Committee of Adjustment

0:19Okay, good afternoon. I'd like to call to order the August 8th 2024 hearing of the Guelph Committee of Adjustment.

0:28This hearing is being held in a hybrid format with attendees appearing both in person or remotely and is being live-streamed and recorded.

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

0:43participating will be recorded and posted online.

0:46Chair Smith has sent regrets for this hearing and I'll note that member Siegel has advised that she may be joining the hearing later.

0:54Before I outline the hearing format, if you wish to speak to an application that's listed on the agenda and have not submitted a request in advance of the hearing,

1:02please call the number displayed on the screen now, which is 519-822-1260,

1:10extension 2524 and you'll receive instructions on how to participate. A final call for delegations will be made when each application is called.

1:19The agenda for this hearing has been posted online at guelph.ca forward slash C of A.

1:25I'll remind all committee members and staff participating in the hearing to please mute your microphones when not in use.

1:32Applicants will be unmuted when their application is called.

1:36I'd also like to share the hearing format will be used to go through each application.

1:42Each application will be called by the secretary treasurer and the call in number for those wishing to speak to an application will be displayed on the screen.

1:50The applicant will be given 10 minutes to speak to their application and you'll hear a chime when there's 30 seconds left and another when the 10 minutes has expired.

2:02If you're an applicant and you have nothing further to add to your application, then you can simply say so.

2:08The committee will then be able to ask questions to the applicant or staff.

2:13After that, we will hear from members of the public who wish to comment on the application.

2:18Please note that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

2:22Please avoid repeating concerns already stated by others and focus on adding new information.

2:27Comments are limited to a maximum of 10 minutes and again, you'll hear a chime when there's 30 seconds left and another one that 10 minutes has expired.

2:37For delegates that have advised staff in advance of the hearing that they wish to speak to a presentation or display a presentation, your presentation will be displayed on the screen and a remote will be available at the podium for delegates to use.

2:51Any member of the public who has submitted a request to speak prior to the hearing will be the first invited to provide comments.

2:59For those watching the hearing online, if you wish to speak to an application and have not submitted a request in advance of the hearing, please call a number displayed on the screen now.

3:09For those attending the hearing in person, you will also be given a chance to come forward to the podium and address the committee.

3:14Once all comments have been heard from the public, the applicant or staff will be given the opportunity to respond to comments.

3:23Finally, I will turn to the Committee for Emotion and Deliberation as well as a vote on the application.

3:29When the committee is making a decision on an application, the chair will be asking the Secretary-Treasurer to conduct the vote by roll call.

3:36The Secretary-Treasurer will call each of the committee members' names and each member will respond if they're in favor or opposed to the motion.

3:44I will then announce the result of the vote.

3:47If you wish to receive a copy of the decision on an application, including information about the appeal procedure, you must submit a written request.

3:57A written request can be made by contacting staff using the contact information shown on the screen.

4:03To receive a copy of the decision, please email c of a at gulf.ca with your name and the file number you're interested in.

4:10Please note that owners and applicants automatically receive a copy of the decision.

4:16I'd also just like to remind those in attendance to please ensure that we respect the presentations of all participating and not make any audible noise that could affect the committee's deliberations, including clapping or any other form of disorderly conduct.

4:36I'll now ask Member Goodfellow to provide the Indigenous Territory Acknowledgement.

4:43Thank you, Chair.

4:45As we gather, let us take time to reflect on our privilege to live and work in Guelph, a city built over rich Indigenous histories.

4:53We 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.

5:01If our actions today can move us towards reconciliation, we should take pause and make those decisions with intention and gratitude.

5:09This place we call Guelph has served as traditional lands and a place of refuge for many peoples over time, but more specifically the Atawanda Rang and the Hadnashone.

5:19This land is held as the treaty lands and territory with the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation.

5:24Guelph lies directly adjacent to the Haldeman Tract and is part of a long-established traditional hunting grounds for the six nations of the Grand River.

5:33Many First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples who have come from across Turtle Island call Guelph home today.

5:39The interests they'd like to make.

5:50If they have any disclosures of pecuniary interest they'd like to make.

5:59No, okay, thank you.

6:01Now we'll move on to the approval of the minutes.

6:05I'd ask for a member to move and a member to second approval of the minutes if there's no comments on them.

