzpatrick. In favor. Member Goodfellow. In favor. Member Meir. In favor. Member Ross. In favor. And member Spears. In favor. That's carried, Mr. Chair.

1:07:37Thank you. Your application has been approved. Thank you.

1:07:41Madam Secretary Treasurer, may we have the next applicant, please?

1:07:50The next application is file a dash 73 slash 25 variance to permit reduced side yard setback for proposed landing and exterior stairs at 157 summit Ridge Drive.

1:08:03I'll note for those attending remotely, if you wish to speak to this application, you can do so by calling the number displayed on the screen that numbers 5198221260 extension 2524.

1:08:15And when you call in staff, we'll give you instructions on how you can delegate remotely.

1:08:19Is the applicant present or online?

1:08:28Good afternoon everyone. There we are.

1:08:30Can you state your name and your relationship to the application, please?

1:08:35Certainly, sir. My name is Tanri Rai from Noble Prime Solutions.

1:08:39I'm the applicant for the owner that 157 summit Ridge.

1:08:42And can you tell me if the sign was posted as per the planning act?

1:08:46Yes, sir. It was.

1:08:48And have you read staff's comments and are you in agreement?

1:08:52Yes, sir. I am.

1:08:54Well, with your application as with all the others, you have 10 minutes to address the committee. So you can make as much use of that time as you'd like.

1:09:04Thank you, sir.

1:09:05We are proposing an above grade side door.

1:09:10The height of the door is almost 30 inches above the ground for which we are proposing a deck on the side yard.

1:09:16Unfortunately, we do not meet the setback requirement. The city bylaw requires a minimum setback out 0.6 meter.

1:09:22Whereas we are proposing a setback out 0.38 meters after the construction of the deck.

1:09:27So we are seeking a barriers regarding that only apart from that.

1:09:30Everything else is under the zoning bylaws. So we don't see any other issues with the file. So that's pretty short for the today's application. Thank you.

1:09:40Okay, that's concise. Thank you.

1:09:43Committee members, do we have any questions of the applicant?

1:09:47I'm not seeing any. I have a couple of questions for staff then.

1:09:53It's in reviewing the site. It appears that that door was already constructed. Is that the case? Or was there a building permit sought to build that?

1:10:06That entrance.

1:10:12Can I answer?

1:10:14Yes, if you can answer that would be appropriate. Sure. Thank you.

1:10:18Thank you. Actually, the building permit was already taken for this application for this property.

1:10:22But the previous engineer who was working on this file, he did not consider the height of the door would be a problem.

1:10:31Which when we were hired for this particular job, we went there the height of the door was 30 inches above the ground, which was not even as per the building permit.

1:10:39So that is why we had to apply for a revision.

1:10:42Now the permit for the other part of the basement is already there. Apparently the door was a mismatch according to the drawings and according to the site.

1:10:49So we applied for the revision where we got the deficiency from the city and that is how we ended up coming to committee of adjustment.

1:10:57Okay. Thank you for that clarification. That's very helpful.

1:11:01I do know that there are a few yards of concrete that have been poured up to that that point. Was that part of the earlier construction?

1:11:15I am not 100% sure about that, to be honest.

1:11:21Okay. I guess the reason I raise this and this is really a question for staff is given the amount of concrete that's there and the height of the concrete that's already there prior to a staircase being an outside installed.

1:11:41Are staff still supportive of this allowing access to the backyard? It seems that this is not going to allow for getting between the two homes.

1:11:57I guess that can come up on building permit application, but it seems pretty squishy.

1:12:06To the chair, I was under the impression that it's about 30 inches from grade the height of the side porch.

1:12:17Which I wish it seems that the grade falls between the two properties. And so there's as you say there's like half a meter between grade and the the sill.

1:12:32But there's quite a bit of like there's a poured concrete sidewalk essentially going up to this point.

1:12:44And if I had a lawn mower and had to go between that and the staircase and the other place, if someone were to build a fence on their property adjoining, I don't know how you'd get equipment into the backyard.

1:12:58It may be a moot point, but I just wanted to know if it was considered if this would be considered minor given those site factors.

1:13:10Okay, through the chair, I reviewed this as not that tall from grade. You can step up easily, step down easily.

1:13:20I guess not say about like four or five steps up where you couldn't maneuver things, but more like a step and a half. Therefore, you could easily kind of just kind of step over and around.

1:13:37Therefore, that is why did not request the access and maintenance agreement.

1:13:42Okay, I just wanted to be sure that staff are still with these site qualifications that staff are still supportive and it's minor in nature.

1:13:52Yes.

1:13:55Okay, asked and answered. Thank you.

1:13:58Are there any other questions for the applicant or staff seeing none? Are there any members of the audience who would like to speak to this application?

1:14:10I don't see any. Madam secretary treasurer. Are there any delegates online?

1:14:16Mr chair. I can confirm no other delegation requests.

1:14:20Thank you. At this point, I'll turn to my colleagues for a motion please. Remember good fellow.

1:14:26I move we approve this application as recommended by city staff.

1:14:29And member Fitzpatrick is seconding that.

1:14:33And is there any discussion on the motion before us?

1:14:37Seeing none. Madam secretary treasurer, would you do the honors please?

1:14:44Thank you chair committee members. Please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the motion, which is to approve the application chair Smith.

1:14:53In favor.

1:14:54Member Fitzpatrick in favor member good fellow in favor.

1:14:57Member mirror in favor member Ross in favor and members peers in favor.

1:15:04That's carried. Mr chair. Your application has been approved.

1:15:08Thank you so much.

1:15:10Madam secretary treasurer. May we have the next applicant please.

1:15:15Madam secretary treasurer. May we have the next applicant please.

1:15:19The next applications are files B.

1:15:2558 slash 25 B dash 59 slash 25 and B dash 60 slash 25 consent to create 3 new residential lots with 1 retained residential lot at 6 evergreen drive.

1:15:38I'll note for those watching the hearing remotely. If you wish to speak to this application, you can do so by calling the number displayed on the screen.

1:15:45The number is 519 822 1260 extension 2524.

1:15:52And when you call in staff will give you instructions on how you can delegate remotely.

1:16:01Can you see your name and relationship to the application for the record please? Jeff Buesman, Van Harten surveying representing the property owner.

1:16:10And can you tell me if the sign was posted as for the planning act? Yes, it was.

1:16:14And have you read the staff's comments and are you in agreement? Yes, I've read the comments and that's it.

1:16:20I am in agreement. Thank you, Mr. Buesman. You have as you know, 10 minutes.

1:16:25We could throw this severance sketch upon the.

1:16:30So this one taking advantage of the inadvertent deferral that we had for this application.

1:16:39We listened to some of the comments made in in sort by neighbors and city staff and we've changed the configuration a little bit from the original proposal.

1:16:47The original what we've done is we've moved the houses forward a bit.

1:16:52Because there was a suggestion that there may not be enough room in the backyard to honor the utilities and possible infiltration galleries and then to also reduce the size of the driveways by moving it forward.

1:17:05We moved it forward and I think that is a good idea.

1:17:08The 1 thing about moving the houses forward and this is and like you said in earlier application, this is not where approving severances here, not necessarily the exact position of the homes.

1:17:20The 1 1 outcome of this is the front walls of these new units will be slightly more in front of the walls of the ones that right into the left because of the nature of those older homes.

1:17:31The other change that we're making, which are things of very positive changes that instead of having 4 parcels of equal sizes, we made the 2 central 1 7.6 meters wide each and the 2 outside ones 9.1 meters each with the idea of building semi units or 6.3 meters wide each.

1:17:52The benefit is the biggest benefit doing that is that they're going to have much larger side yards on the right and the left.

1:17:58I mean that exact dimensions for those side yards and footprints of those houses haven't been determined yet, but my my the main reason for doing this is that especially the side tree row on the right.

1:18:13We feel that that could be saved the 1 on the left isn't so it's such a significant tree row, but the 1 on the right is more.

1:18:20So that's that's I think a positive change that we've made to it.

1:18:25Otherwise, it's you know, again, similar to the previous application, the city staff have written a very positive report. This is again the situation of a very large lot and and this is an opportunity to take advantage of this large lot and put more homes in it.

1:18:45In this case, the pair of semis.

1:18:49One thing maybe it wasn't crystal clear on is that typically when you build semis you build them as mirror images of each other the right half and the left half not always, but typically.

1:18:59So in a way that's probably going to be the outcome in the sense that they're each going to be 6.3 meters wide on either side of the party wall.

1:19:08Okay, so having a big side yard on the left and the right I think is a good thing and by having the narrow lots in the middle that almost forces it.

1:19:17So I'd be happy to answer any questions or if there's any comments about it.

1:19:24Thank you.

1:19:25Committee members.

1:19:26Do we have any questions member if it's Patrick through you, Mr. Chair to the applicant so and or to staff.

1:19:34The side yards that you're proposing are going to exceed the minimum setbacks.

1:19:42The minimum is 1.2.

1:19:44We got 2.8.

1:19:45There's a chart on the bottom of the complicated chart, but it's in there somewhere.

1:19:50Understood.

1:19:51Okay.

1:19:52And then through you, Mr. Chairman to staff with with the proposal here and having the larger side yards is that side yards that you're proposing are going to exceed the minimum setbacks.

1:20:03So I think that's something that is would be included in some of our conditions.

1:20:11The chair to member fits Patrick.

1:20:12The second condition recommended by planning staff is that prior to the issuance of a building permit, the owner shall provide to the city to the satisfaction of the general manager of planning and building a site plan that is generally in conformity with the site plan submitted to

1:20:25and reviewed by the committee of adjustment when the consent application was approved, assuming that it is approved.

1:20:31So this condition would allow us to review the site plan once it comes in for building permit.

