Committee of Adjustment

1:25Good afternoon, Guelph. I'd like to call to order the March 14th, 2024 hearing of the Guelph Committee of Adjustment.

1:33We have a somewhat different schedule today as we have a staff presentation first followed by the consideration of applications, and they will start at 4 p.m.

1:43So we'll proceed first with the first three items on the agenda followed by the staff presentation and any questions.

1:51Then at 4 p.m. we'll proceed to the opening remarks and consideration of the applications on our agenda.

1:59At this point, I would like to ask member stairs to read the indigenous territorial acknowledgement members stairs.

2:10As we gather, let us take time to reflect on our privilege to live and work in Guelph, the city built over rich indigenous histories.

2:19We 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.

2:27If our actions today can move us towards reconciliation, we should take pause and make those decisions with intention and gratitude.

2:36This place we call Guelph has served as traditional lands and a place of refuge for many peoples over time, but more specifically the Atawanda Rock and the Hadna Sani.

2:46This land is held as a treaty lands and territory with the Mississaugas of the credit First Nation.

2:52Well flies directly adjacent to the Haldeman tract and as part of a long established traditional hunting ground for the six nations of the Grand River.

3:00Many First Nations in you and may keep people who have come from across Turtle Island, call Guelph home today.

3:09Thank you member stairs.

3:11At this point I would like to ask if there are any community interests and nature.

3:19Yeah, I have a conflict on matter a 424.

3:24Leave Street.

3:26Okay, so noted members stairs and you know to turn your, your video and mic off at that point.

3:34Members here could you perhaps elucidate us a little bit on the nature of the conflict.

3:49I work for Metrolinx as a legal counsel and Metrolinx submitted comments on that application.

3:59Okay, thank you very much.

4:02At this point, I would like to ask for members to move in second the.

4:09The minutes of our last meeting on February 8th.

4:12That for Spears. I move we accept the minutes from the previous meeting.

4:19And a seconder.

4:21Members say yours.

4:24All those in favor.

4:26That I believe is carried.

4:33At this point we have a staff presentation on phase two of the redesigned advisory committee of council.

4:42And I will ask staff to go ahead with their presentation.

4:48Mr. McMahon, if you would like to come to the podium, thank you.

4:53Thank you very much, chair Smith members of the committee. Thanks so much for having me today.

4:58I know this is a bit of an unusual start to a committee of adjustment meeting. So I appreciate I appreciate the time.

5:03My name is Dylan McMahon. I'm the manager of legislative services and deputy city clerk at the city.

5:09And I'm here today to talk to you a little bit about the redesigning advisory committees of council project specifically phase two, which we are in now.

5:16I will acknowledge that I know we have a couple members of the committee who are just starting out.

5:21There will be a little bit of background in this presentation about phase one.

5:24Admittedly, it may be a little bit difficult to follow at times, but we're happy to spend a little bit of time after today's meeting.

5:30One on one, if you want to learn more about the project, but I will provide some, some background.

5:35So the redesigning advisory committees of council project has been ongoing for about a year and three months to this date.

5:46Phase one culminated in November, 2023 with council approval of the advisory committee of council governance framework.

5:53Phase two is now a review of all of our advisory committees to ensure alignment with that framework.

5:59Throughout this presentation, I will use the word advisory committee to refer to any committee appointed by Guelph.

6:06So the committee of adjustment fits under that category, despite the fact that colloquially you do not provide advice to council, but for the sake of using one term, we will use the term advisory committee.

6:17As part of phase two, we know that there are significant changes coming to advisory committees in Guelph that could include expansion or reduction of mandates to align with the framework mergers, disillusions, creation of new advisory committees.

6:32All of that is on the table. Guelph currently has 14 advisory committees.

6:36Council has assigned resources in 2025 that would let us support somewhere in the range of seven to 10 committees.

6:43This conversation is a little bit different with the committee of adjustment because you are a statutory advisory committee.

6:48So to be clear, there's no version of this review that somehow yields a dissolution of the committee of adjustment or a change in your core mandate as it's legislated.

6:58But that's not to say that perhaps the mandate couldn't expand or change in some other way. And that's the type of thing that we're going to be talking about today.

7:07This is just a list of the current advisory committees in Guelph. You'll see we have four, all of our statutory committees, which is to say committees required by provincial legislation, have a little asterisk next to them.

7:17The committee of adjustment, of course, is one of those statutory committees.

7:24The entire project has been a collaborative effort between the city of Guelph and the Guelph lab. The Guelph lab itself is a collaboration between the city and the University of Guelph.

7:34So there is an academic angle to this project and participation from the university as well as the city. Phase one was done collaboratively.

7:42We had a working group made up of advisory committee members to help us draft the framework. Folks who have been on the committee of some time will have been receiving emails from me regarding this project for a year or so.

7:52There was a variety of surveys in different ways for folks to get involved. We'll continue to take that sort of collaborative approach as we go through phase two.

8:01What we're doing right now is the initial round of stakeholder engagement. So we're meeting with each advisory committee.

8:07We're going to have a meeting of the chairs and vice chairs of each advisory committee this spring.

8:12We'll be meeting with each advisory committee again this fall to actually talk about specific changes that might be considered to a committee.

8:19Right now we are just collecting feedback from each committee. We'll also collect feedback of course from the staff that support committees.

8:25And at this point, no specific decisions have been made. We don't have any concrete ideas about what might change or might not change.

8:33We want to collect this feedback, meet with chairs and vice chairs in the summer and then begin to draft what we think are the changes necessary to comply with Council's direction through the approval of the framework last year.

8:43The framework itself includes seven commitments. We did a couple of information sessions earlier this year that hopefully folks were able to attend.

8:53There was a link set out and there is a recording available if folks are interested. We can resend that. There's seven commitments included.

9:00They're talked about in a little bit more detail in that session. But for today, what we're really trying to focus on is number two and then a bit of a general discussion after number two.

9:10So the second commitment of the advisory committee framework advisory committees of Council should help shape the city's strategic goals.

9:17So what we're asking you as committee of adjustment members today is in what way do you see your work contributing to the shaping or implementation of the city's strategic goals up on the screen right now.

9:31You've got a summary of the city's strategic plan. I'll pull up a summary of the city's community plan shortly thereafter.

9:37I want to recognize and acknowledge that this is a just a more nuanced conversation because the statutory nature of the committee and the fact that you're a decision making body that it is for a fully discretionary committee like the transit advisory committee or the public art advisory committee, for example.

9:54That being said, in my mind at least there is still some pretty clear connections, but we want to ask the question to committee of adjustment members. Are there particular themes or objectives in the strategic plan where you see the work of the committee contributing right now?

10:08And then perhaps more importantly, are there goals that you could contribute to are there ways where you see, you know what we could provide advice potentially on a slightly different topic or in a slightly different way, and we might be able to help further some of these other other goals of the city.

10:24So I will turn it over to you. Certainly if you have questions or more than welcome to ask.

10:30If you want me to do some polite prompting for possibilities, I can do that too. But at this point I'll turn it over to you for any feedback you might have.

10:40Thanks to Mr. McMahon. Committee members.

10:48I wonder if we want to take up Mr. McMahon on his suggestion. I'll turn it over to the committee for their comment or questions.

11:11I don't know if it's through you, Mr. Chair. I don't think so. I think it's more informal than that.

11:15But seems go ahead. Certainly in the second row there in terms of improving housing supply, I think that generally this committee has an opportunity to push the envelope of the bylaws in that respect.

11:30And we do actually, I think we make it possible for more housing to exist than might have if the bylaw was strictly enforced or there weren't variances.

11:44Excellent. Thank you. And I should just mention, although I am just standing here, my colleague Liz Barber, our board and committee coordinator is taking notes.

11:51So we're not asking for motions from the committee, but feedback like that is perfect. So we've got it noted there that the committee of adjustment would be supporting the goal of improving housing supply in the city building theme of the strategic plan.

12:05I think that's a very, very reasonable piece of feedback.

12:12I wonder if there might be some of the other objectives potentially in city building that would also apply. I wonder about growing and caring for community spaces and places. And if the committee thinks there is a role through variance and consent approval that.

12:27That may impact that particular objective.

12:32Yeah, I think expand a little on that.

12:35Yeah, so this is this is just me talking. And certainly I want to hear from the committee.

12:42City building seemed to me coming into this to be the obvious theme where the committee of adjustment will be having an impact, although I'm happy to be told I'm wrong.

12:50And potentially the work you do regarding variant of the approval or refusal of variances and consents may also be connected to growing and caring for community spaces and places.

13:00So I would just pose that that question to the committee that is there is there a role of caring for community spaces and places, which would be all of our neighborhoods in the places where we live.

13:10Is there a role that the committee has to that end?

13:14I think there is. Yes.

13:18Go ahead. Great.

13:19Yeah, I think I think the second criterion in city building is appropriate. I also wonder and people in economy number three supporting community well being.

13:30I think I think our committee.

13:34We have that a role in that also and that, you know, when we're reviewing applications, we, you know, we take into account the surrounding community and the interests of.

13:46Of neighbors, so I think that may be applicable also.

13:53I wonder if I might ask.

13:55Because we're giving this presentation to all of our committees, I think we've done seven or eight and that particular objective has come up repeatedly.

14:02And I wonder if we think in this case supporting community well being would be an area of primary involvement or feedback from the committee of adjustment.

14:12Or is it potentially like a, like a secondary result of the work you do in the same way, perhaps that the role of the public art advisory committee isn't to provide advice to counsel specifically on community well being, but vibrant public art,

14:26successful transit, successful tourism for that matter, all collectively help to contribute.

14:32So I wonder if I could clarify, do you think the community well being objective is that is it sort of a secondary result of the committee doing good work potentially connected more to city building or do I have that?

14:42Do I have that wrong?

14:43I think it's I think it's secondary. I think like our primary.

14:48Our primary functions would focus on their step under city building. So supporting community well being that's kind of a secondary.

14:57I won't say a byproduct, but I think it fits in as a secondary criteria.

15:02Excellent. Thank you. We've captured that.

15:07If there's no other feedback specific to the strategic plan and I'm happy to jump back if something pops in your head, but I will pull up.

15:14The community plan. So just give me a minute here. There we go.

15:29So this will actually take place on 2 slides. There's just a few more themes.

15:34I think 1 of the obvious ones based on the strategic plan feedback you just gave is the very 1st 1. So have housing that works for us. I think that's reasonably connected to the feedback you gave for the strategic plan.

15:45And if folks are able to scan that if there are other areas where you think.

15:49Yes, this is this is something where we're contribute contributing to are helping to shape the strategic goal.

15:56Then certainly please mention it.

16:19I'm just flipped to the next slide.

16:22And I'm happy to go back as well.

16:25And maybe also added it's not it's not unreasonable to only think that you're connected to 1 or 2 objectives. These strategic plans are broad. They cover a lot of work obviously.

16:34And most committees are really closely aligned with a small handful of objectives, not, you know, 14 out of 20 or something like that.

16:41So it's by no mean a knock on the committee. If we say really in case of the community plan, we feel like it's it's housing that is the big connection.

16:48I may be at a common I am new to the committee. I will note, but if you can maybe just go back 1 slide.

16:58I think we protect the environment, you know, kind of fits into the mandate. There is some environmental protection within the zoning natural heritage areas, that type of thing.

17:10So I think that could be considered a result of the committee.

17:16Would it be fair to say a member Segal that that is something that the committee is considering when they're making decisions. So that's sort of that.

17:24It's not advice or decisions related specifically to the environment, but that that is 1 feedback the committee considers when it looks at variances and consents. Is that is that a fair description of what you're trying to say.

17:35Yes, maybe someone else who's been longer can just confirm that but yeah, that's that's even a summit up.

17:45Yeah, I can think of a number of cases where decisions have have swayed one way or the other because of natural landscape specifically trees.

17:54The committee takes, you know, the the greenscape that the tree canopy seriously and I think that that applicants know that and are careful to promise to do the right thing.

18:08And sometimes it doesn't work out that way.

18:11So I think the committee is well aware of that and I think depending on the member not everyone has the same perspective clearly, but 1 member in particular takes stormwater drainage very seriously and and I think that way the committee as a whole takes that seriously.

18:27Thank you. That's excellent feedback.

18:34I will now just ask a couple more general questions.

