Committee of Adjustment

2:08Good afternoon, Guelph. I'd like to call to order the March 27th, 2025 hearing of our

2:14Committee of Adjustment. This hearing is being held in a hybrid format with attendees appearing in

2:19person and or remotely and is being live-streamed and recorded. Please be advised that public hearings

2:27form part of the public record and the words, names, and images of those participating

2:32shall be recorded and posted online. Before I outline the hearing format for today, if you're

2:38watching online and wish to speak to an application that's listed on our agenda and do not and have

2:44not yet submitted a request in advance of the hearing, please call the number that's displayed

2:50on the screen now, which is by 1982216, pardon me, 1260, extension 2524. Let me repeat that please.

3:00It's 5198221260, extension 2524, and you will receive instructions on how to participate.

3:11For those attending the hearing in person, you will also be given a chance to address the committee.

3:16I will call for delegations to be made when each application is called.

3:21The agenda for this hearing has been posted online at gwealth.ca forward slash c o f a.

3:30I'll remind all committee members and staff participating in the hearing to please mute

3:35your microphones when not in use. Applicants will be unmuted when their application is called.

3:43I'd also like to share the hearing format we'll be using for to navigate through each application

3:48today. Each applicant will be called by the secretary-treasurer and the call-in number for

3:54those wishing to speak to an application will be displayed on the screen. Afterwards, the applicant

4:00will be given an opportunity to add anything further to their application to a maximum of 10

4:05minutes. You will hear a chime when there are 30 seconds left and another when the 10 minutes have

4:11elapsed. If you are the applicant and have nothing further to add, then you can simply say so.

4:18Following this, for some files, staff may provide a brief presentation. Our committee will then be

4:26asked to ask questions of the applicant and or staff. After that, we will hear from members of

4:32the public who wished to comment on the application. Please note that all comments should be addressed

4:38through myself the chair. Please avoid repeating concerns already stated by others and focus on

4:44adding new information. Comments are limited to 10 minutes or less and you will hear a chime when

4:50there are 30 seconds left and another when the 10 minutes have elapsed. For DIGLIN gets that have

4:56advised staff in advance of the hearing that they wish to display a presentation, your presentation

5:02will be displayed on the screen and a remote will be made available at the podium for delegates in

5:09person to advance the slides. Any members of the public who have submitted a request to speak prior

5:16to the hearing will be the first invited to provide comments. For those watching the hearing online,

5:23if you wish to speak to an application and have not submitted a request in advance of the hearing,

5:30please call the number displayed on the screen now. For those attending the hearing in person,

5:36you will also be given a chance to come forward to the podium and address the committee.

5:41Once all comments from the public have been heard, the applicant or staff will be given the

5:46opportunity to respond to the comments. Finally, as chair, I will turn to the committee for

5:53emotion and deliberation as well as a vote on the application. When the committee is making a decision

5:59on an application, I will be asking the secretary treasurer to conduct the vote by roll call.

6:06Our secretary treasurer will call each of the members' name and each member will respond if they

6:12are in favor or opposed to the motion. And as chair, I will announce the result of the vote.

6:22If you wish to receive a copy of the decision on an application, you must submit a written request.

6:29A written request may be made by contacting staff using the contact information shown on the screen.

6:36To receive a copy of the decision, please email cofaatgualf.ca. That's cofaatgualf.ca,

6:49with your name and the file number you're interested in. Please note that owners and applicants

6:54automatically receive a copy of the decision. At this point, I'm going to turn to member

7:02Bellaman to provide us with our territorial acknowledgement. Member Bellaman.

7:07Thank you. As we gather, let us take time to reflect on our privilege to live and work in Guelph,

7:15a city built over rich indigenous histories. We are guests here and we should reflect upon the

7:21responsibility to care for this land, the people who live here today, and the generations to come.

7:27If our actions today can move us towards reconciliation, we should take pause and make

7:33those decisions with intention and gratitude. This place we call Guelph has served as traditional

7:41lands and a place of refuge for many peoples over time, but more specifically, the Atawanda

7:49and the Haudenosaunee. This land is held as treaty lands and territory with the Mississaugas of the

7:56Credit First Nation. Guelph lies directly adjacent to the Haldeman tract and is part of a long

8:03established traditional hunting ground for the six nations of the Grand River. Many First Nations,

8:10Inuit, and Métis peoples who have come from across Turtle Island call Guelph home today.

8:19Thank you, Member Bellavan. Committee members, are there any disclosures of pecuniary interest?

8:28Seeing none, I've confirmed with the Secretary of Treasury that we don't have any deferral requests

8:33at this meeting, so I'll ask our Secretary of Treasury if they can call the First Application,

8:40please. The First Application is file A-14-25, permission for enlargement extension of legal

8:49non-conforming use to permit construction of additional residential dwelling unit at 10

8:56Industrial Street. I'll note for those attending remotely, if you wish to speak to this application,

9:01you can do so by calling 519-822-1260 extension 2524, and when you call in, staff will give you

9:11instructions on how you can delegate remotely. I'll also note that the agent is or the owner

9:16is attending via video this evening. Thank you. So I'm wondering if we can see the applicant via

9:28video. I see someone there. May you state your name for the record, please? Can you hear me?