1:20:35And if I'm not throwing any accusations around, but theoretically if a bait and switch was made and proposal came forward for building permit with a 1.2 meter side yard setback,

1:20:48we would say that it would not meet the wording of that condition as the site plan that was shown to you the committee this evening shows the side yard setback of 2.8 meters.

1:20:58So that doesn't necessarily change the zoning requirement, but we would review the site plan to ensure that the proposal that comes forward meets the spirit of what is being reviewed by the committee tonight.

1:21:10Thank you. I appreciate that and apologies. I did read that and.

1:21:14No, it's it's good to have that drawn out and and I hope that makes it clear to to some that may be watching member. Good fellow. Did you have a question?

1:21:26Yes, thank you. So through the chair to I guess the applicant, the moving the the buildings forward so that you're leaving space at the back for the easements and for the infiltration.

1:21:41So I'm wondering what is being lost with that move. I read through the concerns raised by the the neighborhood and wondered specifically about parking garbage management and some of those other things that might logically happen in that space.

1:22:02And if it is reduced, I guess what is the applicant's response to some of those concerns?

1:22:10We haven't gone thought through the like garbage bins stuff. I mean that has not been thought through. We're proposing driveways that meet the zoning and I think they're they're appropriate driveways and actually, you know, in terms of if when the bins are on the street.

1:22:27There's actually a fair bit of room other outside of the driveways for the those bins. I would say the benefit of the driveways as they are is it will prevent parking on. I realize we only need 3 parking spots per parcel, but it will.

1:22:42Or actually 2 sorry 2 right yeah 2 per parcel. But it would the larger driveways and so on will provide parking more on the properties than if somebody were to overflow onto the street.

1:22:57Thank you and just maybe a follow up question through the chair I.

1:23:01Maybe I miss maybe I'm misunderstanding then I guess I was interpreting your comment about moving the buildings forward the houses forward that some of that space would be lost some of the parking space might be lost.

1:23:14But perhaps I'm misunderstanding. You know, I didn't say that perfectly well. I meant the depth is not a really long driveway anymore. It's the length of the driveways are all shortened.

1:23:24All the lengths of the driveways have been shortened from what we originally proposed.

1:23:28Great and maybe just then for my own clarification. So how many parking spots are currently in the revised proposal the revised configuration. How many parking spots are available per unit.

1:23:44Legal parking spots the 2 inside units have 2 legal parking spots. The 2 outside ones have 3 parking spots because the minimum right now we're showing 5 meter wide driveways for the 2 outside ones.

1:23:57Stalls are 2 and a half meters wide so you can fit 2 there and 1 in the garage. Whereas the the interior ones are 4 and a half meters wide.

1:24:05You can have 1 in the garage and 1 in the driveway.

1:24:09Thank you and I think that totals 10 if I'm doing the math correctly so 10 total parking spots for the this new.

1:24:18In terms of legal parking spots. Yes.

1:24:21Okay. Thank you.

1:24:23Thank you.

1:24:24Thank you.

1:24:26Member Goodfellow any other questions of the applicant.

1:24:32Seeing none. I'm going to ask staff. Do they do staff have any.

1:24:39Presentation that they'd like to make on this application.

1:24:42Through you Mr. Chair. Yes, I do. So I'll I'll try and be brief. But the applicant is proposing to sever an existing single detached lot facilitate the creation of 4 semi detached residential lots.

1:24:56Each of the lots would have frontage onto evergreen drive. The proposed lots conform with all zoning requirements of the 2023 zoning bylaw and no minor variances are requested or required at this time.

1:25:06Additionally staff note that similar proposals in similar neighborhoods have been approved by both the committee and the Ontario land tribunal in the past year.

1:25:16So as noted in comments received from the public at 1 point the previous staff report references water street rather than evergreen drive. This was an oversight on my part as there was a similar proposal on water street.

1:25:28But rest assured staff did review this proposal for evergreen drive specifically. We're not confusing it for for some other proposal.

1:25:37So the proposal as as mentioned provides 3 legal parking spaces for the 2 exterior lots and 2 legal parking spaces for the 2 interior lots.

1:25:51Whereas the zoning bylaw requires 1 parking space, per main dwelling unit and 1 additional parking space if ad use are proposed.

1:25:58So the overall parking provision will meet or exceed the minimum number of parking spaces required in the zoning bylaw even if ad use are added in the future.

1:26:07And it also could be noted that just because there are 3 or 2 legal parking spaces on the driveway, there's nothing prohibiting them from fitting more on if if that is possible.

1:26:17I would also like to note as there's questions raised about garbage can storage. So there's a provision in the zoning bylaw requiring a minimum attached garage size of 20 square meters.

1:26:30And that minimum size requirement was arrived at as that is the minimum size required to accommodate a standard set of wealth garbage recycling and green bins as well as fit a standard size parking space.

1:26:44So that way the garage can be used for both.

1:26:48Landscape planning staff have also reviewed the proposal and request that a tree inventory and preservation plan be prepared to the satisfaction of the general manager of planning and building services.

1:26:57And through that TIPP landscape planning staff will ensure that the applicant adheres to the city's tree bylaw.

1:27:04If the tree inventory and preservation plan is not completed to the satisfaction of city staff, then the severance would eventually lapse.

1:27:12So engineering staff have also recommended conditions that require an updated grading and drainage plan servicing plan and necessary environmental reports to the satisfaction of engineering staff prior to the severance being finalized.

1:27:26I bring that up as I note that there are several comments from members of the public.

1:27:30Outlining concerns about about potential drainage issues that might be created by this.

1:27:35Additionally, it was noted that the members of the public had concerns about the utility easements located to the rear of the property.

1:27:43And I would note that utility easements have no minimum required setback.

1:27:50So theoretically something could be built right up to a utility easement as long as it's outside of that easement area, which this proposal is well outside that easement area.

1:27:58That's not not an issue.

1:28:00So for these reasons, staff recommend approval of the application subject to the conditions recommended in the staff report. Thank you.

1:28:07I appreciate that. Thank you very much. You actually anticipated some of the question.

1:28:14A question I was I was going to ask.

1:28:18Any other further questions for the applicant at this point, then I will ask the secretary treasurer. Do we have any delegations?

1:28:28Mr chair, I can confirm that we do have some delegations. The 1st is Valerie Romanello.

1:28:35Good afternoon. Can you state your name for the record please? Valerie Romanello and welcome and you have 10 minutes to address the committee.

1:28:53Great. Mr. Hello, Mr. Chair, members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today regarding the application of six evergreen.

1:28:59My husband and I have and have been living in the neighborhood for 24 years and I was born and raising wealth and raise my kids in this neighborhood.

1:29:08In understanding this severance application, we strongly disagree with city staff recommendation to approve with conditions and urge you at minimum to defer your decision until city staff have received and carefully reviewed missing documents that address important issues relating to the subject property.

1:29:25Until these issues have been addressed, the applications are not complete and are premature. The proposal being reviewed today is a new proposal from one submitted for the August 14th hearing that was postponed.

1:29:38Both proposals were incomplete. I would like to discuss three key areas that are still incomplete with this new proposal.

1:29:45Specifically, the arbitrary changes to the applications prove that there were technical issues with the 1st submission. Without completing the technical studies, staff are not able to evaluate whether a budding trees will be impacted, whether stormwater can be impacted, or whether the hydro easement will be impacted.

1:30:03So, first off with the tree inventory and protection plan, without the professional tree study, how has staff determined there will be no unacceptable adverse impacts to very mature trees on a budding, long established lots and concluded that the applications are therefore compatible.

1:30:20If this is not deferred and if it's approved with conditions, then the community has no opportunity to review the tree study when it's completed. This is our only opportunity during the application process.

1:30:34This justifies deferring a decision on these applications until a proper tree study is completed.

1:30:39Stormwater considerations. The stormwater management report has not been submitted, as it's been said with this proposal. This is, and therefore it is included in the recommended conditions.

1:30:51This also justifies deferring making a decision on these applications until the stormwater management report has been completed and reviewed by staff, which again would allow the community to be able to review the report.

1:31:03Because beyond this, we have no say. What happens if there's not adequate room to deal with stormwater in the rear yard given the existing hydro easement?

1:31:13There is an assumption that the increased backyard setback from the property line with the new proposal would be sufficient, yet the stormwater management report hasn't been completed.

1:31:22The applicant, city staff and elector failed to acknowledge that with the existing hydro easement, there was a technical issue in the first report. It wasn't until residents of our neighborhood pointed out that the applicant had in haste submitted a new proposal.

1:31:36This is still a concern with the new proposal as the stormwater management study has not been completed and submitted with the application, as I understand is often done in the past.

1:31:47Please defer the proposal until the applicant can produce engineering drawings and stormwater study report to be reviewed by staff. The proposal may be found to be overdeveloped for this site.

1:31:59Incomplete documents from electorate, the comments from electorate and reviewing the first proposal were incomplete as they do not acknowledge that the existing hydro easement at the rear of the property.

1:32:11And now that a new proposal was submitted for this meeting, it looks like the new proposal was not resubmitted to electorate for review as it should since it was a new proposal.

1:32:22We asked that the new proposal be circulated to elector on this basis so that the proper complete comments may be submitted prior to the committee making a decision.

1:32:32To confirm, we disagree with city staff recommendation to approve with conditions and request it be deferred until all the necessary studies are provided and fully reviewed carefully.

1:32:44We are very concerned with the importance and the precedence this development could have to a very mature, long standing neighborhood. And I'm not just talking about evergreen. We're talking about Monticello, Mayfield and Colburn.

1:32:57And Colburn, it's the whole area. In terms of parking and driveways, planning staff's original comments say that they would prefer if the driveway withs were reduced to minimize the visual impact and preserve on street parking.

1:33:13The revised driveway with do not increase the opportunities for on street parking. The interior driveway with should not exceed the widths of the proposed garages.