18:39A little bit more closely related to the fact that we have adjustment is statutory that you do have delegated authority. So knowing that the core mandate of the committee of adjustment is not going to change through this review.

18:49You will continue to meet to hear.

18:53Applications for variances and consents that are brought forward.

18:58There are other committees that are though they may not have delegated authority or reviewed those applications that discuss things that are planning related.

19:07So we've a planning advisory committee, a heritage related a heritage advisory committee, a natural heritage advisory committee.

19:13We also have a second quasi judicial committee, which is the property standards committee.

19:18Those are the obvious ones that come to mind, but I wonder in the eyes of the committee, are there any opportunities for tweaking mandates of the committee of adjustment to broaden your scope.

19:29So yes, you're always going to hear variances and consents, but that's not to say that the scope couldn't change to include other topics, you know, working on a project where I know the number of committees needs to go down.

19:41I'm quick to point out that that doesn't necessarily mean that the number of topics that are considered by advisory committees needs to go down, but obviously that would include merging mandates to some degree.

19:52And that could be mandates that are similar in the sense of it is in the sort of land use planning world or mandates that are similar in the sense of, you know, it's quasi judicial, you hear applications, you make decisions, those decisions are final.

20:04So I'll point out those examples as things that come to mind to me, but I would just be interested hearing from the committee if you think anything like that is a possibility. If so, why, if not, why not.

20:20I tend to say yes.

20:25In a broadly general sort of sense and as you pointed out, our role is legislative in nature. And so there, there may actually be as well some issues that council presently deals with that they might want to delegate further authority to the committee.

20:48And at present, I know that we, we have scheduled two meetings a month.

20:54And generally speaking, we only hit that that number maybe once twice a year in my experience. So we've signed up for the volunteer activity for two meetings a month. So if we, I guess we have the bandwidth in order to take on other responsibilities.

21:17So I know that's a general sort of woolly answer, but if I think it would also mean council would have to look at our legislative makeup at the same time.

21:32Yeah, absolutely. That's great feedback. So I think the committee of adjustment is unusual there in that when you do sign up, there is that two meeting a month expectation that is more than most of our other committee.

21:45Most of our other committees. So if there is a thought amongst the members that when you signed up for two, that only actually happens once or twice a year. Typically, it's just the one meeting a month.

21:54But hey, we've got that second date in our calendars and we're available to provide feedback. I think that's excellent. I'd be curious if you have any specific ideas about what type of feedback you might want to provide.

22:06And is it something currently considered by another committee, or you don't even need to know if it is or not. But if it seems like something that would be within the expertise of this committee, if you have any ideas now, that'd be great to hear.

22:17Certainly, you can find other ways to give you a chance to provide that feedback to whether it's, you know, an email or a phone call down the line or something like that.

22:24There'll be lots of other opportunities for the chair and vice chair at that meeting this summer that I mentioned as well. But if I'm sort of seeing some heads of committee members nod going, we have that second meeting a month, maybe there's something we can do with that space by broadening the mandate a little bit.

22:39That alone is very good, but anything more specific is welcome to.

22:44Certainly, File Under, I don't know what I don't know. And so it's a question of rolling up sleeves and seeing what's out there.

22:55I can't put my finger on one issue that has either come before council or other committees in the past, but a little bit of digging might help.

23:09Absolutely. And I think that will be part of what we're looking to accomplish at that meeting of chairs and vice chairs.

23:15We'll be presenting at that meeting all of the feedback we've collected from committee members, from staff, from smaller group sessions with members of city council as well.

23:23And I mean, here we're talking a lot about current committees. There will also be suggestions of topics that are not currently covered by committees, which we might want covered.

23:31I think the sort of obvious example right now would be some sort of committee regarding housing and homelessness we don't have. That's obviously a topic that's front and center.

23:40So there could be a desire to add a mandate that doesn't currently exist and we could be looking at, you know, places for that to land and just knowing that there's an opportunity, some bandwidth to use the chairs words is very helpful.

23:51And I think the roll up your sleeves moment is at that meeting in the summer.

23:55So do you mean something outside of the legislative framework under which we're form, which is under the planning act?

24:06That's correct. Yeah, because that legislative framework is not going to change. So everything that you're statutorily required to do you'll continue to do.

24:14But that doesn't mean you can't do more. You have a committee of adjustment that has to do a B and C.

24:20But it's certainly within city councils purview to say, but if you could also handle X, Y and Z, we think that would be fantastic.

24:27So the mandate could be expanded. We'd have to think about ways to handle that. You know, it could be that there's a committee of adjustment meeting proper with variances and consents once a month.

24:36And then the other meeting looks a little bit excuse me looks a little bit different because you wouldn't be meeting in that quasi judicial sense.

24:42But there's a number of ways that that could be handled. If the committee had the capacity, the willingness to desire to take on more and that it made sense, especially in light of the fact that we do have a number of committees that needs to that needs to come down slightly.

24:55I appreciate all that feedback. I know we're getting a little bit close to the regular meeting start time. So I'll just talk very quickly about next steps.

25:06Like I said, there's a workshop with chairs and vice chairs coming up in the summer. Depending on the scale of changes, we will be coming back to committees in the in the fall.

25:15So if if the recommendation from staff is effectively no change, committee of adjustment stays within the standard statutory envelope, we would offer to the committee to come back and discuss why if we are recommending a big change, we will come back and we will explain why and we will ask the committee to actually take a vote to indicate whether you supported or not.

25:35Ultimately, all of those votes, the positions of the committees, the recommendations of staff go to city council toward the end of this year for approval. There will be a lot of communication between now and then, but I appreciate your feedback.

25:47Thanks for having me. And by all means, if you have any other questions or concerns, things you missed or you just want to talk about the project, you can always reach out to Trista or myself and we're happy to arrange those those conversations.

25:59Awesome. Thank you very much, Mr. McMahon. It's it's good information and I think we have a little bit of homework to do and look forward to meeting with other chairs in the future.

26:14I appreciate it. Thank you so much.

26:16I think we have a few minutes before four o'clock. I think this would be a good opportunity to maybe have a short recess and reconvene it for a clock. All those in favor.

26:34Carried. See you at four o'clock. And we're back. I'd like to call back to order the March 14th, 2024 hearing of the Golf Committee of Adjustment.

33:44This hearing is being held in a hybrid format with attendees appearing in person and or remotely and is being live streamed and recorded.

33:53Please be advised that the public hearings form part of the public record and the words names and or images of those participating shall be recorded and posted online.

34:05Before I outline the hearing format for today, if you wish to speak to an application that's listed on the agenda and have not yet submitted a request in advance of the hearing, please call the number displayed on the screen, which is 519-822-1260.

34:25That's 8, 519-822-1260 and the extension is 2524.

34:33At that point, you will receive instructions on how to participate. A final call for delegations will be made when each application is called.

34:41The agenda for this hearing has been posted online at gulf.ca forward slash c o f a.

34:49I will remind all committee members and staff participating in the hearing to please mute your microphones when not in use. Applicants will be unmuted when their application is called.

35:00I'd also like to share the hearing format we will be using to navigate through each application.

35:06Each applicant will be called by the secretary treasurer and the call in number for those wishing to speak to an application shall be displayed on the screen.

35:15Afterwards, the applicant will be given an opportunity to add anything further to their application to a maximum of 10 minutes.

35:23You will hear a chime when there is a 30 seconds left and another when the 10 minutes has elapsed.

35:30If you are the applicant and have nothing further to add, you can simply say so.

35:36The committee will then be able to ask questions of the applicant or staff.

35:41After that, we will hear from members of the public who wish to comment on the application. Please note that all comments should be addressed through myself the chair.

35:51Please avoid repeating concerns already stated by others and focus on adding new information.

35:58Comments are also limited to 10 minutes or less. You'll hear a chime when there are 30 seconds left and another when 10 the 10 minutes have elapsed.

36:09Any member of the public who have submitted a request to speak prior to the hearing will be the first invited to provide comments.

36:17For those watching the hearing online, if you wish to speak to an application have not yet submitted a request in advance of the hearing, please call the number displayed on the screen now.

36:29For those attending the hearing in person, you will also be given a chance to come forward to the podium and address the committee.

36:36Once all comments from the public have been heard, the applicant or staff will be given the opportunity to respond to comments.

36:45Finally, as the chair, I shall turn to the committee for a motion and deliberation as well as a vote on the application.

36:53When the committee is making a decision on an application, the chair will be asking the secretary treasurer to conduct the vote by roll call.

37:03The secretary treasurer will call each of the members names and each member shall respond if they are in favor or opposed to the motion and the chair will announce the results.

37:15If you wish to receive a copy of the decision of an application, including information about the appeal process, you must submit a written request.

37:24A written request can be made by contacting staff using the contact information shown on the screen.

37:32To receive a copy of the decision, please email cofa at gwellf.ca and with your name, the file number you're interested in.

37:45Please note that owners and applicants automatically receive a copy of the decision.

37:54I have confirmed with secretary treasurer that we have not received any deferral requests today.

38:00So I will now ask the secretary treasurer to announce the first application.

38:05Thank you chair.

38:13The first application is files a slash dash 72 slash 73 and file a dash 70 dash 73 slash 23 multiple variances related to proposed townhouse development at 55 and city five and 75 city view drive north.

38:32For 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.

38:39That number is 519-822-1260 extension 2524.

38:45And when you call in staff will give you instructions on how you can delegate remotely.

38:51Good afternoon.

38:52Can you state your name and your relationship to the application please?

38:56Good afternoon.

38:57My name is Charlotte Lewington and I'm a planner at GSP group.

39:01And I am speaking to the application on behalf of my client fusion homes today.

39:06Thank you.

39:07And can you tell me if the sign was posted as per the planning act?

39:11Yes, it was.

39:12Thank you.

39:13And you have 10 minutes to address the committee.

39:15Please make use of as much or as little as you like.

39:18Thank you.

39:21I'm here to talk about the minor variance requests under just the 2023 zone bylaw for block 130 and the city view subdivision and variances under the 1995 and 2023 bylaws for townhouse blocks.

39:36131 and 132 blocks 130, 131 and 132 are all multiple residential blocks within phase two of the city view subdivision.

39:48Two site plan applications have been submitted for the development of these blocks.

39:53Block 130 proposes 32 residential units and block 131 and 132 are combined blocks.

40:00that propose a total of 123 residential units.

40:05These blocks have been going through the site plan

40:07approval process with city staff,

40:10the original submission being made in 2022.

40:14There have been a few iterations

40:16since the original submission in 2022,

40:19which included submission, receiving staff comments.

40:23Fusion homes went back and made some revisions

40:25and resubmitted and so on until we've reached today

40:29with a proposal that has staff support.

40:33So looking at the 1995 zoning bylaw first,

40:37block 130 is not requesting any minor variances.

40:43So this block is in full compliance

40:46with the 1995 zoning bylaw.

40:49Block 131 and 132, we're requesting two minor variances

40:54to the 1995 bylaw.

40:56The first one is requesting 15%

40:59of the provided parking B for visitor spaces,

41:05where the zoning bylaw requires 20%

41:07and to clarify, we're not requesting

41:09a reduction in parking.

41:11We're requesting that more parking be provided

41:14for the residential units

41:16and 15% be provided for visitors.

41:19And the other variance is for the rear yard to be six meters,

41:23whereas the zoning bylaw requires 7.5 meters.

41:27The rear yard in this case is Bryant Avenue

41:30and functionally and aesthetically speaking,

41:34this will kind of look and feel like the front yard

41:37with the townhouses kind of facing the street.

41:41So the reduction here, I think will contribute

41:47to an attractive streetscape and is a minor reduction.

41:52The 2023 bylaw, which is currently under appeal,

41:56introduced a number of new regulations,

42:00which were more prescriptive and that's resulted

42:03in a number of new variances needed for block 130

42:07and 131 and 132.

42:10The staff recommendation went into a good level

42:14of detail on these variances.

42:17So I won't go too into the details here,

42:19but to provide somewhat of a list,

42:23some of these variances include a maximum of 75%

42:27of parking be provided in surface parking areas.

42:30We're proposing 100% in surface parking areas

42:35and there are larger parking space requirements now

42:39increasing from 2.5 by 5.5 meters to 2.75 by 5.5 meters.