9:52We can't hear you, so if you can adjust your microphone. Nothing as of yet, still nothing.

10:28It looks like your IT personnel next door is trying to adjust your set.

10:58If you're having, now we're still not getting you, what we can do is have you make your

11:05application known by telephone if that's an easier alternative. I think we're going to call you on

11:44this end and patch you in via telephone. If that's agreeable to you, you can give me a thumbs up if

11:52that works for you. Magic, okay. Thank you. Please await our call. We're hearing somebody.

12:25Does it work now? Does it work now? Does it work now? We can hear you. That's awesome.

12:35Can you state your name for the record, please? Actually, if you've got a speaker on your computer,

12:42can you please turn that speaker off? Okay. I got it. Awesome. Can you state your name for the record,

12:53please? Robert Goodliff. Thank you. And can you tell me if the sign was posted as per the Planning

13:01Act? It was. Thank you. And you have 10 minutes to address the committee and you can make as much

13:11of that time as you'd like. We're applying for is to make the property the legal, no, we're trying

13:24to make the accessory apartment legal. It's been there for since the 70s and we bought the place

13:33and didn't know that it wasn't legal and we've been trying to get it legal and that's all we're

13:39applying for just to make it so that we can leave the accessory kitchen in. No extra building, no

13:48nothing extra. We don't want to build on or anything. We just want to leave it the way it is,

13:52but make it a legal accessory apartment. Thank you. If you want to wait right there,

14:03we may have some members of the public or members of the committee who wish to ask you

14:09questions. So first, I'm going to turn to members of the public if there are any members of the

14:18public who'd wish to comment on this application. I don't see any in the gallery. Madam Secretary

14:27Treasurer, are there any online? Mr. Chair, I confirm no delegation requests. Thank you.

14:33Committee members, do we have any questions for this applicant? Seeing none. If you want to

14:41hang on a moment, we will go into committee and discuss your application. Committee members,

14:47what is your wish? Thank you. Member Goodfellow. I move that we approve the application as recommended

14:57by city staff. Thank you. And do we have a seconder? Member Balaban, any discussion on the motion

15:05before us? Seeing none, Madam Secretary Treasurer, could you call the roll please?

15:12Thank you, Chair. Committee members, please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to

15:16the motion which is to approve the application. Chair Smith. In favor. Member Balaban. In favor.

15:23Member Goodfellow. In favor. Member Mambrenio. In favor. And Member Spears. In favor. That's carried, Mr. Chair.

15:31Thank you. Your application has been approved and you're free to hang up on us if you'd like.

15:42Did you hear that? Or did he hang up? He just hung up. Okay.

15:47Madam Secretary Treasurer, may we have the next application please?

15:53The next application is file A-29-25, multiple variances for proposed new apartment building

16:00at 93 to 97 Surrey Street East. I'll also note for those attending remotely, if you wish to speak

16:06to this application, you can call this number displayed on the screen. That number's 519-822-1260,

16:13extension 2524. And when you call in, staff will give you instructions on how you can

16:17delegate remotely. Good afternoon. Can you state your name for the record, please?

16:24Jeff Buseman, Van Hart and Sir Avang. And can you tell me, Mr. Buseman, if the

16:30sign was posted as per the planning? Yes, it was. Thank you. As you know, you have 10 minutes to

16:35address the committee. Okay. I think this is a pretty straightforward application. We did apply

16:42for a number of variances, but city staff have clarified that a bunch of the technical ones

16:47were not required. So it was really down to four variances that really the committee is going to

16:53be addressing or considering today. And one is the rear yard setback, that it's going to be

17:008.3. It's identified as C on that sketch at the back of the building. This request is for 8.3 meters

17:08instead of 10 meters. The next variance is for the floor space index. We're asking for 0.9 instead

17:17of 1.5. That's the relationship of the units to the property. Number four is the variance for H,

17:27which is the setback of the parking spaces to the lot lines. We're asking for 0.5 of a meter instead

17:33of three. And then lastly, the drive aisle variance I, that's the space between the parking lot and

17:42the building. And then we're asking for 1.2 versus three. The city staff does a great

17:53provides a great report justifying all the variances. I would say in summary, the site is

17:57kind of tight and to make it work. These variances are very reasonable and I would say desirable.

18:05Just to give you context, this is on Surrey Street. I don't know if you know,

18:08plus auto body like me, I've had to bring a car there before they've long moved.

18:13And it's currently being used by as an office space, but the desire is to rebuild it.

18:18When they rebuild it, if you've looked at some of the three dimensional drawings or the elevation

18:23drawings, the three floors are going to be all above grade relative to Surrey Street.