1:33:21The proposed 4.5 meter driveway withs are excessive for 1 parking space with the 2.5 meters. The future residents will be tempted to park 2 cars next to each other in the 4.5 meter driveway with inadequate space and may end up parking partially on the front lawn.

1:33:38First 4 driveways in a row are not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and there will be no opportunity for tree planting given the service locations and utilities to the street.

1:33:49Second on street parking is severely limited due to parking prohibited from Monday to Friday, 8am to 5pm and the subjects proxies proximity to the university. Also snow storage will be an issue on both sides of these driveways.

1:34:05In closing, we urge the committee to defer the applications until these important issues are properly addressed. This is the neighborhood's only opportunity to be involved in the planning process.

1:34:15Is in the best interest of the neighborhood taxpayers and city staff that these applications be done timely, but also completely before any indication of approval with conditions.

1:34:27We acknowledge that development is important and necessary in the city of Guelph and that there will be development in our neighborhood.

1:34:34But putting 4 lots on the subject property is clearly over development. It should be 2 lots at most and with more appropriate houses there that are keeping in context with the street and our neighborhood.

1:34:47Thank you for your time.

1:34:49Thank you very much for your presentation. I do appreciate you coming and helping us through this. If you want to wait right there.

1:34:57My colleagues may have some questions for you. Committee members, do we have any questions of this delegate.

1:35:05Seeing none, I would like to pick up one of your comments and ask staff about the requirement for storm water management plan is that's something that's required in a severance application.

1:35:19To you chair, it's typical that condition is recommended for a storm water management report in every severance I've ever been involved with. That's always been a requirement.

1:35:28And that's typically reviewed in detail. Not as part of the hearing that we're having here today, but much like all the other details, site servicing drawings.

1:35:37Grading and drainage plans. These are typically details that we see in detail at a later stage before the severance itself is fully approved as opposed to just conditionally approved.

1:35:50Okay, thank you for that. And the question of trees, tree protection was brought up.

1:35:58Are there any comments on that?

1:36:02Through you, Mr. Chair, the tree inventory and preservation plan would be required as a condition of approval. Landscape planning staff would then review that train inventory and preservation plan for conformity with the city's tree bylaw.

1:36:15Prior to, I believe it was April of this year.

1:36:18Properties of this size wouldn't have even been applicable in the tree bylaw because any property under the size of 0.2 hectares weren't covered under the tree bylaw that was changed in April of this year.

1:36:30So a treatment or in preservation plan is required and landscape planning staff will be reviewing that to ensure that there are no excessively adverse impacts.

1:36:39And if there are if the treatment or in preservation plan is not done to the satisfaction of landscape planning staff, then that condition will not be cleared.

1:36:49Thank you for that, Mr. Rimpol. Yes, Mr. Ferg, Member Fitzpatrick.

1:36:55Through you, Chair, to staff.

1:36:58And I understand the conditions being part of the severance and maybe for clarity's sake, if because we're here to approve a severance and not ultimately what's being built on the site.

1:37:13When somebody goes to do that building application and the conditions of that that severance, the drainage plan, the tree preservation plan.

1:37:23What's the outcome if that that that, for example, that drainage plan doesn't work or conform with what's being proposed as the building.

1:37:38To member Fitzpatrick through you, Chair, the condition associated with the grading and drainage plan is that of prior to certificate of official.

1:37:47So if the applicant or their engineering consultant was not able to satisfactorily demonstrate that grading and drainage is feasible for the severance lots, then the condition itself wouldn't be cleared and that condition would need to be cleared along with all other prior to certificate of official conditions before the lots themselves are even created.

1:38:09Thank you.

1:38:11Thank you.

1:38:13Any other questions of this delegate.

1:38:16Seeing none again, let me thank you for your for bringing these points to our attention.

1:38:22Thank you.

1:38:24Madam Secretary treasure, do we have any other delegates.

1:38:27Thank you, Chair. Yes, we do have another delegate. The name is Chris Bonnet.

1:38:33Welcome. Can you state your name for the record, please? Yes, it's Chris Bonnet.

1:38:44And like your neighbor, you have 10 minutes to address the committee.

1:38:50Very good. Thank you. Do appreciate this opportunity to talk to the committee. It's my first opportunity to get into this kind of an issue and it's been a learning experience all along and I still feel like I have so much more.

1:39:02It's I am envious. In fact, of all the knowledge that staff has that we're trying to pick up, you know, like a whirlwind and with very little time to understand, interpret it or anticipate what it means for the future.

1:39:16One of the things in the official plan that I didn't see in the application or it's August 18 update is referenced to section 8.5.

1:39:25And that section reads and I quote, however, new buildings and I apologize because there's still a gray zone in my mind about what is part of the severance and what is part of the eventual application for building.

1:39:37But considering that we have four lots and two semi detached buildings, I'm making sort of a more inclusive conclusion here that that design, including the footprint of the four dwellings matters at this stage as well.

1:39:54Anyway, section 8.5 quote, however, new buildings proposed within older established areas of the city are encouraged to be designed to complement the visual character and architectural building material elements found in those areas at space 77.

1:40:09Knowing that some design elements will only be revealed in a building permit. We think this recommendation should not be undermined or forgotten.

1:40:16We note the definition of compatibility in the official plan is intentionally probably vague. And so this allows us as neighbors an opportunity to consider an alternative interpretation relevant to the developer and to staff.

1:40:28In essence, compatibility of the application with the neighborhood is the crux of why we're here.

1:40:34I want to assure everyone as Valerie did that our goal isn't to refuse any and all development far from it but to ensure what happens is in fact visually and practically compatible in a broader definition beyond the technicalities with the neighborhood as we the residents interpret it.

1:40:52We understand the committee's mandate is to reflect community interest and neighbors are an essential part of this. Long after everyone else has moved on, we have to live with the outcomes for six evergreen and whatever may follow and whatever precedent this sets for other developments we've already seen some similar ones today.

1:41:10And that's why we've invested our time to help inform the committee's decision and diversify the opinions and the alternatives that can shape a mutually agreeable solution.

1:41:19First, I should acknowledge the developer has made some improvements to the original application by extending the property setbacks. This is in fact aligned with our original submissions and we appreciate that.

1:41:30I'm less enthusiastic about moving what might have been a near or what might turn out to be a near monolithic wall of four probably three story homes closer to the street. The visual impact of that is significant and it is a three and a half meter push towards the street.

1:41:48So it's not minor not small not insignificant.

1:41:51We also want to distinguish and this is the gist of my comments between the technical definition of compatible found in the official plan and a more typical practical and everyday definition that we use and has much more great much greater meaning to neighborhoods and in fact to residents.

1:42:08Both need equal weight.

1:42:10I want to emphasize that it isn't and shouldn't be just technical definitions of compatibility, but neighborhoods and neighbors and residents ought to see an appropriate balance struck there.

1:42:22I'd now like to highlight some other context based comments in my second submission I provided comments on three of the 11 development criteria and here's where my concerns about context link to Valerie's position about the application and it's deferral and that the developer and staff are missing some

1:42:38important and we hope very practical considerations here.

1:42:41The first criterion in the plan is about building form scale height setbacks massing appearance and citing staff has assured the committee that the application is generally compatible with the official plan and so does van harden.

1:42:55But in my opinion up to 12 units is not compatible either with the existing three bedroom home or to the neighborhood.

1:43:02There are no three story homes in our neighborhood, rejecting what might be built. There are no semi detached homes either and non massed in such narrow lots.

1:43:11I also wrote that the heightened appearance have not yet been specified. Therefore, it seems impossible to for to us to conclude that the proposed buildings are compatible again this may be my confusion about design and the boundary between this application and a building permit.

1:43:28But they're not compatible with the neighborhood based on what we know they will undermine and in fact ignore section 8.5 that speaks to compatibility in terms that are much more relevant to residents.

1:43:40The second criterion that I reference states that infill units are to be compatible with the frontage of nearby lots. This is a problem. I can't imagine how the proposed widths of roughly seven and a half and nine meters can be considered compatible to surrounding lots that are roughly

1:43:5633 meters or more than three times wider than the proposal that we're faced with now and finally I'd like to amplify Valerie's earlier comments on parking.

1:44:05I noted the mutual impossibility of reducing driveway widths without increasing the odds of on street parking on a practical level. Most garages don't hold cars. They're used for household storage.

1:44:16Residents are not going to constantly jockey cars to allow someone to leave far more likely is that vehicles will either be parked on the lawn as Valerie stated or simply go to the street.

1:44:26The revised proposal provides to fewer on property parking spaces. And remember that these four dwellings may contain up to 12 residences.

1:44:34If all alternative dwelling units are approved.

1:44:39Staff wrote that they intend to preserve on street parking. And as Valerie's pointed out this is already tightly controlled to discourage free off campus parking from eight in the morning till five in the evening Monday to Friday.

1:44:51This restriction must remain whatever is built. I expect that new residents will be routinely ticketed, which is not conducive to good relations with the existing neighbors who do not want to see cars parked on the street all day.

1:45:03This is also a safety issue during dark winter months with high snow banks and no sidewalks and no street lighting in our neighborhood.

1:45:10And one last point related to parking. The driveways in the application will absorb almost 60% of the lot width.

1:45:17I haven't taken measurements, but photos suggest that surrounding homes have the inverse at least 60% lawn. If approved, this would be a big change visually obviously incompatible with everything around the property.

1:45:30I will close on a constructive note. We want to work with the city and the developer to improve this application. We're not ignoring the emergence. Sorry, the urgency of providing more.

1:45:40Closing in wealth, which is why we've spent our time on this and we will be proposing you'll see in the next deposition a more consistent compatible.

1:45:51Way towards densification. One home today can subdivide into two homes, not four contain up to six dwellings, not 12 to us. This is appropriately gentle intensification.