42:45EV parking spaces have been added to the new zoning bylaw

42:50and before the zoning bylaw was approved,

42:55we were not proposing any EV parking spaces

42:59on any of these site plans.

43:02Now we're proposing 10%.

43:05Maximum driveway widths,

43:07which I understand city staff have recommended

43:09approving a six meter driveway width

43:12for two units in block 130, which we're in agreement with.

43:18A lot area per dwelling unit.

43:19So this divides the entire lot area by the number of units

43:23and we're requesting 225 square meters per unit

43:27rather than 270 square meters.

43:31The new zoning bylaw introduced setback requirements

43:33within private blocks.

43:36We're providing a minimum of 2.5 meters in some areas,

43:40whereas the bylaw requires four meters.

43:43And finally, the new zoning bylaw has introduced

43:46the requirement for secure bike parking spaces

43:49to be provided for each unit.

43:51And these are typically provided

43:53in secure locker type bike parking spaces.

43:58And our request is we are providing

44:04one secure bike parking space per unit,

44:07but some of these are gonna be provided

44:09on the ground floor units within the unit.

44:12So it's not meeting that the bylaw definition,

44:16which requires them to be in these locker type spaces.

44:19So that's why we're requesting that variance there.

44:23So some of these variances in the 2023 bylaw

44:28seem to be counter to the desired built form

44:30for these blocks, which is outlined

44:32in the official plan and zoning bylaws,

44:34which is to permit small, compact,

44:37ground oriented residential units.

44:40The requests are minor deviations

44:42from the 2023 bylaw regulations and the 2019 bylaw,

44:47but they do make a big impact in achieving the density

44:49the city requires on these blocks.

44:53The design of the site is a result of collaboration

44:57with Fusion Homes and City staff.

44:59The result is two functional site plans,

45:02which aim to meet the city's, the needs of the city

45:05in regards to density, permeability and connectivity

45:08between the sites, good quality common amenity space

45:11and landscaped areas, and an attractive

45:14and functional streetscape.

45:16Overall, the requested variances meet all four tests

45:19of a minor variance and that they're minor in nature,

45:22desirable and in line with the intent

45:24of the official plan and zoning bylaw.

45:27So if there's any questions, I'm happy to answer them.

45:30Thank you.

45:31If you want to wait right there,

45:33I'll see if the committee has any questions for you.

45:37I did neglect to ask if you had red staffs comments

45:41and you are in agreement with them,

45:42but it sounds from your presentation.

45:45Like you have read them and that you are in agreement

45:48with them, am I correct?

45:50Yes, I did read them and we are in agreement, thank you.

45:52Thank you for that.

45:53Committee members, do we have questions for the applicant?

45:58Member Spears.

45:59Through you, Mr. Chair, to the applicant.

46:01I wonder if you could lay my concerns

46:03about visitor parking.

46:06Excuse me.

46:08My concern is that people living that far from the core,

46:13it seems to me very likely, in many cases,

46:16we'll have more than one vehicle.

46:17Just, it's just the way things go.

46:20And given the reduced number, even though it's a small number

46:24of visitor parking spaces, I'm concerned that there just

46:27simply isn't enough parking for the entire site.

46:31I think there was a suggestion somewhere

46:32that there might be available on street parking,

46:36but in my tour around the neighborhood,

46:38I found an awful lot of streets that are no parking.

46:40And that concerns me.

46:42Do you have a perspective on that?

46:47Through you, the chair, to Member Spears.

46:51Through our application, we are providing the same amount

46:55of parking spaces that are required in both zoning bylaws.

47:00What our request is doing is asking that some

47:04of those parking spaces that would normally be allocated

47:07to visitors be directly allocated towards residents.

47:11And so where typically there would be one parking space

47:16per unit, and that is it.

47:18We are providing one parking space per unit for all units,

47:22and some units will have the opportunity to have two spaces.

47:27So the amount of parking is still the same,

47:31and it's in line with what the zoning bylaw requires.

47:35It's just a slight change in allocation.

47:38And that option would be available to buyers of these units.

47:44So if there's someone who has two cars,

47:47that might be something that they consider

47:49when they're purchasing a unit.

47:52And there is street parking throughout the City View

47:55subdivision.

47:59Thank you for that.

48:00Thanks.

48:06I'm not seeing any other questions.

48:08I do have a couple of more questions myself,

48:14but at this point, I'm going to ask if there are any members

48:19of the public who would like to delegate to this,

48:21either here in the gallery or at home.

48:30Chair Smith, I can confirm we haven't received

48:32any delegation requests.

48:34Thank you.

48:40Member Spears, sorry, I missed that.

48:42Sorry, that's OK.

48:44I just had a question.

48:48I hope you can answer it if not.

48:50Maybe we can direct it to staff, but through the chair,

48:53can you just maybe describe the difference between parking

48:57spaces that are EV-ready and parking spaces that aren't?

49:02And if at some point in the future,

49:05we wanted to have more EV spaces, what

49:07would be required to put them in place?

49:18I can speak to that through the chair to member say.

49:22The EV-ready spaces are to be designed.

49:28So the conduit is there for future hookup.

49:33So that's the difference between, sorry, the EV designed

49:41is to be the conduit and EV-ready.

49:45That being said, this site does not require actual EV

49:49parking spaces to be installed right away.

49:51They just require them to have the conduit ready.

49:55And that's a request, the reduction of the future hookup of EV.

50:03OK, thank you.

50:09Member Spears.

50:10Through you, Mr. Chair, I think to staff again,

50:15based on the size of the site and the servicing for electricity,

50:21if in fact, three years from now, the situation

50:26change in many, many people wanted electric cars,

50:29would the entire site have enough electricity

50:33to supply those cars?

50:35Or are we starting out in a situation

50:36where we know there's not enough from the get-go?

50:43Through the chair to member Spears,

50:47that question would definitely be better answered by electric.

50:52Being said, I've had just a conversation with them

50:55on the phone about the difference between designed and ready.

50:59And it's something that they're working towards.

51:02But I can't speak on Electra's behalf.

51:10OK, is that not a requirement for a site plan

51:14to design enough power for each dwelling?

51:32Sorry, through the chair to member Spears,

51:33Electra isn't part of the commenting body

51:38when reviewing the site plans.

51:40But there could be an issue for space

51:48for those electricity needs having the site built,

51:51as it is currently proposed, for any electrical, extra

52:00electrical conduits that are needed on site for it.

52:05If I may, too, through the chair,

52:08the site plan and the design of the site plan

52:11was started a few years ago before the zoning bylaw was

52:15approved.

52:16So my client wants to achieve some of the EV

52:20ready that is desired in the city in the new zoning bylaw.

52:24But they weren't prepared from the beginning of this process

52:28to provide 80%.

52:30So there's intention and willingness

52:33to try and come to the direction that the city is going

52:38with the EV ready, which is why they want to provide the 10%

52:41EV ready parking spaces.

52:44But that's why we're requesting a reduction of the 80%,

52:47just because of where we're at in the stage of the development

52:51of these site plans.

52:56Thanks, Sight.

52:57But I would reiterate my concern is

52:59that a number of years down the road,

53:01people throw up their hands and say, boy,

53:03I wish we'd planned for this, because we simply can't do it.

53:05There's no power there.

53:07And we can't plummet in.

53:08We can't change the infrastructure of the site.

53:11I don't think this committee has anything to do with that.

53:14But it's a very real concern for me.

53:16And we hear about this all the time.

53:20That's a comment more than a question.

53:26Member Bellamant.

53:29Through you, Mr. Chair, I reiterate that I have the same issue,

53:34not having at least the conduit in place to meet the 80%

53:41or very close to it doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

53:46I mean, we know where we're going with electric vehicles.

53:51And we need to have the infrastructure in place, at least.

53:55Maybe the electrification isn't there.

53:58And we might need to upgrade the electrical power

54:01for the site.

54:02But at least the conduit be in the ground

54:04so that we don't have to rip it all up, all concrete and asphalt

54:10and everything else to get the stuff in place for people

54:14with electric vehicles.

54:17And it could be in the very near term

54:19that people are going to need that.

54:22I mean, I've seen it in condos and other places

54:27where we've had to put that kind of infrastructure in.

54:30And it can be very costly.

54:32And we don't have to dig anything up.

54:34We're stringing it in conduits in underground parking garages.

54:40So I think we need to rethink the 10% before we move forward

54:45with this part of the variance anyway.

54:53Did you have a suggestion, Member Bellamant?

54:57My suggestion would be that we keep it at 80%.

55:04That we at least have conduit in the ground for 80%.

55:10I mean, we have this provision in the bylaw for a reason.

55:16So I would say that we not go with variance C,

55:22that we not approve variance C.

55:30So I think that can come up when we have a motion.

55:34We can wrangle that aspect in a motion.

55:40I agree.

55:40Until we finished questions from the public and or ourselves.

55:46Agreed.

55:47Yep.

55:49Are there any more questions of the applicant?

55:53I do have a couple of quick questions, I hope.

55:58Is this Crescent?

56:00Is this a city street?

56:02Or is this a private street?

56:07Through you, the chair.

56:09Both blocks are kind of bisected by a city street.

56:14And they will be accessed through private roads.

56:20Thank you.

56:20And so that I see in the site plan that there's fire access

56:27and those turning radius are noted there.

56:31I guess this is a question for either yourself or for city

56:34staff.

56:34I know two handicap parking spaces.

56:39Is there a requirement for a number of handicap parking

56:44spaces on a project of this size?

56:50Through you, the chair.

56:51There is a requirement, and it's based on the total number

56:54of provided parking spaces.

56:56And we're meeting the minimum requirement

56:58for accessible spaces.

57:00Thank you.

57:01And I really don't notice any space noted for delivery,

57:09like a lay-by for delivery vehicles.

57:13Have I missed that?

57:16Through you, the chair.

57:17There is not a specific lay-by.

57:20The idea for delivery vehicles is

57:22that they would pull up to the unit

57:24that they're delivering to and to drop off at the porch,

57:28like any other residential street.

57:32OK.

57:33And sorry, I have a few more.

57:38The bicycle parking.

57:40And I take your point that the units that are ground floor access

57:45will have bike parking and that the bike lockers will

57:49be on the plan north and plan south in a little ways

57:57from the units.

58:00Does that mean that on the plan east, where the entrances are,

58:08that someone who's using a bicycle

58:10would have to walk either to the top of the cul-de-sac

58:15or the bottom?

58:17Is there any consideration for bicycle parking close by?

58:23Opposite?

58:25Yeah, the bicycle, the secure bicycle parking spaces

58:29have been spread throughout the site plan.

58:32And they're located in the amenity spaces and all

58:36throughout.

58:37So the idea would be that the bicycle parking spaces would

58:41be allocated to the units that are closer to them.

58:44So you wouldn't have to cross the site plan

58:46to access your locker.

58:49That's awesome.

58:50Thank you.

58:51And I did notice that one of the requested variances

58:57is for 2.5 meters.

59:01And I'm sorry, I couldn't find that on the plan.

59:04So it was kind of dense and a lot of information there.

59:10Is it possible to put that plan up?

59:13Do we have a copy of that that we can take a look

59:15and perhaps help me out with that?

59:30So those parking spaces that are on the right there,

59:35those would be 2.5 meters by 5.5 meters,

59:38with exception of the accessible parking spaces.

59:47Sorry, I thought it was a request that the building be

59:51set back from the street, the 2.5 meters.

59:55Oh, sorry.

59:56I think it's actually on the other block.

1:00:08And most of these, like the setback

1:00:11is larger than 2.5.

1:00:13I think there's one instance that's

1:00:15the most narrow setback we have between one of the streets

1:00:21and the building.

1:00:23But I'm not sure where that is now.

1:00:33I see it here, yes.

1:00:34OK.

1:00:36Thank you.

1:00:38But that's OK.

1:00:54That is all the questions I have.

1:00:56Thank you very much for the information.

1:00:58At this point, if there are no more questions,

1:01:01I would like to turn to my colleagues and look for a motion.

1:01:08Many members, do we have a motion that we'd

1:01:11like to put forward?

1:01:27I will propose a motion that the committee members

1:01:31spheres.

1:01:31I'll propose a motion that we accept the application

1:01:35with the comments by staff, which the applicant has

1:01:40agreed to, as is.

1:01:44Do we have a seconder?