18:30They what you see is the basement is really not a basement is going to be backfilled in concrete

18:36because of the floodplain elevation and the, so everything habitable, including the mechanical

18:43mechanical room is going to be all above. The final drawings haven't been done to kind of really

18:50make that clear. I provided a letter to the GRCA earlier this week to say, explain how it's going

18:56to work and not satisfy them that we can have a condition for the relationship to the floodplain

19:02be addressed as a condition. I think that's pretty straightforward. I think it's an exciting

19:08development for downtown myself and I seek the community's support. Thank you very much, Mr.

19:16Buseman. Committee members, do we have any questions for the applicant? I have some questions for

19:27staff, but I'm going to table those until we hear from the public, if at all. Are there any members

19:34of the gallery who would like to speak to this application? I see none. Madam Secretary Treasurer,

19:42do we have any online? Mr. Chair, I can confirm no delegation requests have been received.

19:49Thank you. This member, this question is for planning staff. I note in staff's comments

19:56that there's an indication that one or more buildings on the street, I note that I think it's 89 and

20:07101 and 103 are listed under part four of the Heritage Act, but not designated. But there may be

20:17a question of designation in the future and if that were to happen, if designation were to happen,

20:27would that impact this application when it came to building permit? Through you, Mr. Chair, I did

20:38speak to Heritage Planning staff prior to writing my comments. So like you said, both those properties

20:43are listed but not designated. If they were designated properties, then the applicant would have to

20:48provide a Heritage Impact Assessment. Speaking to our Senior Heritage Planner, he suspects that

20:55this development would not have any impact on those heritage properties and therefore

21:00there wouldn't be anything surprising that would come out of that Heritage Impact Assessment. So

21:04he has no concerns with this proposal. Okay, thank you. Just I note how it's cited and it does seem to

21:14respect the two properties adjacent. So if heritage was an issue going forward,

21:21there seemed to be sufficient setbacks in my estimation. Committee members, any other questions?

21:29Yes, Member Goodfellow. Yes, through the Chair, I think to City staff for this one.

21:36The questions or comments about the GRCA, I think I'm just trying to track whether or not there is an

21:42added condition or is the language that's currently recommended as a condition, does that cover

21:49the additional back and forth that was shared as late correspondence?

21:56Through the Chair to Member Goodfellow, I think GRCA has indicated that they're fine with the

22:00current wording. The only maybe amendment that I would make when I drafted up that condition,

22:05I made a little bit of an error. It says to the satisfaction of the general manager of the

22:09planning and building and the it should be to the satisfaction of the general manager of the

22:14planning and building department. Other than that, I think that condition is fine as is.

22:19And that would allow the GRCA to make sure that they're satisfied prior to approvals

22:25taking place. Okay, thank you for that clarification. That's it.

22:30Committee members, any other questions or comments? Okay. Oh, yes, sorry. Member Marimbrano.

22:36Yes, through the Chair to Staff, I was wondering why the warning clause requirement and suggested

22:43by Metrolinx was not included as a condition? Through the Chair to Member Marimbrano, so typically

22:54Metrolinx is not circulated on minor variance applications, generally only consent applications,

22:59especially if they're right abutting the railway. So for that reason, staff haven't recommended

23:05any Metrolinx conditions. If the committee sees it fit to add some conditions to satisfy

23:10Metrolinx's concern, that is definitely something the committee could do. But for this time being,

23:17staff are considering this to just be comments for the applicant to take into consideration.

23:22Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? Seeing none, committee members, do we have a

23:35motion to proceed with? Yes, I'd like to. Members, go ahead. I'd like to move that we accept this

23:49application with the condition recommended by city staff. And that's my motion, but I want to

23:58be sure that I understand that the applicant is okay with where we sit with that condition.

24:04The one with the city and the GRCA for the, yeah, we're fine. Okay, so that's, there's my motion.

24:12To accept it as ready. Good. Do we have a seconder? Member, good fellow.

24:18Any discussion on the motion before us? Seeing none, Madam Secretary Treasurer, would you do the

24:25honors, please? Thank you, chair. Committee members, please indicate your vote by responding in

24:30favor or opposed to the motion, which is to approve the application with the one recommended staff

24:35condition with that typo fixed in it, adding the word department. Chair Smith. In favor.

24:44Member Balaban. In favor. Member Goodfellow. In favor. Member Membranio. In favor. And member

24:50Spears. In favor. That's carried, Mr. Chair. Thank you. And your application has been approved

24:56and you're free to leave the meeting. Thank you very much. Thank you. Madam Secretary Treasurer,

25:04may we have the next applicant, please? The next application is file a-30-25,

25:11variances to permit reduced front-eared setback and increased projection for proposed uncovered

25:15front porch and stairs at 42 Bristol Street. I'll note for those attending remotely, if you wish

25:21to speak to this application, you can do so by calling the number displayed on the screen.

25:25That number is 519-822-1260 extension 2524. And when you call in staff, we'll give you

25:32instructions on how you can delegate remotely. I see the applicant coming forward. Can you state

25:44your name and your relationship to the application for the record, please? Yes. My name is Navin

25:49Sivakumar. I, along with my wife, Caitlin Evans, are the owners of 42 Bristol Street.