1:46:04Well designed 60 year character of our neighborhood can be retained. Anna, our next presentation will show exactly what we mean with a couple of nearby examples to take this from the sterile narrative of the official plan to the real world in which we the neighbors live.

1:46:17We want to be sure the neighborhood voices count in the committee's decision. The issues of context and compatibility need more work in our opinion. We've highlighted continuing unknowns in the application identified a crucially ignored tenant of the official plan.

1:46:30And we need the for the committee to properly elevate neighborhood voices.

1:46:35And I think that's the final point.

1:46:37Thank you.

1:46:38Thank you.

1:46:39Thank you for the opportunity to talk to you and to the staff.

1:46:43Thank you very much for your presentation and the points that you've raised. I'm I've made a couple of notes and will be following up.

1:46:53In the meantime, if you want to wait right there, my colleagues may have some questions for you. Committee members. Do we have any questions of the delegate?

1:47:04Seeing none, I would like to just ask a question of staff at this point.

1:47:12One of the things that don't get raised is the official plan context and building form. I know that this has come up in other similar.

1:47:23Kinds of proposals. The one on orchard comes to mind and in some of these cases.

1:47:31Things of that nature have.

1:47:34The incompatibility, I think, were some of the reasons why committee may have.

1:47:41Rejected those those applications and they had gone to the OLT and the OLT sided with the applicant.

1:47:51I am curious about staff's position regarding the the official plan as the delegate has brought up.

1:47:58Through you, Mr. Chair. I'm not entirely sure are you asking me to speak on definition of compatibility and that side of things or more the section of the official plan that the delegate mentioned section 8.5.

1:48:20Is that.

1:48:22I guess compatibility is a nebulous term.

1:48:27And compatibility can mean a lot of things.

1:48:31And just in my experience.

1:48:35Sitting in this desk in the last little while since these zoning by law changes have been made.

1:48:42That case has been made several times and.

1:48:47Either we haven't accepted it or when we have accepted that and rejected the application.

1:48:55The Ontario land tribunal has has overruled us.

1:48:59And so I'm I guess I'm I'm looking for a little more information on if that is a valid question that.

1:49:09That should be brought forward.

1:49:11Thank you.

1:49:17I understood through you, Mr. Chair.

1:49:20When staff evaluate an application for compatibility, we do evaluate it under the official plan definition of compatibility.

1:49:33So the delegate is absolutely correct. There are many ways that that term can be interpreted, but the language used and the wording that was chosen and approved by council.

1:49:43that means that an application can quote coexist with the surrounding areas without unacceptable adverse impact. So an application does not have to be identical to or necessarily even similar to similar developments on the street.

1:50:02It just needs to be able to exist coexist with the neighboring properties without doing unversed impact on those properties.

1:50:11I appreciate your insight. Thank you. Do we have any other questions? Yes. Member Goodfellow.

1:50:18Yes. So through the chairs, the staff, they comment about parking on street has come up a couple of times. And so I'm not as familiar with that neighborhood.

1:50:29Does sound like there are some pretty stringent parking restrictions on street, which I understand and appreciate. I guess though, what is the alternative? Like where where else would someone with a vehicle then need to park their vehicle?

1:50:45If they were choosing to live in one of these units, I guess I'm just trying to think where where's the overflow? Where will these vehicles kind of end up parking then? If it is not where these parking restrictions exist?

1:50:59Sorry, was that to city staff?

1:51:02Yes. Sorry. Thank you. City staff. Thank you.

1:51:05To Member Goodfellow through the chair. I'm not sure that I can confirm where overflow would be. I'm not sure the I didn't look at the surrounding streets and what the parking situations on on on those streets.

1:51:17But as part of my review here, I did look at the traffic by law for Evergreen Drive specifically and I can confirm that the 2022 traffic by law indicates that on both sides of Evergreen Drive from Monticello Crescent to Stone Road is restricted parking.

1:51:32So there's no parking between 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday.

1:51:38Thank you. I appreciate that clarification. I guess I will just make a comment then that I am also aware of very stringent and strict limitations on parking at the university. It continues to be oversold pretty much year over year.

1:51:52And so I think this continues to be a concern of mine with this application, but I'll leave it there for right now. Thank you.

1:51:59Yes. I'll get back to you in just one second. Mr. Rampol if you did have a comment.

1:52:07Yes, I did. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So in regards to parking overflow, the parking, the minimum parking requirement in the zoning by law is being met by this proposal.

1:52:18I would note that, you know, no one is forcing anybody to live in these units when someone is hunting for a place to live an apartment or a house.

1:52:27They need to make sure that that facility meets their needs.

1:52:30When I was looking for places to live in Guelph, I have a car, so I was obviously looking for a place with a parking space.

1:52:37I looked at several places which were very nice, which did not have a parking space, but alas, that wasn't the right fit for me.

1:52:43In this location, the proposal does meet the requirements in the zoning bylaw as well as it is close walking distance to the university bus loop, which does have some of the best transit service in the city outside of downtown.

1:52:55So I think it is reasonable to think that a future tenant might opt not to have a car and live in this neighborhood.

1:53:03Yes, thank you for that additional clarification and I may have some additional comments and thoughts on that as we kind of wrap this up, but I do appreciate that perspective. Thank you.

1:53:12I'm going to allow your comment since we were asking questions of you. So you did have a comment. Yeah, thank you for that opportunity. First off, just to clarify.

1:53:23All of the streets in that section are have the same parking restriction. There is no obvious overflow other than private lots across the street in a shopping plaza.

1:53:35But they have their bylaws and they wouldn't allow overnight parking either.

1:53:39So you're absolutely right about the university stringent rules. There are stringent rules in our neighborhood that would preclude that.

1:53:46And when you tie your question and concern to the comment from staff about, well, you just make a rational decision, I would argue that many students have particularly in that point of their life don't make a lot of rational decisions.

1:53:58They will weigh out the home, the proximity to the university relative to a parking problem and they'll vote to be close to the university.

1:54:06And just because they are my lived experience living on Dean Avenue, which is north and east of the university and in our current neighborhood, students have cars and lots of them.

1:54:16In fact, you can tell student homes because of multiple cars parked wherever they can find asphalt and sometimes where they can't.

1:54:24So I just want to add a practical dimension to a again, a technical interpretation. This is not the way it's going to be in the real life.

1:54:32Thank you.

1:54:34Thank you for that insight. Any other questions of this delegate?

1:54:39Again, let me thank you for bringing these in for this information forward and your opinion. We do appreciate it. Thank you for the opportunity.

1:54:50Madam Secretary treasure. Do we have another delegate?

1:54:54Thank you, chair. The last delegate we have is Anna binasic Marofsa.

1:55:00Hello, can you hear us?

1:55:04Okay, I think you are there. Okay, welcome. Thank you. Thank you. Hello to chair and the committee of adjustment. Thank you for hearing us today. I have a little presentation just before you get started. If I hate to interrupt, but you have.

1:55:25First of all, you need to give me your name for the record. Yes, it's Anna binasic Marofsa.

1:55:31And I reside on forever green. I'm the neighbor of the application.

1:55:36Okay. And like your other neighbors, you have 10 minutes to address the committee. So if you'd like to make as much use of that time as you would, please go ahead.

1:55:47Perfect. Thank you. And here's my presentation. Perfect. And next slide, please.

1:55:52Next slide.

1:55:58Perfect. So we would like to outline the neighborhood just from a bird's eye, just to show you of the green space, the lots, the single family homes over there.

1:56:09Low density. No sidewalk. No street street lights like we've already mentioned, and also very restrictive parking.

1:56:16And just to follow up on the parking issue. I am next door. Currently, the house got rented really quickly by students, of course, which we do love them.

1:56:26I live in the neighborhood. I love the students. We assist them. This is why we're there.

1:56:31And the parking is an issue. Currently, there's 4 cars. And let's not forget the driver, the Amazon drivers and the visitors.

1:56:40The visitors have no place to park even on our big driveways right now.

1:56:44I am a multi-generational home. I have my mom that lives with me. I have my 2 adult children that live with me.

1:56:51And we do have 4 cars. Luckily, my driveway accommodates that, but we do find ourselves in a little bit of a situation when we have visitors or parties.

1:57:00Luckily, on the weekend is okay, but during the week, it is a problem. So with what's happening right now with this application, just like Chris said, what we practically think is going to happen in real life may be very, very different.

1:57:15But right now, next slide, please. Just to show you overview of the neighborhood. These are low density. Most of them are Bangalore or half story properties homes.

1:57:31And the important definition is just to follow up on that compatibility situation of the official plan of how these new dwellings are going to coexist without adverse impact.

1:57:46And that is the big issue for me as the next door neighbor, but not only that of how the street will have an impact on this.

1:57:56So the next 13 slides are just going to show the homes. So please next slide. That's two evergreen again, two story in this situation, but low to story.

1:58:08Yep, let's go ahead. Three evergreen, which is a site split. That's my house again site split.

1:58:23Next slide. Yep, another one. Five evergreen.

1:58:30Next slide will be six evergreen. That's the application. And we already with that big park with the big driveway over there. It's already an issue with just one home.

1:58:42Next slide.

1:58:47Seven evergreen. It's a two story home. Next slide.

1:58:51Eight evergreen. Next slide.

1:58:57And again, showing you the driveway and comparison to the green space in front of the home as the front line.

1:59:06That's nine evergreen next slide, please.

1:59:10That's 10 evergreen two story next slide.

1:59:14That's 11 evergreen next slide.

1:59:1813 evergreen 12 again heavily treated.

1:59:2213 will be heavily treated as well.

1:59:25Just showing the character of the street next slide.

1:59:31So this is 14 evergreen next slide, please.

1:59:35Okay, and here is the proposed dwelling or proposed application six evergreen and if I can have next slide.

1:59:47So we've superimposed four blocks of what we can visually see what's going to happen on the street, assuming the new buildings will be the full three stories allowed while we show for this distinct blocks.