1:01:48Member Sayers, do we have any debate on the motion before us?

1:01:59Member Ballerman.

1:02:00Through you, Mr. Chair, can we make an amendment

1:02:04to that, save and accept variance C to zoning bylaw 2023

1:02:14with regard to section 5.9b with regard

1:02:19to EV ready parking spaces and deny that variance C, as written

1:02:32in the planning staff report?

1:02:35Well, first, I'm going to ask the mover

1:02:38if they would consider that a friendly amendment.

1:02:42Yes, I would.

1:02:43But I would like a comment from staff on this,

1:02:46because I certainly had the, excuse me, that's not

1:02:49supposed to happen.

1:02:51The impression that the 2023 bylaw, since it's under appeal,

1:02:55is not really one we should be considering

1:02:57with respect to variances.

1:02:58Do I have that completely wrong?

1:03:00Because it wasn't part of the 1995, the EV issues.

1:03:07Are we really talking about 2023 or just 95?

1:03:11So I can answer that question.

1:03:13This is Lindsay from Planning.

1:03:14I'm joining virtually, so I hope everyone can see me

1:03:17and hear me.

1:03:19So the 1995 zoning bylaw does not require EV parking.

1:03:24It's just the 2023 bylaw that brought in the EV parking

1:03:28requirement.

1:03:30So as the applicant has indicated,

1:03:34these two site plan applications have been in for a number

1:03:37of years.

1:03:37The original zoning and subdivision applications

1:03:42came in in 2012.

1:03:45And then there was a red line amendment done in 2016.

1:03:48So the applicant has been working on these two site plan

1:03:51applications with a specific design in mind

1:03:56and also with requirements in terms of what they were

1:03:59providing.

1:04:00The first phase is registered in 2019 of the subdivision.

1:04:04This second phase, there's some extenuating circumstances,

1:04:08which doesn't allow phase two to be registered right now

1:04:12because of downstream servicing, which isn't on their lands.

1:04:17However, if that weren't the case,

1:04:19they would have had this plan registered

1:04:20and the site plans could have been approved under the 1995

1:04:24bylaw.

1:04:25But since they were working on the site plan application,

1:04:27the new bylaw came into place.

1:04:29And then now they're subject to the new requirement.

1:04:32So this is why staff are supporting the variances

1:04:35as they have requested because they have been working on them

1:04:37for a number of years.

1:04:40With regards to the 2023 bylaw, parts of it

1:04:45do remain under appeal.

1:04:48And the EV parking requirement is one that is under appeal.

1:04:53So that's however they technically

1:04:57still had to apply for a variance for it

1:05:00because the way the Planning Act works.

1:05:02And it would go back once all the appeals are disposed of,

1:05:06it would retroactively go back to April 18, 2023.

1:05:10And you have to have a site plan that's in compliance

1:05:12with the bylaw the date it was passed.

1:05:15That's why you see the 2023 variances.

1:05:19So I hope I just answered your question

1:05:22and just didn't give too much background there.

1:05:25But if you have any other questions,

1:05:26I'd be happy to answer.

1:05:29Just want to try and distill that tiny little bit.

1:05:32If we were to deny the 2023 bylaw with respect to the EV

1:05:39and we all agreed on that, that vote went through,

1:05:43would it change the outcome here

1:05:45because we're following the 95 for all intents and purposes?

1:05:50I'm really asking if going against 2023 makes any difference.

1:05:56Yes, so if they were to get, if you were to refuse variance C,

1:06:01then they would have to meet the requirement of the 80%

1:06:05because they are still subject to site plan approval.

1:06:07And if they wanted to get site plan approval,

1:06:09say within the next before all of the appeals

1:06:13are disposed of at the tribunal,

1:06:16they have to meet the requirements of both the 1995 and 2023 bylaw.

1:06:20So if you refuse variance C,

1:06:22then they do technically need to get the 80%,

1:06:26which is why they require a variance for it.

1:06:30Thank you. That explains it well.

1:06:37So through you, Mr. Chair, back to the original question,

1:06:39which was would I agree to change my motion absolutely

1:06:43now that I realize it makes a difference?

1:06:44So yes, I would agree to accept everything,

1:06:47but I am see with the wording that that provide.

1:06:52Councillor Bellaman or member Bellaman.

1:06:56OK, and the seconder was member Sears.

1:07:00Member Sears, would you continue to second this with that amendment?

1:07:15I don't think so, no. OK, we don't have a seconder for this motion

1:07:21at this point.

1:07:22Do we have another member who's willing to second this member Bellaman?

1:07:34So we have a motion and it has been seconded.

1:07:37I would like to see if there's any debate on that motion.

1:07:43First, we have any discussion or debate on the motion?

1:07:49Yeah, I remember Sears.

1:07:54Yeah, I'm just concerned that, you know, and it's more related to,

1:07:59you know, just the history of this development

1:08:02and how long it's been taking that, you know, for whatever reasons.

1:08:11You know, this development has taken many years

1:08:14and it was designed under the 1995 to meet the 1995 requirements

1:08:20and essentially late in the game, these 2023 requirements came in.

1:08:25And I can I can see why there, you know, why there would,

1:08:31you know, be a desire to have more EV ready spaces.

1:08:36I wonder, though, if, you know, in a sense, the market may take care of it,

1:08:42like five or ten down the years down the road,

1:08:44if most people are driving EV vehicles, then this this development

1:08:49may need to upgrade their parking spaces in any event.

1:08:53So so I would just leave it.

1:08:57I would leave it with the recommendations of staff, minimum of 10 percent.

1:09:02Thank you, Member Sears. Any other discussion?

1:09:12Through you, Mr. Chair, I just feel that it's a burden to put on property owners

1:09:18when it's just, you know, at this point, it could be done with such little amount of.

1:09:26Money putting some pipes in the ground now for future.

1:09:34Wires to go into them.

1:09:37If we don't do it now, it's going to cost them a fortune of money to do it later.

1:09:42It just doesn't make a lot of sense to to put that burden on to all those homeowners.

1:09:49Really doesn't when we can do it now and we know we can do it now.

1:09:53We just say to the developers, they need to do it.

1:10:02Is there any other comment or debate on this?

1:10:05I won't be supporting this as amended.

1:10:11I'm happy to support the original motion, but I think given that this,

1:10:18I do appreciate the comments that have been made by members proposing this.

1:10:24But I think we're we're attempting to solve a problem that has

1:10:30has come up since this has been under

1:10:35number of years in development.

1:10:37And so I think it wouldn't be responsible and I I think we're we're attempting to

1:10:45put the pressures of today on to the development

1:10:49that's been developed over a number of years as I say, so I won't be supporting this as

1:10:55as amended.

1:10:56At this point, if there's no further conversation or debate,

1:11:00I would like to call on our secretary treasurer to call the vote.

1:11:04Thank you, chair.

1:11:05And before we get to the voting, I'll just ask for a few points of clarification.

1:11:12Members, Spears, as you move to that motion, I just wanted to confirm

1:11:17Variant C for the E.V. Park gang is for block 130.

1:11:22I assume you also mean refusal of variance

1:11:27D for file a

1:11:32file a 73 23 as well.

1:11:34That's for the other two blocks blocks one 31 and one 32.

1:11:39Yes, I'd like that to be included.

1:11:41OK, I just wanted to confirm that as well.

1:11:43And because there's that refusal part of the motion,

1:11:46if you could provide some reasons for the refusal, so if that

1:11:50that vote is successful, we'll have some reasons to put in the decision for that refusal.

1:11:57As noted, I think it's it's it we need to future proof this.

1:12:01And it's it seems much more responsible to do it now than to do it later.

1:12:09That would be my reasoning.

1:12:14OK, thank you, members Spears.

1:12:17Committee members, please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the motion,

1:12:22which is to prove the application with the

1:12:26requested variances, save and accept the variance C and variance D

1:12:32in those two files with the recommended conditions from staff.

1:12:38Bear Smith.

1:12:39Opposed.

1:12:41Member Balaban.

1:12:45I agree.

1:12:47Thank you.

1:12:48Member Mambrainio.

1:12:50Thank you.

1:12:51Thank you. Members there.

1:12:54Opposed.

1:12:56Members Segal.

1:13:00Opposed.

1:13:03And members Spears.

1:13:04In favor.

1:13:09That's a tie, chair.

1:13:11So I'm like seek some sagely advice,

1:13:18Madam Secretary Treasurer, I assume that that does fail.

1:13:22Is that correct?

1:13:23That's correct, chair.

1:13:24We'll need another motion.

1:13:26So we will need another motion.

1:13:29Can I

1:13:32seek another motion from the committee?

1:13:34Members Sears.

1:13:37Yeah, I would move to approve the application with the

1:13:42conditions recommended by staff in their report.

1:13:47And do we have a seconder?

1:13:52Members Spears.

1:13:58Yes, members.

1:14:02Thank you. And.

1:14:04Is there any debate on the motion that we have before us?

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

1:14:18Thank you, chair.

1:14:19Committee members, please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the motion, which is to approve both applications with recommended conditions from staff.

1:14:28Chair Smith.

1:14:29In favor.

1:14:30Member Balaban.

1:14:31Opposed.

1:14:33Member Mambrainio.

1:14:35In favor.

1:14:37Members Sear.

1:14:38In favor.

1:14:40Members Seagal.

1:14:42In favor.

1:14:43And members Spears.

1:14:45In favor.

1:14:46That's carried, chair.

1:14:49Your application has been approved with the listed conditions. You're free to leave the meeting.

1:14:54Madam Secretary Treasurer, may we have the next applicant?

1:15:17The next application is file a dash four slash 24 variances to permit reduced exterior.

1:15:24Side and rear yards for proposed residential addition at 22 Neve Street.

1:15:29I'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.

1:15:37That number is 519-822-1260 extension 2524. And when you call in staff will give you instructions on how you can delegate remotely.

1:15:48Is the applicant present?

1:15:53Both present. My name is Philip Terry and I have my wife, Brittany Terry here. We're both the owners of the 22 Neve Street.

1:16:02Thank you. And can you tell me if the sign was pilot posted as per the planning act?

1:16:08It was.

1:16:09And have you read staff's comments and are you in agreement?

1:16:13We have read the staff comments and we are in agreement. I've also read the Metrolinx comments and I'll be reaching out to them.

1:16:23Thank you. And I will note for the record that members Spears has declared a conflict on this and has left the meeting.

1:16:30Okay. Thank you.

1:16:32So you have 10 minutes and make made available to you. So feel free to address us as you see fit.

1:16:43Yeah, we don't have anything further to discuss. Thank you.

1:16:50Well, that's concise.

1:16:51Members of committee, do we have any questions of the applicant seeing none? Are there any members in the gallery or at home who would like to speak to this application?

1:17:13Chair Smith, I can confirm no delegation requests.

1:17:17Thank you. Committee members, what is your wish? Do we have a motion? Members Spears.

1:17:29I move that we accept this application as written and without conditions.

1:17:34Thank you. And a seconder member Balaban.

1:17:41Is there any conversation or debate on this motion before us seeing none? Madam Secretary Treasurer, would you do the honors please?

1:17:55Thank 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.

1:18:04In favor.

1:18:05In favor.

1:18:07Member Balaban. In favor.

1:18:09Member Mambraño.

1:18:11In favor.

1:18:13Member Segar.

1:18:17I'm sorry. Member Segar had a complex. Member Segal.

1:18:20In favor.

1:18:22Member Spears.

1:18:24In favor.

1:18:26That's carried, chair.

1:18:27The application has been approved and I see there were actually three of you at the meeting, so the three of you may not leave.

1:18:38Thank you. Have a good day.

1:18:40Same to you.

1:18:42Madam Secretary Treasurer, may we have the next applicant?

1:18:46The next application is file A-15-24, variance to permit increased total ground floor area for existing accessory buildings and structures at 94 Maple Street.

1:19:04If you wish to speak to this application, you can do so by calling the number displayed on the screen. That number is 519-822-1260 extension 2524.

1:19:15And when you call in, staff will give you instructions on how you can delegate remotely via phone.

1:19:21I will also note that staff are recommending revised condition wording for the one condition on this application.

1:19:31And we will share that wording on the screen here shortly. You give me one moment here.

1:19:37So there has been some change in the condition wording for condition number one as shown on the screen and that is that the building permit to convert the existing shipping containers.