25:56Welcome. And have you read staff's comments and are you in agreement? Yes. And can you tell me if

26:02the sign was posted as per the Planning Act? Yes. And photographic evidence was provided.

26:08Thank you. Like your predecessors, you have 10 minutes to address the committee and you can

26:15make as much time use of that time as you'd like. Thank you very much. So my wife and I had lived

26:23at 42 Bristol for eight years now. And in that time, we have made multiple improvements to the

26:30property. As part of these ongoing improvements, we want to improve the front yard with some

26:36landscaping as well as the establishment of a front porch, as can be seen in the drawing.

26:45The reasons for this are several. We wish to bring our home up to current building standards.

26:51This is a century home. It was grandfathered in, but currently there is just a stairway with no

26:57landing to the front door, which would not pass for a new build in the current day.

27:03Furthermore, this has made it difficult for us to get home insurance. We do have home insurance,

27:09but we are paying a premium due to the added risk of the current setup. By using, or by building this

27:17porch, we will be increasing the safety of this front area and bringing it up to modern building

27:23standards. In addition, it is part of a broader beautification of our exterior, which we believe

27:30would increase neighborhood desirability. This has been backed up by a letter of support from a

27:36neighbor that is included in the application. Finally, for a functional perspective, my wife,

27:45Caitlin, is dynamically disabled and oftentimes is homebound due to it. We feel that this front

27:53porch will allow her to be outside more and socialize more in the neighborhood, thereby

27:59increasing her quality of life. I will also note that we have begun the review process with the

28:07Guelph legal department, and we will be going forward with that discussion pending hopeful

28:12approval here. Thank you. Concise and to the point, committee members, do we have any questions of

28:22the applicant? Member Goodfellow. Yes, through the chair to city staff. Sorry, I was just checking

28:38on order of operations here. I did note that the recommended condition includes the language about

28:47having the information included on title. I believe that was the language. Sorry, I'm just searching

28:55for it here. The encroachment agreement, sorry, that was it. I know we've reviewed a number of

29:02applications in this neighborhood. I don't recall there having been language or a recommended condition

29:07in the past about an encroachment agreement. So I am naturally curious why here, why this application,

29:15is there something that's a bit different about this one where it warranted a recommendation

29:20or a condition like this? Thank you. Yes, through the chair to member Goodfellow, it's Kelly Patzer

29:27from Building Services. Because a portion of the deck porch will be on city property, it is standard

29:38for, and actually there was another application down the road maybe three years ago, two or three

29:44years ago, or it's the same where the front porch did encroach onto the city right of way,

29:50and the encroachment agreement was required. So because this deck is going onto city property,

29:57sorry, front porch slash deck, it is standard to condition the encroachment agreement and have it

30:04on title, and it's between the owner and the city. That was very helpful. Thank you.

30:14Do we have any other questions of the applicant? I do have a couple of questions. I wonder if it's

30:20possible to put the slide back up. Forgive me if I'm nerding out a little bit, but I'm having a

30:35little trouble with this diagram. It was, Ms. Patzer was very helpful in noting about the

30:47encroachment agreement, but I don't see the property lines very well defined on this, as well

30:55the notes regarding the driveway, sight line, triangle don't seem to be pointing at anything,

31:02so it just, you know, confuses me a little bit. Is this just a pagination issue where these,

31:13yeah, to the chair? Yes, please go ahead. The property line is just in front of the house.

31:26These houses are very close to the front property line. It's actually labeled there near like the

31:32bottom middle of the screen. I see the arrow going to it now. Thank you, Ms. Spencer. I do see that.

31:38Thank you. I know it. You do have to zoom in, and also the sight line triangles. The arrows are

31:43pointed to about them, within the middle of the sight line triangles, and it is a lightly dashed line.

31:51Okay, so the sight line triangles are essentially not just the dotty lines, but that

31:59lump on either side, if you will, if you'll forgive my technical term.

32:06They're a triangle formed along the driveways,

32:09like cross into the yard, just to show that there's no impact.

32:15Gotcha. Thank you. That helps a lot. I do have a question for city staff, and that is regarding

32:25the water main access under the porch. Is this common, and does that require any sort of

32:37additional comment or condition? Yes, do you, chair? That would be part of the encroachment

32:46agreement process, and I would expect that it would be captured by that process. My comments

32:51simply drew attention to it, and through previous discussions with the applicant earlier in this

32:56conversation, we just noted that we wanted to see it on the drawing, so that we could ensure

33:01consistency, and that it didn't get lost in the mix. And now that we've seen it on the drawings,

33:07we're satisfied for this application, and we presume that the encroachment agreement is going

33:11to take care of the specifics. Thank you very much. That's very helpful. I appreciate it.

33:17That's the end of my questions. Are there any members of the public who would like to speak

33:25to this application? I see none. Madam Secretary Treasurer is turning on online.