2:00:01Obviously the two semi detached will be attached.

2:00:05Creating even bigger block.

2:00:08So to me, and I'm not sure as you this is going to end up looking like a mini apartment building. It is going to be closer to the street with the.

2:00:18Adjusted application because we're moving now these buildings closer to the street. So again, what's compatible in what you just seen in the last, I believe 15 slides.

2:00:30So the official plan in section 8.5 titled built form low rise residential forms clearly state. However, new buildings proposed with an older established areas of the city are encouraged to be designed to complement the visual character and architectural

2:00:49materials elements found in these areas. So that's on page 77. And that is our huge concern or my, especially and the neighbors that we've talked to on the street concern of what's going to happen and the green space that's going to disappear.

2:01:03The driveways are going to take over 61% space.

2:01:07It's, it's just going to look very different very different to what the neighborhood looks like.

2:01:12And again, I am not opposed of new development or more housing. It's just concern of what's happening here. Next slide.

2:01:21So this is a 1 example that I want to point out. I've been very invested because this was my previous home.

2:01:31And it did have a very large green lot on the side of this house. It was 14 Forbes and I did find myself in doing a severance and applying for an application within the city. I was on the other side of the situation.

2:01:46It was not the neighbor, which I do. I did have opposing neighbors that had raised lots of concerns with me applying for a severance.

2:01:56In next slide, you will see what happened.

2:02:00We did get an approval. It was within the historical district, but with my application, I did have to supply the tree preservation study, historical study.

2:02:12And a new home was created, but it was on a 55 foot, actually 60 foot lot out of the 110 frontage that this original property had.

2:02:26So I was there before I am not opposed to doing this again and not opposed to anybody else doing this again. But if we could be more gentle with how we're severing these lots and fitting more within the neighborhoods that other people, other than developers,

2:02:47we still have to live there and we still have to, you know, face the issues of seeing how many I'm not sure I last count. I don't know how many 12 or 24 36 garbage cans on the street that day.

2:03:02It will be students because my street is entirely of students and the parking will be an issue as well.

2:03:10Next slide. Another example is this is 57 Dean Avenue again out of one big treated lot. Next slide, you will see.

2:03:27Two homes created that fit the neighborhood. You can still see that the trees have been preserved. You see green space in the front of these buildings. And it's fitting more with the neighborhood because the other homes were two stories as well.

2:03:43So this next slide.

2:03:45So to close, I want to point this out again how this is going to look on that street where right now we have a beautiful community, a beautiful neighborhood that really is sought after previously to this.

2:04:03It was sought after people looking for more green space, more existing mature neighborhoods. But right now it seems to show that developers are trying to grab the frontages on these properties and really maximize this development.

2:04:20Next slide.

2:04:24So there would be nothing wrong if we approve an application and add 50% more housing from 1 home to 2 homes. They're still able to have the 3 units in each home.

2:04:37There is nothing wrong with that, but it limits to 2 driveways. It adds more order into.

2:04:44The neighborhood and it just certainly is more compatible in my eyes and I hope the committee and chair agrees that it would definitely look much better.

2:04:55And in this situation, the visual character and the architectural building materials would fit the neighborhood. So.

2:05:04In this application, we recommend rejection of this application and reapplying for something that's more fitted within the neighborhood.

2:05:15Thank you so much for your time and appreciate you hearing me out.

2:05:20Thank you. And I do appreciate the work that you've gone into to make your, your case. If you want to stand by I.

2:05:30Oh, that was our 10 minute bell. Okay. Not the dinner bell.

2:05:36If you want to wait right there, there may be some questions from my colleagues committee members. Do we have any questions of this delegate?

2:05:46Yes, member good.

2:05:48Actually, this question is for city staff, but it is related to some comments raised by the delegate if that would be appropriate.

2:05:55So through the chair to city staff, I think there was some questions or comments about garbage and I kind of started there down that road a little bit earlier, but it's come up again.

2:06:04And so I've been sitting here thinking about the size of the garage relative to the garbage bins. That's actually a very interesting way to have sized a garage to account for that.

2:06:15I guess my question though is it sounded to me like that was just to accommodate a car and one set of garbage bins. Am I kind of understanding that correctly or is it designed to accommodate a car plus.

2:06:27I guess it would be 3 sets of garbage bins per unit, considering that there could be 3 units per side of the semi detached. Can you help me understand that please.

2:06:40Through the chair and member good fellow that minimum size was contemplated just to fit 1 car and 1 set of garbage bins. Obviously, there's nothing preventing the applicant from creating a larger attached garage that could accommodate more bins.

2:06:54But that minimum size is just for 1 set of bins.

2:06:57Okay, thank you. That's actually very helpful. And then in in the context of this application or frankly any other application of this nature.

2:07:07Is there guidance from the city on what should happen with garbage bins then that are not able to fit inside the garage? Like, I guess, are they intended to be in the backyard or they intended to be kind of at the front?

2:07:21I don't. I'm just looking to see what kind of guidance the the city has provided to residents in a situation like this.

2:07:29Through the chair to member good fellow. I'm afraid I don't think I have a good answer for you. There is nothing in the zoning by law mandating, you know, or recommending where garbage bins should be stored.

2:07:45My understanding is a structure can't be built to store the garbage bins in the front yard. But other than that, I think it's up to the decision of the homeowner.

2:07:55So I know there has been several similar applications in the past where garbage bins are stored along the sideline. And that is something that is permitted in the zoning by law. But of course, ultimately it's up to the up to the applicant.

2:08:09Okay, that's that's really helpful. Thank you.

2:08:12Thank you. And any other questions for the delegate?

2:08:16Yes, member Fitzpatrick through you chair and I guess this is more to to staff for clarification.

2:08:24Because so much of this is come down from the provincial level where.

2:08:30You know, if these applications meet the requirements, the zoning requirements set out by staff.

2:08:38Clearly, as we get into more of this density and intensification thought hasn't been or regulations haven't been built or put together to accommodate things like the garbage bins and how does that fit into the compatibility issue that the applicants or sorry, the delegates have have addressed.

2:09:02If we set no to an application like this, and then it then gets appealed to the to the Ontario land tribunal is that sufficient enough for them to support our refusal or with the the Olt.

2:09:22Turn around and say that's frivolous and this application and they overrule overrule us.

2:09:32Through the chair to member Fitzpatrick, I can't speak for how the Olt would view an application like this specifically.

2:09:39But I can say that in the past couple of years there have been similar semi detached proposals that have been refused by the committee and then appealed to the Ontario land tribunal.

2:09:51And in those hearings that I was a party to members of the public there did make similar concerns raised that that members of the public here have raised tonight.

2:10:03And ultimately in those applications that I've been party to the Olt has ruled against the committee's decision and has approved the application.

2:10:15Thank you.

2:10:20Any other questions.

2:10:23Seeing none I.

2:10:26I want to respect the the delegate and the work they put into what they've presented to us and so to that.

2:10:39One of the last slides was of a.

2:10:43Walked in sort of plan over top of of the existing.

2:10:51Residents and I just want to bring up the fact.

2:10:59By asking city staff.

2:11:04If we weren't here.

2:11:07If this was just a building permit application by right a three story four.

2:11:13Unit building could be could be proposed and built as long as it complied with the.

2:11:21The Ontario building code am I correct in that assumption.

2:11:26I think that is correct. Yes.

2:11:29So the the massing could be the same.

2:11:32Identical to this.

2:11:34This image that we're seeing before us now.

2:11:37It's just that it wouldn't be as many units but the massing would be pretty potentially could be pretty much the same as of right.

2:11:47That's correct. Yes.

2:11:48Thank you.

2:11:49I do appreciate that.

2:11:53I think you're still online. I wanted to thank you again for your presentation and we're going to move along. Madam secretary treasure or they any other delegates.

2:12:05Mr chair, I can confirm no other delegates, although I'm not sure if there's any in the audience.

2:12:10I will ask the question. Are there any members of the audience who would like to speak to this seeing none.

2:12:17I'll invite Mr. Buseman to return to the podium and answer.

2:12:23If you would like any of the issues that have been raised.

2:12:27Thank you, Mr. chair and public and committee members.

2:12:34In terms of the first speaker, we're really talking about the various reports. The staff is doing this application complete.

2:12:43And these all these reviews, the, the, the tip tree inventory protection plan, creating, creating stormwater management that all be reviewed very thoroughly with the city staff.

2:12:55That's typical of how all the applications are handled at golf. The public do not look at those specific plans as they go through the process for the building permit and so on.

2:13:05And as to clarify these conditions. So it is we're following the typical process to for these reports and the staff makes very sure that they're done well.

2:13:17We get their critique and work with them well on those things.

2:13:23In terms of compatibility, it realizes a vague and we've talked about the nebulous term.

2:13:28One thing to think about is, yeah, there's no semis on the street because semis has never been permitted on the street before.

2:13:34It's been a very clear shift for the city of Guelph with their account for the new zoning bylaw from 2023 council says we want to see more intense housing and and fundamentally we want to see semis and we want to see to even townhouses in

2:13:51neighborhoods such as this neighborhood such as this the previous zoning bylaw fundamentally had we called it R1 a R1 B R1 C.

2:13:59The majority of and say urban Guelph more, not going to say downtown was a lot of was R1 B.

2:14:06No semi detached allowed now. Now this is being added. So all these homes when they were built no semi attached were allowed now we're at the city is encouraging and allowing them to happen.

2:14:20So a similar comment I want to make about that in a little bit about the massing comment is that, you know, this could have been two lots, but big houses.

2:14:31This could have been those application and a monster house, but like it would have been. Sorry, I made my socialistic things. I don't like really, really big houses, but it could have been a really big house here.