1:20:00to an accessory structure be closed within one year

1:20:03after the final decision of the committee of adjustment

1:20:06to the satisfaction of the chief building official.

1:20:08I just wanted to note that for the committee.

1:20:14Welcome.

1:20:15Can you state your name

1:20:16and your relationship to the application please?

1:20:20Yes, thank you.

1:20:21Good afternoon, Chair and members of committee.

1:20:22My name is Jeff Henry from Arcadis,

1:20:25representing the applicants, David and Gail Van Bien.

1:20:31Can you tell me if the sign was posted as per the planning act?

1:20:35My understanding is it was.

1:20:37And have you read staff comments and are you in agreement?

1:20:42I have reviewed staff comments as amended before you today

1:20:46and we are in agreement with the staff recommendation

1:20:49and reasonings and appreciate staff's flexibility

1:20:52and discussion over the last day on the condition.

1:20:55Thank you.

1:20:56And so you, like others,

1:20:58do you have 10 minutes to address the committee?

1:21:01I am at your disposal for any questions that you have.

1:21:04I have nothing to add.

1:21:05Staff's report was very concise and to the point.

1:21:11Well, that's concise and brief and we like that.

1:21:16Committee members, do we have any questions of this applicant?

1:21:19Seeing none, are there any members of the public

1:21:28who wish to speak to this application or anyone online?

1:21:37Chair Smith, I can confirm we don't have any delegation requests.

1:21:41Thank you.

1:21:42And at this point, I will turn to my colleagues

1:21:48to see their wishes.

1:21:50Committee members, do we have a motion for this application?

1:22:01Sorry, go ahead.

1:22:02Members, say us.

1:22:04Oh, thank you.

1:22:06I just had one quick question through the chair.

1:22:08How many shipping containers are involved here?

1:22:12Is it two shipping containers?

1:22:18Yes, there were two steel storage containers,

1:22:23which meet the 2023 bylaw definition of shipping containers

1:22:27that were placed by a landscaping company.

1:22:28So we're talking about two.

1:22:30The modifications will convert that into one cohesive structure.

1:22:35And so that's what's triggering the building permit

1:22:39because then the size of the structure is large enough,

1:22:42whereas it wouldn't have been if it was just one.

1:22:44OK, thank you.

1:22:48Member Balibant.

1:22:50Through you, Mr. Chair, and maybe the planning staff can answer this.

1:22:56I notice on the site plan that they're very close to the

1:23:01to the side yard and and I guess, rear yard.

1:23:06They don't require any setbacks more than what they are.

1:23:10Like they're very close.

1:23:12I don't know why that doesn't require

1:23:17also a variance of some sort.

1:23:19Maybe it's because they've been existing for a long, long time.

1:23:22I'm not sure, but maybe somebody could clarify that.

1:23:27Yeah, through the chair to member Balibant.

1:23:30Once converted to accessory structures,

1:23:34the accessory structure setback is 0.6 meters to the side and rear lot line.

1:23:39Therefore, it would meet zoning when converted to an accessory structure.

1:23:44And I would add they are currently 0.9 meters off.

1:23:47So what you're seeing on the site plan is an allowance for whatever

1:23:51modifications may be required to to affect that.

1:23:54And we've provided effectively a foot.

1:23:58I doubt a foot will be needed, but I want to make sure that when this is done,

1:24:02it's done and everything's in compliance.

1:24:07Thank you. Thanks for both of you.

1:24:14At this point, committee members, do we have a motion?

1:24:21Member Balibant.

1:24:23Through you, Mr. Chair, I move that the minor variance be approved

1:24:31with conditions in accordance with staff comments.

1:24:37And we have a seconder.

1:24:42Member Spears, is there any discussion on this motion before us?

1:24:51Seeing none, Madam Secretary Treasurer, may we have a vote, please?

1:24:58Thank you, Chair, committee members, please indicate your vote

1:25:01by responding in favor or opposed to the motion,

1:25:05which is to approve the application with the staff recommended condition

1:25:11that has been revised as shown on the screen previously.

1:25:15Chair Smith.

1:25:16In favor.

1:25:18Member Balibant.

1:25:19In favor.

1:25:20Member Membranio.

1:25:22In favor.

1:25:24Member Seir.

1:25:25In favor.

1:25:27Member Segal.

1:25:28In favor.

1:25:29And member Spears.

1:25:30In favor.

1:25:31That's carried, Chair.

1:25:33Your application has been approved.

1:25:35You're free to go.

1:25:36Thank you.

1:25:42Madam Secretary Treasurer, may we have the next application, please?

1:25:49The next applications are files B-1-24, B-2-24 and B-3-24 can send

1:25:57to create three new residential lots with one retained residential lot

1:26:01at 151 Bristol Street.

1:26:03For those attending the hearing remotely, if you wish to speak to this application,

1:26:07you can do so by calling the number displayed on the screen.

1:26:09That number is 519-822-1260-Extension 2524.

1:26:15And when you call in, staff will give you instructions

1:26:17on how you can delegate remotely.

1:26:21Welcome. Can you state your name and your relationship to the application, please?

1:26:27My name is Jeff Buseman.

1:26:29I'm an agent for the application.

1:26:33Thank you, Mr. Buseman.

1:26:34And can you tell me if the sign was planted as part of the planning act?

1:26:38Yes, the sign was posted.

1:26:41Thank you.

1:26:41And as you know, you have 10 minutes to address the committee.

1:26:45If there's a, can we put on the diagram?

1:26:50OK, this is a property on Bristol.

1:26:53It's, we've been here once in the committee before for this property,

1:26:57but it was a decision to make the configuration significant configuration change.

1:27:02We went through a zone change with the, with the city for to allow

1:27:07what's being proposed here.

1:27:09And fundamentally, there's two semi-detached structures.

1:27:15So there's a semi-detached and with an ADU in the back is proposed.

1:27:20So we're going to divide this and together, all together into four parcels.

1:27:24So a pair of semis in the front and then ADU in the back.

1:27:29One small note is that there is a small strip of land

1:27:33that's going to be transferred to the city as a reserve along the back.

1:27:39It's along Emily.

1:27:41That is to prevent access to Emily Street in the back.

1:27:46So all access comes from the front.

1:27:49So this this project's gone through a lot of review with the city staff

1:27:53and the current version of engineering reports and so on,

1:27:57or with the staff for review at this moment.

1:28:00We are happy to answer any questions or comments from members of the public.

1:28:07Thank you.

1:28:07Committee members, do we have any, pardon me,

1:28:12are there any members of committee who have questions for the applicant?

1:28:19Seeing none, are there any members in the gallery or

1:28:25Tom who have any questions?

1:28:37Chair Smith, we're just confirming some details about a possible delegate.

1:28:42So just give us one moment here.

1:28:45Thank you, Madam Secretary, Treasurer.

1:29:25Chair Smith appears we don't have any delegates for this item.

1:29:29We do not.

1:29:30We do not.

1:29:31I do have one question and if you'll bear with me, Mr. Puseman,

1:29:40there was a note from Ms. Cheryl Jackson.

1:29:45I don't know if you had a chance to read that.

1:29:50I did briefly.

1:29:53I don't want to curry this too much.

1:29:58It did seem to be a lot of editorializing about it,

1:30:01but I just wonder I wanted to give you the opportunity to comment on it.

1:30:07I really can't.

1:30:08I don't have much to comment on it.

1:30:11OK, and I guess the only other question I had is in terms of stormwater management

1:30:19will the severance of these lots impact potentially the stormwater management?

1:30:27And will there be a stormwater management plan if this goes for building permit?

1:30:32The plan is right now with city staff for review and approval.

1:30:36So it's been designed appropriately.

1:30:38Yeah. Thank you.

1:30:40I have no other questions.

1:30:42Committee members, what is your wish?

1:30:48Members, peers, I move that we accept this application.

1:30:51As written with the comments added by staff.

1:30:56Thank you. Do I have a seconder?

1:31:01Members, or pardon me, Sears.

1:31:05And do we have any debate on the motion before us?

1:31:12Seeing none, Madam Secretary Treasurer, would you mind calling the vote, please?

1:31:19Thank you, Chair.

1:31:20Committee members, please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the motion,

1:31:24which is to approve all three applications with the recommended staff conditions.

1:31:29Chair Smith in favor, member Balaban in favor, member Mbrenio in favor.

1:31:38Thank you.

1:31:38Members, Sarah in favor, member Segal in favor and member Spears in favor.

1:31:46That's carried chair.

1:31:48Your application has been approved.

1:31:50Thank you. You're welcome.

1:31:57Madam Secretary Treasurer, may we have the next application, please?

1:32:06The next applications are files B-4 slash 24 to B-12 slash 24,

1:32:13can sense for law additions and to create eight new residential lots,

1:32:17including two new two retained residential lots at 27 and 35 Janefield Avenue.

1:32:25If you wish to speak to this application, you can do so by calling the number displayed on the screen.

1:32:30That number is 519-822-1260, extension 2524, and staff will give you instructions on how you can delegate remotely.

1:32:41Welcome back, Mr. Buseman.

1:32:43Can you state your name for the record and your association with this application?

1:32:47Jeff Buseman from Van Hurt and Surveying, agent for the property owner.

1:32:52And can you tell me if the sign was posted as per the Planning Act?

1:32:55Yes, it was.

1:32:56Thank you.

1:32:57And you have 10 minutes to address the committee.

1:33:01Thank you.

1:33:03It's a busy one.

1:33:06And maybe we just go to the bottom where we have a before picture.

1:33:10There's two properties today.

1:33:12And then there's going to be several lot line adjustments and creation of parcels.

1:33:16So at the end, we show what we call the severances and final.

1:33:21So out of these two parcels, we're going to have kind of one, two, three, four, five, six, seven,

1:33:28parcels with new dwellings, and then a retained.

1:33:32The retained will actually be, is going through a process to be merged with the parcel to the

1:33:37south yet.

1:33:38So that's just a leftover piece.

1:33:41You can see that there's four semi units, semi attached units facing Mason Court,

1:33:47and two semi attached units facing Janefield, as well as the original house that's there will

1:33:53be on the retained lot.

1:33:55Four of the lots will have 80 us in the backyard.

1:33:59That's accessory dwelling units.

1:34:03What's a little interesting on this one is that we're actually having the reserve lifted here.

1:34:08There's a reserve on Mason Court, and that is being going to be removed by being established

1:34:14as a public highway and part of Mason Court.

1:34:19Again, this went through his own change application with city council and was approved there.

1:34:23And is a step forward to creating resident genuits that we need in the city.

1:34:30I'd be happy to answer any questions or any comments.

1:34:33Thank you.

1:34:35Thank you.

1:34:36If you want to write, wait, wait, wait there.

1:34:40Perhaps committee members have some questions for you.

1:34:43Committee members, do we have questions of this applicant?

1:34:46I don't see any at the moment.

1:34:55It seems that we do have a delegation.

1:35:02Is that correct?

1:35:04Chair Smith, we do have a delegation and Chris is appearing on the screen now.

1:35:09Hello.

1:35:09Can you can everybody hear me?

1:35:11Yes, I can.

1:35:12Can you state your name for the record, please?

1:35:15Certainly.

1:35:15My name is Chris Mitchell.

1:35:19Welcome, Chris.

1:35:19You have 10 minutes to address the committee on this issue.

1:35:23Thank you.

1:35:25First, I want to thank everybody for the opportunity to speak with you today.

1:35:31Although I feel my words will fail to persuade the committee to not move forward with the building

1:35:38of this housing unit on Janefield.

1:35:40I just wanted to provide another voice, another point of view for everybody to consider.

1:35:47Maybe mostly for myself because I've lived on Janefield my life.

1:35:52I was raised there.

1:35:54It was my father's house.

1:35:57So it's close to my heart.

1:35:59Overall, I feel Janefield, the whole area is overpopulated.

1:36:04There is a health and safety concern I feel with the traffic flow.

1:36:08I don't know if anybody here on the committee has tried to drive down Janefield,

1:36:13but it certainly is a challenge.

1:36:16You're constantly trying to swerve to avoid traffic.

1:36:21It's parking on the street.

1:36:24So that's a huge concern.

1:36:25I don't know if there's been accidents already, but I wouldn't be surprised

1:36:30with the bus service there as well.