33:32Mr. Chair, I can confirm no delegation requests. Thank you. Before we go into committee, let me

33:38reach out to staff. We've had a little bit of back and forth. Is there anything staff would like to

33:43add to their comments? Through you, chair, I think we have nothing more to add.

33:51Thank you. Committee members, what is your wish? Yes, Member Ballant.

33:57Through you, I'd like to move that we approve the application as submitted with

34:05the conditions suggested by staff. Thank you. Is there a seconder? Member Mambrano,

34:15and any discussion on the application before us, or pardon me, the motion before us?

34:21Seeing none, Madam Secretary Treasurer, may I ask you to call the vote, please?

34:27Thank you, Chair. Committee members, please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to

34:31the motion which is to approve the application with the recommended condition. Chair Smith?

34:36In favor. Member Ballaband? In favor. Member Goodfellow? In favor. Member Mambrano? In favor.

34:43Member Spears? In favor. That's carried, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Your application has been approved.

34:49Thank you very much. Thank you. Madam Secretary Treasurer, may we have the next application, please?

34:57The next application is VAL-A-31-25,

35:02Barences to permit increased rear yard coverage and increased height for proposed

35:06accessory building, Detech Garage at 71 Ferndale Avenue. I'll note for those attending remotely,

35:12if you wish to speak to this application, you can do so by calling the number displayed on the screen,

35:17the numbers 519-822-1260, extension 2524. I'll also note for the committee members,

35:24as well as those attending, that there was correspondence received after the comment

35:28deadline from the owners in response to the staff comments, and that piece of correspondence

35:33has been circulated to committee members and staff. Thank you and welcome. Can you state your name

35:39and your relationship to the application, please? Christopher Pegalo, I suppose, Lindsay Schaefer,

35:44were the owners of the property at 71 Ferndale? Thank you, and can you tell me if you've read

35:49staff's comments and if you agree with them? We have read them. We're in agreement of variance B,

35:56but disagree or yeah, disagreement of variance A. As is your right, and can you tell me if the sign

36:03was posted as per the planning act? Yes, Chair, it was. Thank you. As you may have seen, you have

36:09ten minutes to address the committee. Perfect. Good afternoon, committee members. Thank you for

36:14your time today for allowing us to present our case and reminded variance we are requesting.

36:18We trust that our cover letter as well as our additional comments submitted this week in response

36:22to the staff report have provided a clear and detailed explanation of our request.

36:27We want to take a few moments to provide some background and highlight some key points.

36:32Lindsay and I purchased our home at 71 Ferndale eight years ago. Having both lived in Guelph for

36:37most of our lives, we were determined to stay in the city and were fortunate enough to find a

36:41home within our budget. However, in doing so, we made sacrifices, including purchasing a property

36:46that did not have a garage to meet our long term needs. Over the past year, we explored the possibility

36:52of relocating to a home that better suits our needs. However, however, with the current real

36:56state market and our strong connection to our home neighborhood in city, we decided that best

37:01long term solution would be to stay and invest in making our home our forever home. A key part

37:07of this plan is building a garage to accommodate our seasonal vehicles, including a watercraft and

37:11an open trailer. This requires a height variance for vertical storage using a lift, which staff

37:16have supported and a minor variance in lock coverage, which staff have not supported. Since lock

37:21coverage is the main point of concern, we'd like to focus on that for a moment. A amenity space,

37:28our proposal includes removal of an existing carport workshop in a shed, ensuring that our

37:33property remains ample and amenity space, even with the requested 4.5% variance. The remaining

37:39outdoor space is more than sufficient for functional use. Groundwater infiltration was

37:44another concern that planning had. Initially, our site plan included the existing shed bringing

37:49our total rear coverage to 39.2%. However, in response to planning services concerns, we removed

37:56the shed, reducing coverage to 34.5%. Additionally, we have offered to implement rain barrels or

38:02direct eaves trough runoff into the existing storm drain to further mitigate any potential

38:08water concerns. During our discussion with planning, we also inquired about a nearby

38:12property with approximately 70-75% lock coverage in the rear. See can understand how their case was

38:17addressed and whether a similar compromise could be explored. Unfortunately, we did not receive any

38:23guidance on that matter. Maintaining an accessory structure. Our proposed garage is 69.49 square

38:31meters, which is within the city's maximum allowable size for an accessory structure.

38:36It remains secondary to our home, which is 97.55 square meters. Additionally, we have carefully

38:42positioned the garage to ensure it does not visually compete with the primary dwelling.

38:48There are multiple large attached garages in our neighborhood, including one just a few doors down

38:52that matches our proposed size while being accessory to a home of similar scale.

38:58Presidents in our area. We reviewed past variance approvals and found multiple cases where lock

39:04coverage as high as 50% was approved without conditions. One particular relevant example is

39:09ball moral drive where attached garage with 34.4% lock coverage was approved. In that case,

39:16planning had no concerns stating that the garage size and height did not negatively impact the

39:20property or neighborhood character and that it remained accessory to the main dwelling.

39:26This property is only a few blocks from ours has a main dwelling of similar square footage

39:30and sits on a comparable lot size. The homeowner also had similar storage needs.