6:12Member Spears, seconded by Member Goodfellow.

6:19All those in favor please raise your hands.

6:22Okay, that motion is carried.

6:24I'd now like to ask the Secretary of Treasure if there have been any deferral or withdrawal requests received.

6:32Thank you, Chair.

6:37I can confirm that we have received a deferral request for file B-43-24 for 2162 Gordon Street.

6:46The agent has requested deferral of the file in order to allow additional time to work with staff before the application is brought back to the committee.

6:54A representative for the agent is in attendance this evening.

6:57Should the committee have any questions?

7:00But I'll turn it over to the Chair to address this deferral request.

7:02Okay, thank you.

7:05So do any of the committee members have a question for the applicant regarding a deferral?

7:10Okay, I'd like to ask now for a motion for a deferral.

7:15Member Spears.

7:18I move that we accept the applicant's motion or request for deferral.

7:22Thank you.

7:24Any seconders?

7:26Member Balaban, thank you.

7:27And so I'll ask the Secretary of Treasure to conduct a vote on that.

7:33Committee members, please indicate your vote by responding in favour or opposed to the motion which is to defer the application.

7:43Vice Chair, Sarah.

7:45In favour.

7:47Member Balaban.

7:49In favour.

7:51Member Goodfellow.

7:53In favour.

7:55Member Mambrinho.

7:57In favour.

7:58In favour.

8:00Now we can move on to the current applications and ask the Secretary of Treasure to call the first application.

8:15The first application is files B-32-24 to B-34-24 and files A-40-24 to A-43-24.

8:30Consent to create three new residential lots with one retained residential lot and related variances to permit garage width area and location, driveway width and required parking space for proposed severed and retained lots at 10 orchard crescent.

8:46I'll also note for the committee's benefit in those attending that we did receive comments from you made to Armistel, with concerns about the application and we also received correspondence after the comment deadline from Shakiba, from the Chamber of Commerce and that those correspondences have been circulated to the committee members and the applicant.

9:08If you're watching the hearing online and wish to speak to this application, you can do so by calling the number displayed on the screen.

9:15That number is 519-822-1260 extension 2524 and when you call in staff will give you instructions on how you can delegate remotely.

9:24Thank you.

9:28I'd like to ask if the applicant is present and if you could just provide your name and your relationship to the application please.

9:44My name is Jeff Buseman.

9:46I'm with Van Hurt and surveying and I'm representing the property owner.

9:49And was the Committee of Adjustment sign posted in accordance with Planning Act requirements?

9:56Yes, they were.

9:58Thank you.

10:00And have you received the staff's comments and are you in agreement with recommended conditions?

10:05Yes, I've received the comments and I'm in favor of the recommended conditions.

10:09Okay.

10:11And I'd now like to ask if you wish to address the committee and had anything further you wanted to add to the application and you've got up to 10 minutes to do so.

10:19That would be great. Thank you, Chair, members of the committee and public.

10:23This application was deferred about a month ago from this committee and is being brought back to the committee for consideration.

10:31The application was deferred to have discussion with neighbors.

10:35A meeting was held on Forest Street in the yard of a recent development of Spruce Living, a similar type of development and two of the ward counselors did attend that meeting.

10:45There was lots of discussion about the project, discussion of density, number of units, tree protection, height of the buildings, parking, stormwater management, drainage.

10:57Information was exchanged and preferences were given.

11:01Based on the general feedback, you know, the neighborhood is in support of some development but not supportive of what's being proposed, two pairs of semi-detached dwelling units creating four units.

11:16How did we get here?

11:18We all know there's an outcry for affordable housing.

11:21This is coming from everyone in all life situations and our governments heard the outcry and the various levels of government have responded in different ways.

11:30Certainly we know that the federal government has offered a reduction or a drop of the HST when the housing is for rental.

11:39CMHC has provided financial incentives for its projects like this.

11:43Provincially, the provinces updated their policies.

11:47One of the key ones that we all know of is the right of three units per property.

11:51And they've also set fairly strict intensification goals for every municipality which City Guelph is determined to follow.

12:04The municipality, cities including Guelph have embraced the three units per parcel and discussion is underway for a fourth.

12:12City Guelph, as we all know, went through an arduous process of updating the zoning bylaw to create an environment to encourage intensification.