1:36:32Also, there's also the upper part of Janefield.

1:36:38A lot of people park there to pick up their children because there's schooling in the area.

1:36:42So that gets quite congested at time with vehicles parked on the street.

1:36:48Yeah. So the interesting thing too is that people tend to use Janefield for some reason.

1:36:56They feel it's a shortcut to the mall and the other shopping outlets on Stone Road,

1:37:02which is quite strange because it actually isn't quicker, but so that contributes to it as well.

1:37:09There's also the noise with the university in close proximity.

1:37:13Many students obviously have moved into the area.

1:37:16They can obviously be selfishly noisy.

1:37:20A lot of times, regular parties, horse play at a regular hour.

1:37:28Simply having more people contributes to more issues.

1:37:33So that's a concern I have too.

1:37:36In the morning, there's often broken bottles in the area, on the streets, on the sidewalk.

1:37:41Just an overall disrespect for a lot of people that they share the neighborhood with.

1:37:48Litter is also an issue.

1:37:51With more people, you're going to have more garbage.

1:37:54Discarded furniture is often left on the green area beside the sidewalk.

1:38:01So yeah, my car has actually been broken into.

1:38:06So that's happened too.

1:38:08So crime with increased population.

1:38:11Overall, it is obvious that to me that with more people in the area, it just leads to a lot of more

1:38:17negative issues associated with people.

1:38:20So that's 1 reason why I'm against this.

1:38:25But I don't think it has to be this way.

1:38:27I think we can help and maintain a beautiful area of wilderness in the area.

1:38:32Big or small areas dedicated to trees and flowers.

1:38:36I feel the city can contain spaces to allow them to flourish.

1:38:41This is what I feel is needed within the area in question.

1:38:44A small park for people to enjoy.

1:38:47There's so many people walking their dogs in the area.

1:38:50I feel they would enjoy a little green space.

1:38:55Also, maybe a wildlife educational garden for local children in schools that are in the area.

1:39:02I think it would engage them and also generations to come.

1:39:06So yeah, this is a subject close to my heart.

1:39:09And I feel fortunate to have the opportunity to share my views with you.

1:39:18I just think you need to look at the big picture and put more thought into human expansion rather than

1:39:25mindlessly destroying every bit of land they can find to fit tons of people.

1:39:32I feel there's better uses for the land.

1:39:36There was one ridiculous phrase, underdeveloped land, which is ridiculous.

1:39:45I feel it's just anything that doesn't contribute to humanity is underdeveloped or not considered useful.

1:39:54So yeah, that's very sad to me.

1:39:58But anyway, I feel you do have the ability to change that.

1:40:03So that's about all I have to say and I greatly appreciate the time. Thank you.

1:40:09Well, thank you for making time.

1:40:11And if you want to wait right there, let me see if any of our committee members have any questions for you.

1:40:19Committee members, do we have any questions for this delegation?

1:40:24I just want to let you know that my understanding is that the zoning,

1:40:36there are two lots here at the present time, am I correct?

1:40:39That under the zoning, it's potential that those lots could be developed.

1:40:47And if I'm not correct, staff could help me with this.

1:40:52Is it possible that a triplex could be built by right on each of those lots?

1:41:02Through you, Mr. Chair, three units currently are permitted on each lot.

1:41:06And the proposed development does conform with zoning as there was a zoning bylaw amendment approved for the project in December of last year.

1:41:14So regardless if we were to approve the severance, there could be quite a bit of infill that is presently the case.

1:41:24That is correct, yes.

1:41:29I just wanted to make you aware of this, Mr. Mitchell, that regardless of the

1:41:37what's on the table at the moment,

1:41:41the potential for this to be developed is perhaps even greater than what's being proposed.

1:41:51Right. Sure, I can appreciate that.

1:41:56As I said, I disagree.

1:41:57One thing I'd like to add is it possible the developer could be asked to put in a fence?

1:42:05A 10-foot fence, I don't know, something.

1:42:07Well, at this point, what we are involved in is the severance of the lots.

1:42:14And I think at the time of building permit, that would be as of right and they would follow the recommendations in the zoning bylaw for fences.

1:42:27Thank you.

1:42:28At this point, I'm going to ask if there are any more delegations.

1:42:37Chair Smith, we don't have any other delegation requests.

1:42:47Thank you.

1:42:48Committee members, I'd entertain a motion at this point.

1:42:52Unless we have any other conversation for this delegation or for the applicant members, sayers.

1:43:03Yeah, actually, I had a comment.

1:43:05I don't really have a question for the delegate, but I just I understand and appreciate it.

1:43:14I appreciate that.

1:43:26I appreciate that.

1:43:27I think we can change your concerns.

1:43:29Okay. Thank you, members, chairs.

1:43:34Committee members, what is your will?

1:43:39Do we have a motion?

1:43:43Yes, Chair.

1:43:44I will move that we accept this application with the conditions as recommended by staff.

1:43:51Thank you, members, Spears.

1:43:53Do we have a seconder?

1:43:57Member Valamant.

1:43:59I would like to ask if there is any other discussion on the motion before us.

1:44:08Seeing none, Madam Secretary Treasurer, can we have a vote on this, please?

1:44:14Thank you, Chair.

1:44:16Committee members, please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the motion, which is to approve all the applications with the recommended conditions from staff.

1:44:26Chair Smith.

1:44:28In favor.

1:44:29Member Balaban.

1:44:30In favor.

1:44:32Member Sayer.

1:44:34Ose.

1:44:36Member Siegel.

1:44:38In favor.

1:44:40And member Spears.

1:44:42In favor.

1:44:43That's carried, Chair.

1:44:45Your application has been approved.

1:44:47Thank you.

1:44:55Madam Secretary Treasurer, may we have the next application?

1:45:03The next application is file B-13-24, consent to create easement for access in favor of 94 Arthur Street South.

1:45:13And the property address is 92 Arthur Street South.

1:45:18If there are attendees attending the hearing remotely, you can speak to the application by calling the number displayed on the screen.

1:45:25That number is 519-822-1260, extension 2524.

1:45:31And when you call in, staff will give you instructions on how you can delegate remotely.

1:45:39Welcome. Can you state your name and your relationship to the application, please?

1:45:44Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Terence Sandu and I am a member of Fusion Homes who owns the site at 92 Arthur.

1:45:52And can you tell me if the sign was in place for the planning act?

1:45:57Yes, it was.

1:45:58Thank you. You have 10 minutes to address the committee.

1:46:01Sure. I'll keep it fairly concise as well.

1:46:04So the application is for consent and specifically for an easement in favor of 94 Arthur Street.

1:46:11To provide a bit of background, the site has been going through a site plan process over the last three years or so.

1:46:18And in August of 2023, site plan agreement was signed, which allows for the development of a parking lot.

1:46:27And through this process with the city, staff had also kind of mentioned the need for an easement.

1:46:33And primarily the reason for this is just because of the boundary lines.

1:46:37So where the boundary line between 92 and 94 meets, right on Arthur, it juts out slightly, which has caused,

1:46:47unfortunately, the neighbor to have a smaller driveway.

1:46:51And so historically, there might have been a sliver that has been

1:46:55used for access in and out of the driveway.

1:46:59And so the easement is just honestly for making sure from a legal standpoint that everything

1:47:04is being respected and that they have right of access and that they can get into their property

1:47:10without any obstructed or unfettered access.

1:47:14That's it, Mr. Chair.

1:47:16Well, that's concise. Thank you. And if you'd like to wait right there,

1:47:20I'll see if any of my colleagues have any questions for you.

1:47:23Committee members, do we have any questions for the delegation?

1:47:30Seeing none, do we have any questions or any delegations from members in the gallery or at home?

1:47:44Chair Smith, I can confirm we haven't received any delegation requests over the phone.

1:47:51Thank you. Committee members, what is your wish? Do we have a motion to consider?

1:48:10Through you, Mr. Speaker.

1:48:11Members, I move that we accept this application with the conditions

1:48:16suggested by staff. And do we have a seconder?

1:48:23Member Mbrenno, do we have any discussion on the issue before us?

1:48:33Seeing none, I'll turn it over to the secretary treasurer for a vote.

1:48:40Thank you, Chair. Committee members, please indicate your vote by responding in favor or

1:48:44opposed to the motion, which is to approve the application with the four recommended conditions

1:48:49from staff. Chair Smith? In favor.

1:48:52Member Balaban? In favor.

1:48:55Member Mbrenno? In favor.

1:48:57Member Seger? In favor.

1:49:01Member Segal? In favor.

1:49:03And Member Spears? In favor.

1:49:05That's carried, Chair.

1:49:08Your application has been approved. You're free to go. Thank you.

1:49:12Madam Secretary Treasurer, may we have the next applicant, please?

1:49:32The next application is file A-16-24, permission to enlarge, extend a legal

1:49:39nonconforming use to permit the construction of an accessory building with an additional

1:49:43residential dwelling unit located above at 1859 Victoria Road South.

1:49:50I'll note for those attending the hearing remotely, if you wish to speak to this application,

1:49:54you can do so by calling the number displayed on the screen. That number is 519-822-1260

1:50:01extension 2524. And when you call in, staff will give you instructions on how you can

1:50:05delegate remotely. And I take it the applicant is via video. Can you state your name and your

1:50:18relationship to the application, please?

1:50:22Ms. My name is Kevin Thompson. I'm the lawyer for the owner of the property.

1:50:27Thank you. And can you tell me if the sign was posted as for the planning act?

1:50:31Yes, it was.

1:50:32Great. And you have 10 minutes to address the committee.

1:50:38Thank you, Chair Smith and Good afternoon, committee members. This application is to

1:50:41extend a legal nonconforming use to permit a detached garage with a proposed additional

1:50:46residential dwelling unit or ARDU above. The approval of this committee is required because

1:50:51accessory structures and ARDUs are not permitted within the natural heritage zone pursuant to

1:50:56the City of Guelph's 2023 Zoning Bylaw. As I'll explain in detail, this property enjoys the

1:51:01protections of the legal nonconforming use provisions of the Planning Act because the

1:51:05building permit or the residential dwelling that exists on the site was issued prior to the

1:51:10passage of the City's new zoning bylaw last year and single detached dwellings on private wells

1:51:15and septics were permitted as of right under the township of Puslin's zoning, which applied to

1:51:19this property the time of permit issuance. In our covering letter submitted in support of this

1:51:24application, we explained the legal requirements for the establishment of a legal nonconforming

1:51:29use and the test established at common law for the enlargement or extension of a legal

1:51:33nonconforming use. Now, I am certainly aware that staff have recommended refusal of this

1:51:38application, but unfortunately staff have misapplied the test for the establishment of

1:51:43a legal nonconforming use and have completely ignored the well-established two-part test,

1:51:48which this committee is duty bound to consider whenever an application such as this is submitted.

1:51:53And I'll address each of those errors in turn. The first error is staff have fundamentally

1:51:58misinterpreted the requirements to create a legal nonconforming use.

1:52:02Madam Secretary Treasurer, can we please put up the the Planning Act excerpts that I filed yesterday?

1:52:11Just give me one moment and we'll have those up for you.

1:52:14Thank you. Okay, thank you very much. So what's shown here is section 34-9 of the Planning Act

1:52:26and these are the legal nonconforming provisions. And 34-9A speaks to no use that was permitted

1:52:34prior to the passage of the zoning bylaw being prohibited and that's what we generally think

1:52:38of when we think of legal nonconforming uses. Part B is more nuanced. Part B speaks to no bylaw

1:52:44preventing the use for a purpose prohibited by the bylaw of any building structure for which a

1:52:49permit has been issued and that's a building permit so long as the building or structure

1:52:54when erected is used and that's used in the future tense and continues to be used for that purpose.

1:53:00Paragraph B doesn't simply protect the permit that was issued prior to the passage of a new

1:53:04zoning bylaw from being revoked. It also protects the future use which that permit facilitates and

1:53:10enables even if that use is not technically commenced on the date of the passage of the bylaw.