39:34And in speaking with that homeowner, we confirmed that groundwater infiltration concerns were not

39:39raised during our approval process and they have not found any related issues post construction.

39:46Given the president's in our area, we believe our request aligns with what has already been

39:51proved and established as a reasonable for this is reasonable for this neighborhood.

39:56Our proposal were maintenance the function integrity of our property while accommodating

40:00our storage needs in a way that is consistent with the character of the area. Engineering

40:05and building services has raised no objections for the supporting that our request does not post

40:10functional or environmental concerns. We respectfully ask that our application be evaluated with

40:15fairness and that our minor variants be approved. Thank you for your time. We're happy to answer

40:22any questions. Thank you very much. Very thorough presentation. Committee members,

40:29do we have any questions of this applicant? Yes, members here through you, Mr. Chair,

40:38to the applicant. If this variance was refused, what would be your go forward plan?

40:48We haven't discussed that yet. We're hoping that we can continue on with what we've presented.

40:56Thanks. No further question? Okay. I do. Member Bellaban, no, okay. I'm trying to read the body

41:10English. I do have a couple of questions. You answered about the vertical height of the

41:19of the garage door opening that that is to accommodate

41:24watercraft or recreational vehicles or something. Have I got that right? Yeah,

41:27storage left. We have multiple vehicles and open trailer that's in the backyard right now

41:32and watercraft. Yes. Okay. Thank you for that. And I'd like to ask the applicant

41:41if they have spoken to their neighbors. I believe it's to the north at

41:49is it 69? They have a pool that I believe the height here would impact that. Have you spoken

41:58to these neighbors? Yes, we have spoken to them. They're actually in Florida right now,

42:01but we are able to get in contact with them through FaceTime. So it will not block the sun

42:06from their pool because the sun comes east to west. So would not would not cast any shadow on their

42:11pool. Actually, there's a garage right behind their pool that casts a shadow on it. So

42:17from the property behind their property, but ours would not cause any, any shadowing.

42:24And we've also moved it further back from the property line in compliance with what

42:28planning had suggested to 1.2 meters. Not that it's our decision to design on the fly. However,

42:40have you considered moving it further from the property line? We have not looked at that,

42:48but we're open to that if that's the condition. I guess the other question is in terms of the

42:57height. This is a very steep and aggressive roof. And I can see why professional staff have

43:05said that this really isn't in keeping with the zoning bylaw. So I'm wondering if you would

43:13consider actually, could we have the, I believe there's a building section,

43:23could we have that put up for the height? Yeah, that's the one. Thank you. So the four meter height

43:47is the height of your, your proposed garage door. Is that correct?

43:52Believe so. That's what it states on there. I haven't actually looked at that specifically, but

44:01that makes sense. Four meters. I would, is four meters conferred to a feet, I think it's 10 feet

44:06tall. I guess what I'm trying to do is see if we could arrive at something that's something of a

44:17compromise that would allow you to accommodate your needs and at the same time, respect what

44:22professional staff has said so that you don't have to go back and redesign this and, and then

44:29come back for another variance. So I'm wondering if you would accept something

44:36between top of roof and the four meters? Well, the preference is based, like we designed this

44:44based around that specific lift is how we got to this, this height to accommodate that lift.

45:03Okay. Thank you. I think that answers my question.

45:14Are there any other questions of the applicant? Seeing none. Are there any members of the public

45:24who would wish to speak to this? I see none here. Madam Secretary, Trisha, are there any online?

45:32Mr. Chair, we don't have any delegates online. We did have one registered delegate. I'm not

45:36sure if they're in attendance. Catherine Sergusa. Is the delegate online?

45:54Oh, they were registered in person. Forgive me. Okay. So I don't see them here. So I'm going to

46:02assume that we don't have any delegations. At this point, are there any other questions of the

46:10delegate? Seeing none. What is your wish? Committee members, members Spears. Through you, Mr. Chair,

46:21I'd like to move that we approve this application and both variances. Do we have a seconder?

46:29Member Balaban. Is there any any question or debate on this? Seeing none.

46:41I'll ask Madam Secretary Treasurer to call the vote, please.

46:47Thank you, Chair. Committee members, please indicate your vote by responding in favor or

46:50opposed to the motion, which is to approve the application, including both variance requests.

46:57Chair Smith. Opposed? Member Balaban. In favor. Member Goodfellow. In favor. Member Mambrino.

47:05In favor. And Member Spears. In favor. That's carried, Mr. Chair. Your application has been approved.

47:13You're welcome. I didn't ask staff if they had anything to add, but I also didn't see any

47:27any jumping up and down as we were calling the vote. So my apologies to staff.

47:35Madam Secretary Treasurer, may we have the next application, please?