2:14:46So the plan is likely is most likely a two story home. Most of the clients I've been working with that all the projects have ended up being two story homes, probably a little higher than normal normal home older homes of the vintage in this area are eight foot ceilings most of the newer homes are nine or 10 foot ceilings so they end up being a little higher but they are planning to be two story homes.

2:15:08I think Eric here for telling me about the garbage bins in the garage base. I didn't know that that's a good that's a good piece of information to have that they was intended for that. The number of garbage bins hasn't been determined.

2:15:20I'm just going into the, I'm sorry, the details, my new details and how these will be developed. I'm finding that I drive, I bike a lot by the product many projects and like to work every day but I bike by many of the projects that some of these clients have built, and I'm impressed with the cleanliness that I have seen.

2:15:40And that's just an example of past. It doesn't mean what's going to happen in the future, but also I don't, I haven't seen very many garbage bins. I mean the garbage bins from the city. Well, for the great system.

2:15:51The challenge has been for many homes where like where there's town homes and and so on where to put the garbage bins because those homes were never built with that in mind.

2:16:01At least these are built a little bit more with them with them in mind and the thing to builders work with that in mind and they want and because in this case the builders are continuing to own this in this case own them and rent them.

2:16:14They want them to be tidy and clean. That's their desire and that's their their thing and also appreciate Eric's comment about parking. I think it's it's renter.

2:16:24I don't want to say be aware it's a renter's choice and if I was a university student had the opportunity to rent a unit here. I'd say, wow, I couldn't get any closer to the university than that in terms of walking to class.

2:16:36I can't imagine the need why you would have a car but again, I'm a cyclist, not a car. The car buff so much.

2:16:46So I'm just doing some some comments in general. Most importantly, so the staff are in support. We've seen applications of this nature in the past. Yes, this is change. I think it's positive change.

2:16:57We are providing units. They're smaller units than the large homes that we that have been presented and it's those kind of units that we need to provide housing for our society.

2:17:08And I ask for the committee support and happy to answer any more questions if there are any. Thank you.

2:17:16Thank you. Mr. Buseman. Are there any questions before we move into committee of the applicant seeing none. Thank you again. We'll move into committee now and I would like to entertain a motion.

2:17:34What do we have member Fitzpatrick.

2:17:37Through you, Mr. Chair, I motion that we approve the application as

2:17:46written up by the by staff with the recommended conditions. Correct. Yeah. And we have a seconder members peers.

2:17:58Do we have any discussion on the motion before us? We're good fellow.

2:18:06Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't think anybody will be surprised that I'm pretty uncomfortable with this one.

2:18:13I think I really tried to keep in mind today that we are just looking at the severance here. I understand that we are not looking at how the property will be built out and it is really just about the intensification, the number of properties.

2:18:27I think though I'm I continue to be uncomfortable with just this particular configuration. I think we've looked at other applications. I've come to a different conclusion.

2:18:38But in this case, I do feel that I would I will be refusing or opposing this motion and particularly because I don't think that I'm comfortable enough with the impacts on the neighbors.

2:18:50I do feel that when it comes to the definition of compatibility that is defined by the official plan, I think we are we are going to see some unacceptable adverse impacts on the neighbors and I just can't get past that today.

2:19:07I will make a final comment about parking. I have two university students. I don't think that they or their cohort probably think as rationally as perhaps we would all like them to.

2:19:20I have seen some pretty crazy things happen around parking spots. And so I guess maybe that's the perspective I'm bringing to this, but I think it is coloring perhaps my my refusal or my opposition to this motion today. So thank you.

2:19:36Thank you. And I'd like to ask you member good fellow. I know that I think I recall that we shared the same opinion about the orchard project and and a couple of others that have been taken to the OLT.

2:19:58And we made as a committee made several of the same kind of arguments and the OLT has overturned them not to prejudge what the OLT will do. But I'm wondering if if that gives you any pause in opposing us.

2:20:21Thank you for that question because it allows me to add a comment that I had kind of omitted here. I followed the orchard park application at the OLT and the decision quite carefully.

2:20:34And one of the things I noted was that the applicant in that case did make some changes in consultation with the community as that application went forward to the OLT. The the version that was then approved by the OLT was actually different than the application that we reviewed as part of this committee.

2:20:55So I do feel that in that case and perhaps in this case that if we refuse today perhaps that is an added incentive to the applicant to perhaps make some additional modifications in consultation with the community beyond what has been contemplated here in this version that we saw today.

2:21:15So yes, thank you for that question because I do feel that in some cases it's helpful where there is that added layer of additional representation at a different body. Thank you.

2:21:28Thank you and myself I've struggled with this idea of.

2:21:36Is it compatible in others and in some cases? Yeah, straightforward, but like you I'm struggling with this. I'd like to hear what my colleagues have to say about this member Ross.

2:21:51Through you, Mr. or to Mr. Chair.

2:21:56I too am uncomfortable with with this application.

2:22:01However, I will be voting in favor of it.

2:22:05And that's that's from the perspective of the things that I've heard this evening in terms of the efforts that the applicant has made in the last month to pull the buildings forward to increase the side yard setbacks to increase the opportunity for those trees to

2:22:27survive.

2:22:29Staff are providing the as one of the conditions that tree inventory study that must be prepared and agreed to by city staff.

2:22:40And what is more, more persuasive to me is the location of this community in relationship to major roadways and the university. So, if we pull back and look at compatibility from a somewhat broader perspective.

2:22:59And indeed, unfortunately for this.

2:23:03Lovely residential community of older homes on large lots.

2:23:10The fact is that this small development built many years ago has now been caught up.

2:23:18In in major roadways major transit.

2:23:23The university.

2:23:26Right in their doorstep. And so it is.

2:23:30That's what makes this application from one other perspective.

2:23:35Indeed compatible.

2:23:37And so I think that's the key to the application.

2:23:41And yet the specifics of how it's going to be developed in terms of garbage in terms of traffic. All of those things are also important.

2:23:52However,

2:23:55in terms of the purview of this committee, I see that our obligation is to look at the severance from that perspective.

2:24:07Any other comments discussion.

2:24:10Member Fitzpatrick to you, Mr Chairman.

2:24:15While I'm empathetic to everything that's been said about compatibility here.

2:24:21That's really not part of our role.

2:24:26And my question earlier to staff about.

2:24:29Things like the garbage bins and and and that.

2:24:34You know, where does the responsibility reside for.

2:24:40Building in the definition of for compatibility and consulting the neighbors.

2:24:45Because as your point earlier that.

2:24:49You know, there, or I think.

2:24:51The applicants point earlier was there could be 1 massive house go in there. There could be.

2:24:57It could be severed into 2 lots and as a right have a foreplex on each 1 of those lots, which again.

2:25:05I'm sure it would argue to the compatibility issue, but.

2:25:09Who's responsible for determining and defining what compatibility is going to be in this case, because I share the same.

2:25:16Concerns, but again, I'm looking at it strictly from the definition of is this severance meeting the requirements of.

2:25:25You know, the things that were charged with with determining.

2:25:32Thank you. I.

2:25:34I really appreciate the discussion I had followed very carefully what council had in their discussions in.

2:25:44The zoning by law changes and I think that's weighing a lot.

2:25:50On what I'm saying thinking on this decision and 1 of the challenges I find as somebody who's.

2:25:59Drawn pictures of.

2:26:01Places like this for 40 years I always have to self edit and say this isn't about.

2:26:09What I think is a good looking thing.

2:26:13I have to look at what's the intention of the zoning by law. What has council's direction been and I'm.

2:26:21I'm also hearing from what member Ross says about the location.

2:26:25And you know, it's.

2:26:28What 200 meters from Gordon street 300 meters from Gordon street right across the street from the university there. It.

2:26:37It's kind of a little Shangri-La, but.

2:26:42It's the location is the other thing. So I will be supporting this motion.

2:26:50And unless there's any other.

2:26:54Questions or comments, I'm going to turn it over to our esteemed.

2:27:00Secretary treasure who will conduct the vote.

2:27:05Thank you chair committee members, please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the motion, which is to approve the applications with the recommended conditions.

2:27:15Chair Smith in favor.

2:27:17Member fits Patrick in favor.

2:27:20Member good fellow oppose.

2:27:22Member mirror.

2:27:24In favor with staff conditions.

2:27:27Thank you. Member Ross in favor.

2:27:30And member Spears in favor.

2:27:32That's carried. Mr chair.

2:27:35Thank you. Your application has been approved. Thank you.

2:27:39Bless you.

2:27:41At this point, Madam secretary treasure, I would like to suggest that we have a 20 minute recess.

2:27:48So we can.

2:27:50Maybe freshen up and it's now.

2:27:5525 after so we will return.

2:28:00At order two.

2:28:04At this point, we stand adjourned until quarter two.

2:28:08I'd like to call back to order the committee of adjustment.

2:49:04And for September 4th, and we'll reconvene now at it's like.

2:49:14One minute late.

2:49:1614 minutes to the hour.

2:49:20Madam secretary treasure, may we have the next applicant please.

2:49:25Thank you chair. The next application is file B-54 slash 25 consent to create 1 new residential lot with 1 retain residential law at 33 is LinkedIn Avenue.

2:49:36I'll note for those attending the hearing remotely. If you wish to speak to this application, you can do so by calling the number displayed on the screen that numbers 5198221260 extension 2524.

2:49:48And when you call in staff will give you instructions on how to delegate remotely.

2:49:52Good afternoon. Can you state your name for the record please.

2:49:58Jeff Puseman Vanhart surveying representing the property owner.

2:50:02Thank you. And can you tell me if the sign was posted as per the planning act? Yes, it was.

2:50:07Thank you. And you have 10 minutes. Mr. Puseman. And I read staff comments and I'm in agreement with them. Yes, this application. It's a very large parcel at the northeast corner of the city near Woodlawn, Victoria Road.

2:50:22An older home on there. I'm guessing it's the original farmhouse for that whole area.