1:53:16This is clearly the plain wording of the section and it speaks in the future tense about future

1:53:20uses of a building when erected. It says nothing about occupancy and that's the that's the error

1:53:26that staff have made here. There's nothing in the Planning Act. There's no decision of the Ontario

1:53:30Land Tribunal or the OMB before that or the Divisional Court or even the Supreme Court which

1:53:35is weighted on on legal nonconforming uses twice now. Nothing distinguishes between buildings

1:53:41that are under construction pursuant to 34 and 9B and buildings that are occupied as somehow

1:53:46crystallizing your legal nonconforming protections. Staff have provided zero case law authority for

1:53:52this novel interpretation that that relies on occupancy at the building. I can appreciate that

1:53:59staff have the discretion or that this committee has discretion to reject this application but

1:54:04please if you do that do so because you believe the planning merits fail not because you are relying

1:54:10on a misplaced understanding of how 34 and 9 operates. We are in a housing crisis and adding

1:54:16as many additional residential dwelling units possible quickly as imperative. I implore you

1:54:21consider this application on the merits. Staff do however correctly note that a revision permit

1:54:27was issued in November of last year to add basement finishes to the under construction dwelling

1:54:33on the site. The mere fact that that permit was issued last year is proof that staff at the time

1:54:39believed the legal nonconforming use had been lawfully established. If it had not been, the

1:54:44Chief Building Official would not have been able to issue a revision permit pursuant to the 2023

1:54:49Zoning Bylaw because it's a natural heritage zone. So it's a logical fallacy for staff to have

1:54:56be of the opinion in November of last year that the use was lawfully established for revision permit

1:55:00issuance and then turn around today and say well we don't believe that it has been lawfully

1:55:04established for the purposes of considering an extension or enlargement of that legal nonconforming

1:55:09use. Those are diametrically opposed. The next flaw in staff's comments is their interpretation

1:55:20of 45-2. If we could just scroll to the next page please Mr. Lula. So in other powers that's

1:55:28the ability of this committee to approve extensions or enlargements of legal nonconforming uses.

1:55:33And so there's two components. There's a Roman numeral I and Roman numeral II.

1:55:38And the first one speaks to the enlargement or extension of a building or structure.

1:55:42And there's a caveat to that which says no permission may be given to enlarge or extend

1:55:46a building or structure beyond the limits of the land owned and used in connection therewith.

1:55:50It speaks nothing to separate structures, accessory drawings. There's only one caveat and it says

1:55:57we cannot extend it beyond the boundaries of the land or the limits of the land owned by

1:56:02the applicant in connection with the use. So rules and statutory interpretation tell us if

1:56:08something is explicitly prohibited anything else is impliedly permitted by that section.

1:56:16There is nothing in there that speaks to prohibiting additional structures as an extension

1:56:21or enlargement of illegal nonconforming use. And if I'm wrong about that we only need to look at

1:56:25Roman numeral II which speaks to the use of land as well and the ability of this committee to approve

1:56:31uses of land for purposes that in the opinion of this committee are similar to the purposes for

1:56:36which the land was used on the day the bylaw was passed. And on the day the bylaw was passed the

1:56:40use of this land was generally natural heritage but was approved for a single detached dwelling on

1:56:46a well and septic. And I submit to you that an additional residential dwelling unit above a

1:56:51detached garage is in keeping with the general use of and purpose of that land for a single

1:56:57detached dwelling on the date the bylaw was passed. There is a 2001 Supreme Court decision that I've

1:57:05referenced in the covering letter with our application. It's called Saint Ramal and it has a number of

1:57:10criteria that all the OLT and OMB decisions since that time have referenced. And the Supreme Court

1:57:17confirmed that under the common law property owners have a right not only to continue to

1:57:22legally to continue illegally nonconforming use but also to reasonable flexibility in that use

1:57:27including evolution intensification and expansion. And the OMB which is now the OLT has confirmed

1:57:33that municipalities may not enact planning instruments prohibiting such expansions. They

1:57:38must consider requests to expand or enlarge nonconforming uses under the framework set out

1:57:44by the Supreme Court in Saint Ramal. So looking at the planning merits of this case, there is a

1:57:50well-established two-part test for considering expansions or enlargements of legal nonconforming

1:57:55uses. And it's a modified two-part test and it's completely separate and distinct and then the

1:58:00four-part test that this committee is generally used to reviewing for minor variances. The tests are

1:58:06one, whether the application is desirable for the appropriate development of the subject property.

1:58:11And two, whether the application will result in undue adverse impacts on the surrounding properties

1:58:16in neighborhood. Those are the only two tests that you can consider on an application to extend

1:58:22their large. You do not consider general conformity with the official planner's zoning bylaw and that's

1:58:26for obvious reasons the land is zoned natural heritage. We obviously do not conform with a

1:58:31natural heritage zoning. Unfortunately, staff have not applied this two-part test. They have

1:58:37singularly focused, other than taking a technical legal attack on this, but they have singularly

1:58:43focused on sections of the official plan and zoning bylaw and spend much of their report going through

1:58:49those instruments. And they failed to address whether the application is desirable, which is assessed

1:58:54by reviewing those Saint Ramal criteria established by the Supreme Court, which we set out in our

1:58:58covering letter. Under those criteria, the Supreme Court tells us you look at neighborhood impacts

1:59:04when considering this two-part test. A later 2020 decision of the local planning appeal tribunal

1:59:10said the tribunal found that any purported undue adverse impacts of an expansion must be demonstrated

1:59:16by objective evidence and that evidence must be capable of overriding a property owner's right

1:59:20to reasonable evolution of their non-conforming rights as recognized in that Saint Ramal decision.

1:59:26The tribunal went on to say that to the extent that a planning instrument, including an official

1:59:30plan, seeks to impose criteria for expansion of non-conforming uses that are so stringent as to

1:59:35not allow for the type of balancing required by Saint Ramal, those instruments are ultra-virus and

1:59:40should be given no force and effect. To lawfully deny this application, you need to honestly believe

1:59:45that this proposal is not desirable or you need to have objective evidence that this proposal will

1:59:49have undue adverse impacts on properties of the community. Looking at this through the lens of

1:59:55Saint Ramal, you need to understand that while this property is entirely zone natural heritage,

2:00:00The area cleared for the existing under construction building already exists.

2:00:05The driveway and the building or development envelope was subject to a tree permit and a tree protection plan approved by the city.

2:00:14My client has a tree permit which allowed for destruction of trees and is paid $266,000 in cash and lieu payments for the removals of those trees.

2:00:23In addition, he was actually able to save 61 trees above the original plan that was ultimately used for the clearance of the septic system.

2:00:32This proposal would replace what is currently driveway with a detached garage and an ADU above.

2:00:40There would be absolutely no further incursion into the natural heritage features. There would be no impact to NHS functions.

2:00:46What you would be doing here was replacing surface parking driveway with covered parking being a detached garage with the added benefit.

2:00:55Of having additional residential dwelling unit above.

2:00:59Mr Thompson, that is your time.

2:01:03I'd like to thank you if you want to stand by, I'm sure there will be more questions from the committee. So if you want to stand by, please do so.

2:01:14Thank you.

2:01:16Committee members, do we have any questions of the applicant?

2:01:20Or of staff member Segal.

2:01:31I think that through you, the chair, considering this is now considered a natural heritage zone.

2:01:38Has any consideration been given to the additional septic system on the property in terms of.

2:01:44Nitrate loading or any impact to the natural environment due to the second system.

2:01:51Thank you through the chair to member Segal.

2:01:54The conceptual drawing that you have before you shows a second septic system that is optional.

2:02:01My client has confirmed that the additional residential dwelling unit could also be connected into the on site septic that exists for the under construction dwelling.

2:02:12Nitrate loading and everything else in relation to building requirements would all be assessed through the required building permit stage.

2:02:18So there would be very negligible impacts to the septic system from 1 additional residential dwelling unit being added to the site.

2:02:28But all of that would be assessed properly into the building code requirements. If a perm, if this application was allowed and as part of the building permit requirements that my client would have to demonstrate at building stage.

2:02:41Thank you.

2:02:45Did staff want to comment on that?

2:02:48Yes, through the chair to the committee.

2:02:51This application has not been reviewed by our building department staff to confirm if the existing septic can in fact also handle the load of the accessory apartment.

2:03:08Proposed ADU.

2:03:10Thank you.

2:03:12Thank you.

2:03:13Committee members, do we have any other questions of the applicant?

2:03:18Member Sayer.

2:03:27Yeah, through you chair. So I assume if we approve this application that there will be another application for a building permit. I see.

2:03:39There was an application was received in November 2023, but it was refused and hence this application. So, so would the.

2:03:48Would you know the septic system loading be considered under that building permit when it's being reviewed the application?

2:03:58From in my submission, absolutely. Yes, there would be a separate building permit required for the accessory structure being the garage and the ADU.

2:04:06And in terms of the septic design, I would fully expect that city staff would require confirmation at that time about the design standards of the existing septic and confirmation from an engineer hydrogeologist.

2:04:20That the additional loading and capacities can be handled in that system. And of course, the way the additional dwelling has been designed, we're in the net. We're the natural heritage zone.

2:04:33And we're obviously caught in the middle between the appeals of the 2023 zoning. But interestingly, there has been a partial approval of the 2023 zoning. The natural heritage is fully enforced in effect.

2:04:48There's been an oral decision of the OLT hasn't been fully published yet. So the natural heritage framework is in place in that 2023 zoning.

2:04:58We don't have any performance standards for what an ADU looks like in the natural heritage zone in terms of setbacks or anything else, because these uses are not prohibited.

2:05:06This is an extension of illegal nonconforming use, but we have designed this to conform with all of the requirements of the 2023 zoning.

2:05:17In terms of the square footage, in terms of the maximum height, in terms of the number of bedrooms, it is completely subordinate accessory to the main dwelling.

2:05:27It complies in all respects with what would be enforced in the section 4 of the 2023 zoning bylaw as it relates to additional residential dwelling units. So no variances per se are required from those ADU provisions in the 2023 zoning.

2:05:44Okay.

2:05:45Okay, thank you.

2:05:50And, uh, chair, just through you to staff, so staff, if we were to approve this application, are there any conditions you would recommend be put in place?

2:06:02Uh, through the chair, uh, currently, and sorry, I don't think that staff would recommend any conditions.

2:06:15Thank you.

2:06:20Thank you.

2:06:25I have questions of staff on this.

2:06:28Um, Mr. Thompson has, uh, has outlined, um, quite succinctly, uh, his point of view. I'm wondering, um, if staff has a rebuttal to this, um, it seems to me that it's something that, given, uh, professional staff's diligence on generally, uh, these kinds of matters.

2:06:54That they might have, uh, a rebuttal. So I would like to give them the opportunity.

2:07:00Yes, through the chair to the committee.

2:07:07Um, the existing structure, which is now being constructed, was applied for and the permit issued prior to April 18th 2023, the day our comprehensive zoning bylaw was approved by council.

2:07:26A detached garage was not applied for with this building permit.

2:07:33A, so it was permitted under the Puslinch zoning bylaw, which was an agri- agriculturally zoned property, which allowed single detached dwellings.

2:07:45It also did allow accessory structures, which was not applied for at the time.

2:07:52Detached residential, sorry, AR, DU dwelling units were not permitted under the Puslinch zoning bylaw either.

2:08:03Um, staff, staff's opinion. So after April 18th 2023, the property became NHS. The permit was issued. The dwelling was allowed to be constructed.

2:08:15Um, if the applicant was here requesting expansion of the existing building, that would be considered an expansion of illegal nonconforming use.

2:08:29The two new uses, an accessory structure and the additional dwelling, um, residential dwelling unit are uses.

2:08:38The new building is not proposing new uses, which are not permitted under the NHS zone.

2:08:48They are also proposing new buildings. New buildings are not considered an extension of legal nonconforming use.

2:08:57An extension of the existing dwelling would be, but new structures are not expansions of legal nonconforming uses.

2:09:12Um, it seems to me that, um, that's, and correct me if I'm wrong, staff, that, um, you're proposing rejecting this application,

2:09:27um, based on which tests that it's, that it does not comply with zoning.

2:09:35Is that at the heart of it?

2:09:48Sorry, through the chair. Um, as this is an expansion of illegal nonconforming use, the four tests do not need to be met.

2:09:58So it's not our regular, um, minor variance. It's an expansion of illegal nonconforming use.

2:10:04Um, sorry, through the chair, we are, our, our stance is that, um,

2:10:16uh, the, the test can't be applied, uh, to gauge whether or not this can be an extension of legal nonconforming use.