47:41The last applications for this evening are files a-32 slash 25 and a-33 slash 25 variances for

47:49roofed front porch and rear uncovered porch deck and stairs to be located on the second story of

47:54the semi-detached dwelling at 25 and 27 Alice Street. I'll note for those attending remotely,

48:00if you wish to speak to these applications, you can do so by calling the number displayed on the

48:04screen. That number is 519-822-1260 extension 2524. And when you call in staff, we'll give you

48:12instructions on how you can delegate remotely. Good afternoon. Can you state your name and

48:19relationship to the application for the record? Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name is Claudio

48:23Belbino from the Gore Research Group and we represent the registered owners of 25 and 27 Alice

48:29Street. Thank you. And have you read staff's comments and are you in agreement? We've read

48:33staff's comments and we are in agreement, yes. Thank you. And can you tell me if the sign was

48:39posted as per the Planning Act? Yes, it was posted with confirmation sent to the Committee of

48:44Adjustment. Thank you. And you have 10 minutes to address the committee. Great. Thank you.

48:49The owners are seeking relief from the Guelph's zoning bylaw to permit the following, an open

48:57roof porch exceeding one story in height to be located on the second story of the proposed semi-detached

49:02dwelling and two rear uncovered porch above 1.2 meters with stairs to be located on the second

49:09story of the proposed semi-detached dwelling. As the committee is aware, both requested variances

49:18are related to the second story of the semi-detached dwelling. In order to provide a little bit of

49:23context related to the requested variance, it's important to understand the GRCA regulations

49:29that have impacted the property. The regulatory flood elevation for the area surrounding the

49:34property is basically at ground level. In other words, if a one in 100 year rain event occurs,

49:43the water level surrounding the property will reach ground level, resulting in the ground being

49:48totally saturated. GRCA regulations permit a basement finish floor to a maximum of one meter

49:54below the flood elevation, in this case one meter below ground level.

50:00After the owner submitted the building permit application, GRCA further reviewed the detailed

50:05building drawings and indicated that in order to have a living space in the basement, the building

50:10would be required to use a dry proofed approach. This would add significant structural and

50:18waterproofing cost to the project, basically making the project unfeasible.

50:24After discussions with the city of Guelph Engineering and building departments,

50:29it was resolved to raise the building by one meter in order to place the basement floor just

50:36above the regulatory flood elevation, as this would be acceptable given the zoning bylaw

50:42permits a three-story residential dwelling on the property. So by raising the building,

50:47the zoning standards and regulations were not impacted, except that the front porch needed to

50:53be enclosed and the stairs to the rear deck needed to be removed to obtain a building permit.

51:01And the reason that the front porch area and the rear deck area became non-compliant is that the

51:07basement of the semi-detached dwelling is now classified as the ground floor and the main

51:13entrance floor is now classified as a second story according to the zoning bylaw.

51:20There are no other changes to the semi-detached dwelling. Footprint of the building does not

51:25change. The gross floor area of the building does not change. The roof line of the building

51:31does not change. The front porch connected to stairs does not change. The rear deck does not

51:37change. The only part of the semi-detached dwelling that have changed are the height of the building

51:43and the removal of the underground basement floor. So in summary, we have read the committee of

51:50adjustment comments from staff and agencies and agree with the report. We further acknowledge that

51:56staff have no objections to the approval of the minor variance requests. We also note that there's

52:02no conditions related to the approval. So thank you for your consideration. I'll be happy to

52:07answer any questions you may have. Thank you very much. You've anticipated a number of my questions,

52:13so thank you for the elicitation on your application. Committee members, do we have any

52:19questions of the applicant? Seeing none, are there any members of the public who wish to comment

52:26on this application? Yes, please come forward. Welcome. Can you state your name for the record,

52:42please? Yes, my name is Kathleen Vanessa Hyland. And you have 10 minutes to address the committee.

52:50Yes, and I believe I provided some JPEGs that I can... Is this the clicker? It is. Okay. Oh,

53:00yes. Okay, that's it. Okay. Good afternoon, Chair and Committee of Adjustment Members. I live at

53:1018 Oliver Street, which is located directly behind 25 and 27 Alice Street. City by-law and planning

53:19staff have been very helpful in explaining the by-laws that pertain to this application.

53:26My written input and that of my neighbors was submitted for the deadline, I think last week.

53:34And our written input and that of my neighbors is certainly conditioned by our collective response

53:45to the size of the semi-detached dwelling that was approved in November 2023. And as the applicant

53:54has explained, there were changes as because of GRCA requirements. As the third story has been

54:04erected in recent weeks, we have all been startled by the dwelling size. Our objections to the request

54:10for relief from the zoning requirements to permit the back and front open roofed porches on the

54:16second story with stairs for the rear porches may be based on our reaction to the dwelling size.