2:50:28That's on this on this property.

2:50:32We're proposing to divide it so that we have a new house on the north side.

2:50:37The lot is the proposed severance is quite large.

2:50:41740 square meters just to give contacts. The minimum is 460 for this zone.

2:50:49There isn't a little bit of an element of pie shaped lot and the lot widths are 15 meters at the point at the front yard setback.

2:50:58So if you're familiar with pie shaped lots and the zoning bylaw interpretation of pie shaped lots, you don't measure the frontage at the front property line, but you measure it set back at the at the front yard setback of the house.

2:51:12And that that's been in existence in this current zoning bylaw and the previous one, probably the one before that, but that's how most municipalities handle and it's it's very valuable for pie shaped lots to make them more efficient.

2:51:27And that's the only way to allow for a house on them.

2:51:33Otherwise, I think it's a pretty straightforward application.

2:51:37Again, the typical conditions are there, like the tip and the storm water drainage storm water plan and the drainage plan.

2:51:46Any concerns about the utilities are will be addressed and also the driveways.

2:51:53So the only way to address the problem is to have a lot of

2:51:57application.

2:51:59Even the retained lot still is going to be giant to 200 to 2200 square meters. It's still quite large.

2:52:06So be happy to answer any questions or if there's any comments from the committee.

2:52:13Thank you.

2:52:16Committee members, do we have any questions for the applicant?

2:52:20Seeing none.

2:52:21One tree that one of the neighbors has pointed out might be in jeopardy.

2:52:29Would you be able to address that?

2:52:33Well, we put a pose on that severed lot to have the severance, the driveway more on the left and this we you could see there's that star it's kind of faint on the on the right side of that property is a larger tree.

2:52:46So we plan to to try to keep that tree.

2:52:50And I'm not when I read that comment, I wasn't exactly sure if that was the tree that they were concerned with, but I think it is the one on the right. But that's why we've put the driveway on the left.

2:53:00I appreciate that. Thank you.

2:53:03Any other questions for this applicant?

2:53:09Let me ask staff if they have any presentation on this.

2:53:13I see they're nodding their head or shaking their heads rather.

2:53:18So at this point, I will ask if there are any delegates who have registered to address this.

2:53:26Mr chair, I can confirm that we do have 1 registered delegate. The name is Kristen, you're in and John, you're in and they're.

2:53:35Attending via video.

2:53:37Good evening.

2:53:41Can you hear me?

2:53:46It seems you're muted. There we are just unmuted now. Thank you.

2:53:51Welcome. Can you state your name for the record please?

2:53:54Yeah, my name is Kristen, and I am the owner of the home 25 is LinkedIn with my husband, John.

2:54:02Well, you have 10 minutes that you can address the committee and you can make as much use of that time as you wish.

2:54:11Thank you so much. So, as I said, my name is Kristen and we're at 25 is LinkedIn Avenue.

2:54:19I'm just going to say, sorry, I am still in recovery with a brain injury. And so just forgive me if I'm repeating items or things that have already been said. I just smile and nod and we'll all go along.

2:54:32So.

2:54:34I've been listening the entire evening and there's a lot of work being done and, and especially around this subject. And I understand that we are here to decide about severance.

2:54:47But this is our opportunity to talk and.

2:54:52This is a mature family home and this is where people come and raise their kids and they buy an established mature neighborhood for specific reasons because it speaks to them.

2:55:04And what they're looking for for their family. And I'm really seeing that in our bylaws that sort of thing is not really factored in. So I'm going to say my spiel.

2:55:14But yeah, so again, this is a home for us. This is not an investment.

2:55:22The lot that is there. The whole neighborhood was built around it in the 70s and it's been unchanged ever since an investor bought it flipped it and hasn't been able to sell it.

2:55:34And now they're trying to sever some of the land off.

2:55:38It's currently on the market already, even though it hasn't been severed for half a million dollars.

2:55:45So, for us, it's about neighborhood and it's about family. It's not about coming in.

2:55:52You know, getting some money and leaving. And if the investment doesn't go well, you know, when my investments don't go well, I lose money.

2:56:01And I don't get it back from my neighbors pockets. There are some things that we have some concerns about here.

2:56:09This, this is going to impact that our neighborhood. It's definitely going to impact us.

2:56:16There's going to be now a home right right there where there wasn't when we made the decision to move to 12 and why we chose this area specifically.

2:56:25This change isn't to improve the housing crisis or to improve the environment.

2:56:31You know, this is just one property and.

2:56:35Yeah, we definitely have some concerns. This is going to directly decrease the desirability of our neighborhood and our property to sell should we wish to in the future.

2:56:47We bought it specifically for the maturity.

2:56:50We bought it specifically for the trees and for the privacy as did everybody else and it's been this way for a very long time.

2:56:58And all of those positive things that would draw a buyer and what drew us are going to be erased here.

2:57:05People are just going to go to the new developments that are more dense just across the road and around. So this will impact us personally.

2:57:13We bought here for the space and the privacy. There's a huge tree canopy and we have a tremendously large amount of species that live in there.

2:57:21All kinds of different creatures and birds and whatnot.

2:57:24What is not shown is the amount of trees all along the line.

2:57:30That my property shares is completely wooded. It's completely tree.

2:57:36The trees that are there might I'd have to guess at 4 stories, 5 stories.

2:57:41They're all mature cedar trees and it's an absolutely stunning area and it really contributes to the canopy of our neighborhood. There is a very large old tree right where that driveway is going to be.

2:57:53It's not marked right there. It's not the 1 on the left. It's right on on the sorry. It's not on the right. It's the 1 on the left.

2:58:00And so, so this will dramatically impact all the 4 legged all the feathers and us as well.

2:58:10This proposal to our mind is in contrast with the city's intention to increase the canopy.

2:58:16It keeps all our areas cool. We love to have the biodiversity and it preserves, you know, we want to preserve the environment. And this is going to get rid of all of that and all those large trees when there's a foundation being dug there.

2:58:31All their roots are going to be dug right out. So we're extremely concerned about.

2:58:36What a home there would be our neighborhood is also all.

2:58:43Bungalows and like side split walk up so we're really, really low rise.

2:58:49And we haven't even added an ad use, which is, you know, an exciting new development, but you know, when you decide to sever the land and they're already trying to sell it on realtor.

2:59:00We don't know what's going in there and this is again our time to speak about it. So as a home owner, we would not have bought this house had had those things not been there.

2:59:11And we've been here for 11 years. We moved here very specifically for this lot in an old mature neighborhood with a wonderful biodiversity.

2:59:20I am also concerned about grading. I appreciate that there are certain things that are on paper that are filed like the tree protection and storm water and whatnot. But we all know that when it comes down to brass tacks, what happens in real life.

2:59:34Is very, very different and you know, we're going to have now another roof that's going to be collecting rainwater and diverting it where it's in the center of a circle.

2:59:44Is it going to go on to our yards? Are we going to flood our basements? How much is that going to cost us in the future?

2:59:51When this subdivision was originally designed and approved that lot while it is large was the center of it and everything was built around that. So we're going to be foundationally changing the neighborhood for all of us along that strip there.

3:00:09Just going to my notes the brain.

3:00:12Yeah, so, so that those are some big concerns for us. I appreciate that the bylaw does not really reflect those things and how it's going to affect us and our home.

3:00:25Not just our house, but our home and why we came here.

3:00:29And, you know, the there's not a lot in the bylaw that says what's going to happen to, you know, the family of Robbins that have been coming back every year.

3:00:38And all of those beautiful tall trees when I look at my back window, I can't even see the house that's there. It is so thickly tree and none of that is reflected in any of the drawings.

3:00:49So those are those are some big issues for us. And again, that that isn't it's it.

3:00:56You know what, I'm just going to skip to my end part.

3:01:00So we really also wanted to express the concern that this rescheduled meeting was not posted on the property like the original one was.

3:01:08I'm not sure what the requirements are. I appreciate that there are some, but the meeting was not rescheduled. So that was not posted.

3:01:17So a good majority of our neighborhood was not aware of the rescheduling, which I think is is unfortunate because I know when we speak, you know, just on the street, there's a lot of concern about it that it isn't really in line with the views of why everybody came here in the first place.

3:01:36We're also quite concerned that the investor who bought that property is also it's already for sale. The two lots split.

3:01:47The for sale sign has been up. They've been trying to sell for a year and now they've added this extra lot.

3:01:53And before even the city got to meet about it. So there's there's definitely some things about this that we find are not really.

3:02:03Yeah, just not really in line with what we think should be done and what our vision of what our neighborhood and and wealth should be.

3:02:11We came to wealth specifically for its green values and we're not seeing it properly reflected. I'm very excited about the tree by law, but it doesn't apply here and it isn't going to protect this land and it's not going to protect this neighborhood.

3:02:28So, I think I've probably talked a lot and I know that everyone traditionally eats dinner. So, I'll, I'll wrap it up and I look forward to hearing what anybody else has to say.

3:02:40Thank you very much for your delegation and if you want to break weight right there. My colleagues may have some questions for you. So, please stand by committee members. Do we have any questions of this delegate?

3:02:54I'm seeing none.

3:03:00I want to pick up a couple of the points that you've made and ask some questions of staff. If you don't mind.

3:03:12First of all, I'm curious if.

3:03:18I assume that an accessory unit.

3:03:23Could be built as of right on this lot where it not severed and could.

3:03:30Obviously wouldn't be as large as single family home, but it could potentially be in the same location and that would be as of right. Am I am I correct in that assumption?

3:03:41Through you, Mr chair, accessory dwelling units aren't permitted to be in the front yard and looking at the building envelope of the proposed dwelling.

3:03:52It looks like it might be slightly in front of the existing dwelling, but other than that, they could.

3:03:57Yes, absolutely build a detached accessory dwelling unit on the property in a similar location to what is proposed.