2:10:24It is a use that's, um,

2:10:28not permitted in the zone that the, the law or the subject lands resides in.

2:10:34Um, accessory structures and air dues are defined terms.

2:10:40They are uses that are permitted in specific zones of, uh, are both of our bylaws. They're not permitted in the NHS zone.

2:10:48Uh, for that reason, they, they, uh,

2:10:51it does not, we, we can't even apply the tests to this, this application.

2:10:57So essentially it's, it's not conform, it's, it's not even legal nonconforming. If I can, um,

2:11:05the, sorry, uh, through the chair, uh, the existing, the, the permit that was issued for the single detached home, um,

2:11:14on the lands that can be considered legal nonconforming as, as my colleague has, uh, mentioned, if it was, uh, an extension of that building,

2:11:22then it would be considered, uh, an extension of legal nonconforming. And

2:11:27therefore the test, the two tests, um, as Kevin has mentioned would apply there. Um, but this is a separate structure.

2:11:34As we've, uh, spoken about before, um, our official plan states that, uh, under our official plan policies state that, uh, when reviewing legal nonconforming uses,

2:11:45it, um,

2:11:47the following matters are to be considered. And one of them is, uh, that no new separate buildings will be permitted.

2:11:53Um, and in addition to what I had just mentioned, the uses are just

2:11:58not permitted within the zone.

2:12:01Thank you. That's clear. Um, I would like to back up a little bit and, um, just revisit the whole thing of legal nonconforming.

2:12:10Um,

2:12:13as this building existed for

2:12:18several years prior to, um, the construction,

2:12:22sorry, by this building, you mean the, the detached, uh, residential building?

2:12:29Dwelling on a lot or the proposed, um, sorry, the, the, uh, residential building that's on the, on the lock? Uh, no. So the, the structure is,

2:12:39I can maybe be backed up by my, my colleague in building here, but, um, they applied for a permit just, uh, early of 2023. So, uh, this,

2:12:51to my knowledge, the, the building hasn't received occupancy permits. Uh,

2:12:56or sorry, hasn't been granted occupancy. Uh, final inspections have not been, uh, completed as well. So it's very much, uh,

2:13:04a construction site at this moment. I could be incur, I could be incorrect. So,

2:13:10no, through the chair, that is correct.

2:13:13The building permit was applied for in

2:13:17January 2023 and it was issued

2:13:21by

2:13:22April 18th 2023.

2:13:25Therefore, it was issued.

2:13:27Construction could commence because a single detached dwelling was permitted under the Puss Lynch bylaw was, which was also in effect prior to the passing of our new bylaw.

2:13:38Therefore, that is how the building permit was granted.

2:13:43Once the new bylaw was in effect, it, the property needed to,

2:13:49while the bylaw was still under appeal,

2:13:52that portion of the bylaw was still under the appeal, the NHS.

2:13:56So after April 18th 2023, the applicant needed to meet both the Puss Lynch zoning bylaw and the, um,

2:14:04comprehensive zoning bylaw and the NHS.

2:14:08So,

2:14:09basically, permit was issued prior to our new bylaw. They could commence construction

2:14:15and it's still under construction.

2:14:18So the, um,

2:14:19residential building

2:14:22was fine under the old bylaw,

2:14:25but not under the new bylaw. Is that correct?

2:14:29That is correct because the property is now fully zoned NHS.

2:14:34Gotcha. So if I can just sum up if I'm sorry if I,

2:14:40being a little slow here, but I just, I just want to be a hundred percent clear that we had a, um, an application for

2:14:49a residence, a residential structure

2:14:53that was allowed prior to the 2023 bylaw.

2:14:59However, um, ARDUs were not part of that bylaw.

2:15:05Correct.

2:15:06So they got the building permit, they started construction and now with the new bylaw, ARDUs are

2:15:15considered

2:15:16and encouraged. However, the zoning has changed and the zoning does not allow for

2:15:26ARDUs. Is that, am I close to it?

2:15:30Somewhat, but I will add under the Puss Lynch zoning bylaw, detached accessory structures were permitted.

2:15:38So the detached garage could have also been applied for at such time, but it was not.

2:15:47Okay. Perfectly clear. I appreciate it and, and forgive me, this is a little bit complicated

2:15:54and, um, I, I don't think that any of us want to, um, prolong this, but I think in the entrance of, of, of the

2:16:06applicant as well as city staff, I want to be as fair as possible and hopefully as clear as possible.

2:16:15Committee members, do we have any other questions?

2:16:18Okay. Um, I'm going to entertain, uh, member Sayers first and then Mr. Thompson, I'll allow you to respond.

2:16:26Thank you. Member Sayers.

2:16:28Yeah, actually, uh, Mr. Thompson had his hand up first, so I'd like him to go first.

2:16:34Fair enough. Go ahead. Mr. Thompson.

2:16:37Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just, just to respond to the comments from Ms. Patzert and Ms. Massick

2:16:42at a moment ago. Um, while the uses ARDUs and accessory structures, I agree, are not permitted in the NHS zone,

2:16:50what I am proposing is that those are uses that are subordinate and accessory.

2:16:56The accessory is in the name to a residential use.

2:17:00It is the residential use that enjoys the legal nonconforming protection.

2:17:05And so just because the zoning by law separately defines ARDU does not change the fact that that

2:17:13can be an appropriate extension of a legal nonconforming use. And the legal nonconforming

2:17:18use here is a residential dwelling. And the Supreme Court, as I went through, made it clear that

2:17:24we have to apply legal nonconforming flexibly to allow evolution, intensification, and expansion

2:17:30over time. And if we took a hard line position in every legal nonconforming expansion case and said,

2:17:35well, what you're proposing is not permitted under the zoning, well, that would prohibit every

2:17:41expansion of a legal nonconforming use. You can't rigidly, rigidly apply it in this context

2:17:47because that defeats the purpose of what the plan act is trying to do to allow for reasonable

2:17:52extensions and enlargements. And again, I didn't hear anything from Ms. Patzer rebutting my suggestion

2:17:58that there's no legal prohibition on a new structure as an extension. You could build an

2:18:02addition at the back as part of an addition or extension of a legal nonconforming use.

2:18:07Why not have that as a separate structure? Because that's what ARDUs are allowed. There's

2:18:12intensification being promoted by the province and by the city to allow for ARDUs both in the

2:18:18main dwelling and in the detached accessory dwelling. These are reasonable extensions or

2:18:23enlargements of what I'm colloquially framing as a residential use that has been legally established

2:18:30as now a nonconforming use on the property. And we have to look at these things flexibly,

2:18:37because if we do it rigidly, there's no way any extension of a legal nonconforming use would

2:18:41ever be permitted. It defeats the purpose. You have to look at it through the two-part test

2:18:45established by all the case law flowing from those Supreme Court decisions. Is it desirable?

2:18:51Are there undue adverse impacts to the surrounding neighbors or the community? That's the framework

2:18:56under which you look through this. You might still determine that no, you don't think it meets those

2:19:00tests, but at least look at it through that lens and apply the Supreme Court criteria.

2:19:05Don't rigidly look at what the zoning bylaw permits today. That would be an error in law.

2:19:11Thank you. Thank you. Member Sears.

2:19:16Yeah, I just had some general comments and thoughts. It would have been nice if the city had had

2:19:24some legal representation here also so we could get their legal submissions.

2:19:32There was a comment that a permit hadn't been applied for for the

2:19:38the accessory structure some time ago. I don't think anything turns on that.

2:19:47I also have to say I do see the merit in the argument that we can't just look at enlargement

2:19:58or extension of an existing structure. I think Mr. Thompson referred to section

2:20:0545 to a sub two. We can also look at whether the use of land building or structure is similar

2:20:19to the purpose for which it was used on the day of the bylaw was passed.

2:20:27My inclination is to accept Mr. Thompson's submissions.

2:20:36Okay. Maybe we're going to have further discussion once we have a motion.

2:20:41Do we have any other questions of the applicant or of staff?

2:20:49Okay. Seeing none at this point, I think we need a motion before us to just one please.

2:21:01I have been falling down on my job. I need to ask if there are any members of the

2:21:08of the gallery or any members of the public at home who wish to speak to this application.

2:21:16Chair Smith, I can confirm no online delegation requests.

2:21:20Thank you, Madam Secretary Treasurer for reminding me of my responsibilities.

2:21:26At this point, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, I would like to entertain a motion.

2:21:31What is your wish? Member Balaban.

2:21:36I move that we approve the application to extend the

2:21:49legal non-conforming use as applied for. Do we have a seconder?

2:21:56Member Spears. Okay. Do we have any discussion or debate on the issue? Seeing none.

2:22:14I remember Spears. Please go ahead. Through you, Mr. Chair. I visited the site. I understand

2:22:21the perspective of the lot of the building site. To me, it seems that building another,

2:22:32another, I'll call it dwelling because it will be a dwelling, a mere few feet away from the existing

2:22:38building. Whether it's attached or not attached is immaterial. The result is the same.

2:22:44It's already there. I don't see that we would, we would profit at all from denying this, this,

2:22:50this request. Member Balaban. Through you, Mr. Chair, I, I agree. I mean, I, it's a use. It's not

2:22:59the structure that we have to look at, not the dwelling unit. You know, I think we need to really

2:23:05focus on the use of the land and, and obviously the use of the land is already determined and

2:23:11that's residential. And I agree. Use drives everything in, in, in what we consider. I won't

2:23:23be supporting this because I believe this is an expansion of the use and it's, it doesn't meet

2:23:29the, the zoning, the intent of the zoning bylaw. And I won't be supporting it based on that. And as

2:23:37professional staff have pointed out, it really isn't appropriate to be before committee. So

2:23:46I won't be supporting this. I could be convinced if there was other arguments and I am respectful

2:23:52of yours. However, I'm not entirely sure that, that I agree. Member Siegel.

2:24:02Mr. Chair, I just have a comment to add to that as well. Am I understanding of the intent of the

2:24:08no separate buildings is to, you know, ensure over time we're adopting to new bylaws. I think

2:24:16this is a bit unique considering the timing of both the previous application under the previous

2:24:21bylaw, which was less than two years ago and the execution of the new bylaw. So versus, you know,

2:24:28this being a property that had an existing use for, you know, 10, 20, 30 years that they want to

2:24:34add another building to propagate an old bylaw that was changed many years ago. I think the

2:24:39timing here is extremely relevant when considering this. Thank you very much. And if there are no

2:24:48other comments or questions, I guess it's time to call the vote. It's been an interesting discussion.

2:24:56And I've appreciated the, the diligence from both the proponent and from staff. So

2:25:04Madam Secretary Treasurer, would you mind calling the vote please?

2:25:08Thank you, Chair. Committee members, please indicate your vote by responding in favor or

2:25:12opposed to the motion, which is to approve the application. Chair Smith.

2:25:17Opposed. Member Balaban. In favor. Member Membranio. Opposed. Member Serre. In favor.

2:25:28Member Segal. In favor. And Member Spears. In favor. That's carried, Chair. Your application

2:25:39has been approved. I believe, Madam Secretary Treasurer, that was the last application. Am I

2:25:52correct? Chair Smith, that's correct. I just have. Do you have any announcements? I have two brief

2:25:58announcements. The first one is listed on the agenda under the member vacancy update. So I am

2:26:07pleased to announce that City Council on February 27th appointed Nicole Segal and Pamela Membranio

2:26:14to the Committee of Adjustment for the remainder of the term. These appointments fill the remaining

2:26:19vacancies on the committee and congratulations, Member Segal and Membranio, on your appointment.

2:26:24I'll also note for the committee that an appeal was received from the applicant regarding the

2:26:30committee's decision to refuse file A6-24 for 1888 Gordon Street at the February 8th 2024 hearing.

2:26:40So just noting that for the committee and that's all the announcements I have, Mr. Chair.

2:26:45Thank you. And I'd like to also extend my congratulations and welcome to Member Segal

2:26:53and Membranio. And I hope we haven't bored you too much with today's meeting, but that you're

2:27:02encouraged and look forward to working with you in the future. Thank you very much. Thank you.

2:27:13At this point, I would entertain a motion to adjourn. Member Sears,

2:27:26here. Seconder, Member Spears, all those in favor, we stand adjourned. Thank you,

2:27:32committee. Thank you. Bye. Thank you, staff. Thank you, staff.