54:25City planning staff have pointed out the original 2023 application for severance and variances

54:32included information on the proposed elevation for this dwelling. However, we are now experiencing

54:39the reality of this elevation. My presentation today is intended to be within the spirit of the

54:45governance framework for this committee that was approved in November 2023. A framework that

54:52acknowledges the challenges posed for committee volunteers who are being asked to serve both

54:58the city's policy and program needs and community engagement commitments and the inclusion and

55:04democracy needs of the city's residents. Since the dwelling currently being constructed on 25

55:10and 27 Alice's within the Ward West Heritage District currently under consideration, the neighbors

55:17are and myself are questioning what will guide future infill development as proportional for

55:24RL.1 and RL.2 neighborhoods where semi-detached dwellings, triplexes and fourplexes are now

55:32permitted as of right. I think we have been responding to the committee's request for

55:41public input on this particular variance file from this overall question. I would like to present

55:49six images taken from my backyard yesterday to convey to this committee why we are questioning

55:56proportionality for three-story infill for future infills. So this is an overview. I don't think I

56:11can point at the building, right? Don't have a pointer. Okay, so you can see that the large building

56:20in the center of this picture is 25 and 27, the semi-detached. You can see how close it is to the

56:28neighboring buildings on Alice Street. I'll go to the next picture. Do I just press? Oh, okay, I've

56:43got it. Thank you. And I think this image conveys how distinctly taller this built dwelling is

56:53compared to the neighboring dwellings. I think this image conveys, maybe not as clearly as the next

57:09image, how close it is to the neighboring houses. This image conveys just how large it is in

57:33comparison to the houses behind it. This is a higher image that also conveys the surrounding

57:44neighborhood and how this building is perceived in the context of the surrounding houses.

58:03I think there's one last image, maybe not. Okay, have I gone through all six images?

58:19I believe you have, yes. Yeah, I must have. So when my neighbors and I looked back on the original

58:25proposal for this dwelling, we realized that we did not fully comprehend the impact of this

58:30building's elevation. Perhaps going forward, the committee and city staff will consider the

58:37proportionality of three-story building designs for this neighborhood. And that's the gist of my

58:47comment. Thank you. Thank you. If you want to wait right there, and I appreciate you getting under

58:54the 10 minutes despite your technological disadvantage. If you want to wait right there, my

59:00colleagues may have some questions for you. Committee members, do we have any questions

59:05for this delegate? Seeing none, I want to thank you very much for your perspective today. Thank you.

59:16Do we have any other members of the public who wish to speak to this application?

59:23Seeing none, Madam Secretary Treasurer, do we have any online?

59:27Mr. Chair, I confirm no other delegation requests.

59:30Thank you. Can I ask if the applicant would like to respond to what we've heard just now?

59:40I guess the response is that we went through the zoning bylaw. The reason why we went through that

59:46was because we were trying to get ahead of the new bylaw was being appealed and they wanted

59:53to get ahead of the new bylaw. So from the owner's perspective, he believes he's

59:58compliant with the zoning bylaw in terms of setbacks and the height of the building

1:00:03and the block coverage. Actually, the block coverage is under what is required for that area. So

1:00:10from our end, we're compliant. Thank you. Committee members, any follow-up questions?

1:00:21No. I have one for staff. My understanding is that by right, three stories is allowed in the city.

1:00:30Is that correct? To the Chair, yes. That is the height permission in Arlo density zones,

1:00:41the RL1, RL2, for single detached, semi-detached. It is three stories. Thank you. So this building

1:00:51does not require variance for height. To the Chair, yes. That's correct. Thank you.

1:01:03Staff, is there anything that we may have missed that staff would like to

1:01:09give us some advice on before we look at this application as a motion?

1:01:21To the Chair, we have nothing further to add. Thank you.

1:01:24Thank you very much. And committee members, what is your wish? How do we have a motion

1:01:31to proceed? Member Balaban. I move that we approve the application.

1:01:48And do we have a seconder? Member Goodfellow, is there any discussion on the motion before us?

1:01:57Seeing none, Madam Secretary Treasurer, would you call the roll please?

1:02:02Thank you, Chair. Committee members, please indicate your vote by responding in favor or

1:02:06opposed to the motion, which is to approve the application. Chair Smith. In favor.

1:02:12Member Balaban. In favor. Member Goodfellow. In favor. Member Membranium. In favor. And member Spears.

1:02:20In favor. That's carried, Mr. Chair. Your application has been approved. Thank you.

1:02:27I believe, Madam Secretary Treasurer, that brings us to the end of our agenda.

1:02:32Do you have any announcements? Thank you, Chair. I do have one announcement,

1:02:39and that's in regards to the redesigning advisory committees of council project that was recently

1:02:45approved by city council. That means that the committee of adjustment will be merging with the

1:02:50property standards committee to be known as the committee of adjustment and property standards

1:02:55committee. So I'm noting this as current members are encouraged to reapply for a position on the new

1:03:01merged committee. And recruitment opens for a three week period starting on March 31st,

1:03:062025. And members of the public are also welcome to apply. And that's the only announcement I have,

1:03:12Mr. Chair. Thank you, Madam Secretary Treasurer. I was looking for a job when I got this one, so

1:03:18we'll have to cross that bridge when we come to it. Committee members, can I have a motion to

1:03:25adjourn, please? Member Goodfellow and member Balaban is seconding. All in favor, we stand adjourned.

1:03:37Thank you, committee members.