3:04:05Okay, thank you for that. And the, the delegate raised the issue of storm water management. And I think we covered that in an early part of the hearing.

3:04:18Would you be able to speak to the issue of storm water management and what a new dwelling might do.

3:04:26To you chair. Yes, adding a new dwelling is typically going to increase the impervious area on the site. So there's going to be more of the site that doesn't necessarily.

3:04:39Passively infiltrate water and maybe runs off in higher quantities to surrounding areas, maybe to the street, maybe to neighboring properties.

3:04:48But staff have recommended a condition prior to the certificate of official to allow us an opportunity to review the detailed storm water management proposal and just ensure that meets the storm water criteria that we have set in the city of wealth that come from the storm water management master plan.

3:05:06So we just have that opportunity to make sure that the storm water management is being done in the way that our requirements require.

3:05:15Thank you for that. And I guess the last issue is the tree and I had asked Mr. Abuse and about that and it and it sounds to me like the proposed new driveway would.

3:05:29Would avoid the, I think it's a maple of some description.

3:05:34Can I address that?

3:05:39Yes, please. Okay, so I wasn't quite sure of what tree reference was. And now we did do a topographic survey of the property.

3:05:49Before we started all this, there is going to be what certainly a large tree where the house is that will be have to be removed where the proposed dwelling is.

3:05:58So that'll be compensated. There will be compensation for that.

3:06:04Okay, thank you. And member Goodfellow has a question.

3:06:08Yes, through the chair to city staff just back on the storm water question for a moment.

3:06:15It looks to me that there was a lot of existing asphalt on that site with a large existing asphalt driveway.

3:06:24But I think we have a condition included or a recommended condition included to remove all that asphalt. So is it possibly the case that the impervious area may increase somewhat.

3:06:37Given the quantity of asphalt that's going to be removed in the smaller proposed driveways or at least be on balance, possibly not as drastically impacted as it might have been otherwise.

3:06:50To member Goodfellow through the chair. That's quite possible with existing asphalt being removed off site. We have seen the odd time with developments.

3:06:59Similar situations, but asphalt onsite and as part of the development application, the impervious area can decrease, which is great. That's that's a great improvements. Not not always foregone conclusion that storm water condition is it is going to be.

3:07:12More challenging because of development sometimes can actually be easier to follow good storm water practices through that. I will say just looking at the.

3:07:21Stormwater management master plan and what our requirements are this is in stormwater policy area 13, which we colloquially refer to as the city wide policy area. That's because about 50% of the city.

3:07:33Applies to this area and the requirements are basically for infiltration and for runoff to maintain redevelopment redevelopment conditions under post development condition. So you cannot make.

3:07:46You cannot increase runoff to the neighboring property cannot increase runoff to the to the road. You can't have less infiltration under the post development conditions than what you had under the pre development conditions. We just want to make sure that we don't.

3:07:58Encourage drainage concerns on neighboring properties or less in good resources like our natural groundwater resource.

3:08:10Okay, thank you. That was helpful clarification.

3:08:15Are there any more questions for the delegate.

3:08:18Seeing none, I want to thank you once again for taking the time and the effort of.

3:08:25Of making your your opinions known and.

3:08:30I do apologize about the change in the date.

3:08:36However, there was the statutory notice.

3:08:41It was a technical issue that couldn't be resolved at the time.

3:08:46And, but we did make city staff did make the.

3:08:52The, I guess the prescribed amount of time.

3:08:59Between when that was canceled and today's makeup meeting. So I just wanted to make that clear.

3:09:05But thank you again for your delegation. Are there any other. Are there any other delegates, Madam secretary treasurer.

3:09:13Mr chair, I can confirm no other delegates.

3:09:16Okay. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this application.

3:09:22Seeing none, Mr. Buseman. Did you want to address some of the issues that were raised.

3:09:28The size of this new lot is actually probably bigger than the ones that are already in this neighborhood.

3:09:35Like I did some rough measuring that I'm expecting the lots to the north to be about 500 square meters. We're proposing 1 for 740. So it actually fits.

3:09:46Quite well. It's not like we're squeezing it in.

3:09:49There was a question about the sign and at the sign and notice and our client took a picture of the sign and forwarded it to us and to the secretary treasurer showing that it had been property.

3:10:02That with the new date and so on on it. So.

3:10:05Feel like everything's been met in that respect.

3:10:08City staff are supportive and so and that meets the planning principles and has for your support.

3:10:14Thank you. And are there any questions seeing none? What is your wish committee?

3:10:23Do we have a motion to consider member good fellow?

3:10:29I move that we approve the application with the conditions recommended by city staff.

3:10:33Thank you. And we have a seconder.

3:10:37Member Ross.

3:10:39Is there any conversation or debate on the issue.

3:10:42Seeing none, Madam secretary treasurer. May I ask you to call the vote please.

3:10:48Committee members, please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the motion, which is to approve the application with the recommended conditions chair Smith.

3:10:58In favor.

3:10:59Member fits Patrick in favor.

3:11:01Member good fellow in favor.

3:11:03Member mirror.

3:11:04In favor.

3:11:05Member Ross in favor and member Spears in favor.

3:11:09That's carried. Mr chair.

3:11:10Your application has been approved. Thank you. You're welcome.

3:11:14Madam secretary treasurer. May we have the next application please.

3:11:25The last application for this evening is files be dash 55 slash 25 and be dash 56 slash 25 consent to create two new residential lots with one retained residential lot at 151 Metcalfe street.

3:11:39I'll note for those attending the hearing remotely, if you wish to speak to this application, you can do so by calling the number displayed on the screen that numbers 519821260 extension 2524.

3:11:51And when you call in staff will give you instructions on how you can delegate remotely.

3:11:55Mr. Buseman, can you state your name for the record please.

3:12:02Jeff Buseman, Van Hart and surveying applicant for the property owner.

3:12:07Thank you. And was the sign posted as per the planning act? Yes, it was.

3:12:12And have you read staff comments and are you in agreement? I've read the comments and I am in agreement with it.

3:12:18As you know, you have 10 minutes to address the committee.

3:12:22So this is on Metcalfe street.

3:12:26And we're proposing a strip of three townhouses.

3:12:33There are various wits a little bit just to make it fit. And the biggest thing is that on the left hand side of the severed person number one, there's an existing registered easement in favor of the city of Guelph.

3:12:47I forget if it's for storm or sanitary, but it's that sewer that easement is there. So we're proposing that the house be just almost right up to the edge of that easement.

3:12:57And that's why the one on the left is 10.5 meters wide.

3:13:01The one in the middle is 8.2 meters wide. The one on the right is 8.5 meters wide.

3:13:07We're looking at a various jigs and jogs of the front there a bit on this one.

3:13:16Otherwise city staff has been supportive. Again, all the zoning requirements are met.

3:13:22We think it's a good fit. It'll be a nice infill project for the small house that's there today.

3:13:27The standard conditions for storm water management, drainage tip and so on are included as typical.

3:13:36I think it's a great application and be happy to answer any questions that the committee might have.

3:13:41Thank you. Committee members, do we have any questions of the applicant seeing not? Oh, sorry. Member Goodfellow.

3:13:55Sorry, squeaked in there with one more question.

3:13:58So through the chair to the applicant, I think we've been looking at semi detached all evening. This is these are townhouses. So can I just ask for clarification? How many units would be in each one of the townhouses?

3:14:11That's yeah, 323. So 3 in the left, 2 in the middle, 3 on the right.

3:14:19Okay. Thank you. That's helpful.

3:14:23Thank you. Any other questions of the applicant?

3:14:28Seeing none. I did note in the neighbors correspondence, the question of trees.

3:14:39I don't know that any of them were big enough to trigger the tree bylaw, but is there any sort of tree protection plan?

3:14:51And there is the new tree bylaw that we have to to adhere to. So, yes.

3:14:58Thank you.

3:15:04Madam secretary treasurer, are there any delegates waiting online to speak to this?

3:15:10Mr chair, I can confirm no delegation requests.

3:15:13And is there anyone in the audience?

3:15:16I see no one in the audience. So at this point, I will turn to the committee and ask for a motion.

3:15:28Members beers and move that we approve this application with the conditions recommended by city staff.

3:15:35Thank you. And do we have a seconder?

3:15:37Member fits Patrick.

3:15:39Do we have any discussion on this application? Seeing none, madam secretary treasurer, can I ask you to call the vote please?

3:15:50Thank you chair committee members please indicate your vote by responding in favor opposed to the motion which is to approve the applications with the recommended conditions chair Smith in favor member fits Patrick in favor member good fellow in favor member mirror.

3:16:06In favor member Ross in favor and member Spears in favor. Let's carry you Mr chair.

3:16:13The application has been approved. Thank you.

3:16:16Welcome.

3:16:19I believe this brings us to the end of our agenda. Does it not madam secretary treasurer.

3:16:26That's correct. Mr chair. I do have two brief staff announcements though.

3:16:32Please go ahead.

3:16:33Thank you chair.

3:16:35I have a couple of items regarding a well tea appeal updates first minor variance file a dash 60 slash 24 for 201 on my road south. That was regarding permanent and temporary variances for parking rates.

3:16:50The

3:16:52minor variance file a dash 71 slash 24 for 424 will erode. That was regarding a variance for reduced side yard setback for an additional dwelling unit in a separate building on a lot was refused by the committee at the August 8th 2024 hearing and was subsequently

3:17:04appealed by the applicant and that appeal was allowed and the minor variances were authorized a copy of that decision has been circulated to the committee members as well.

3:17:14So that's all the announcements I have. Mr chair. Thank you. And with that, I think that completes our business for today may have a motion to

3:17:40adjourn. Member Fitzpatrick seconded by member Spears. All those in favor. We stand adjourned. Thank you members and thank you staff for staying late.