12:22There was extensive public input for this bylaw and it was supported by council.

12:27In general, the public supported this direction.

12:31The bylaw was appealed as we all know by the G.A. that's the Guelph Development Association for more flexible zoning rules.

12:39Most of the appeal has been settled and we all know there's a few minor things to be settled and they're more technical in nature.

12:47But again, they're all the G.D.A. really asking for more flexibility in the zoning.

12:55A big part of the new zoning bylaw is that it established the majority of established neighborhoods in Guelph as RL1.

13:03The minimum standards for RL1 are similar to the old R1B that we had in the zoning bylaw.

13:11But one thing I'd like you to notice is that there was no carryover of the old zoning bylaw designation called R1A which allowed for larger lots.

13:22The other fundamental change that we're all aware of is that RL1 now allows semis and triplexes in all the neighborhoods.

13:32The major goal of this was to deal with intensification.

13:38Guelph Council has intentionally removed the protection on large lots by dropping that R1A designation and the larger lots.

13:48In a way what they're saying is that the larger lots are opportunities for intensification and we actually want it to happen.

13:55They set standards for the minimum lot size and setbacks and this proposal clearly meets them all.

14:01So what's really unique about this, this could have been just divided into two houses.

14:08In a way we're having one building on each sort of half, if you will, of what we got proposed here.

14:15There are semis but if these were just individual lots they would have met the requirement as individual lots for 15 meters wide and 460 square meters.

14:26In this case what's unique is we're going into a neighborhood which we're suggesting semis and this is what is encouraged by the zoning bylaw and city council.

14:43What is important to note is that these intentional changes are for all neighborhoods and no one has been given the restriction to not permit intensification.

14:53The proposed development is different than the existing areas houses in this area in terms of frontage and side yards.

15:00That doesn't mean they can't coexist.

15:04The tables and there's a report that was given to you by Ramsey Planning.

15:12It talks about different sizes of properties and widths and so forth.

15:16We acknowledge that. That's very clear. That doesn't mean this doesn't fit. It does still fit.

15:21I've seen developments as I mentioned before on Queen Street where we have probably the largest mansions possible.

15:28But at the end there's two small streets, two small lots on that street.

15:33The same block. Our apartment buildings with eight units each and they're the smallest lots of that strip.

15:39They coexist just fine.

15:41The review of section 9.3 in the city official plan has been reviewed by many of the submissions that you've seen.

15:51Does it fit in the neighborhood?

15:54The hired planner Ramsey Planning, the city staff, major of the neighbors, our planning consultant have all reviewed this and provide their comments.

16:03The opinions are subjective. There aren't specific numbers to measure them.

16:09Then if we want to look at and it's and at the end of the day some of the planners say it does fit.

16:14That's what the city and our consultant planner says it fits and Ramsey Planning says it doesn't.

16:19If we want to get into specific numbers the city of Guelph provided the zoning bylaw for specific numbers.

16:25That's a key evaluation mechanism.

16:28The frontages and areas are all met.

16:31The report from Ramsey on the section of the zoning bylaw has two sentences and the one sentence just deals with that the parcels are smaller than the ones in the area

16:42and that the proposal conforms with zoning.

16:45There are many comments on the physical aspects of this development including tree protection, grading, stormwater management, traffic.

16:54Our client has been working on the relevant studies and plans, grading plans for stormwater management.

17:01Soil testing has been underway.

17:03Monitoring well has been in place for several months to watch the water table as a proposal is to have infiltration galleries in the back.

17:10Working with GM Blue Plan as the engineering consultant designs are well underway for a design that's going to work and meet all the engineering standards in terms of fundamentally stormwater management stays on this site.

17:28Some changes have been made in our internal design.

17:31One is that in light of concern about height a step has been made to lower the proposed houses three flights of stairs that converts to .45 of a meter.

17:42And so the houses are not going to be out of the ground as we originally expected.

17:48The other advantage is that we're avoiding some retaining walls.

17:52We don't have to put them in anymore.

17:54The trees in the front they will be removed.

17:57There's a large tree on the back left.

17:58You can see that on that sketch.

18:01That is going to be kept.

18:03There's a cedar hedge on the left and on the right.

18:06It's going to be a challenge to keep those hedges in the vicinity of the house, not in the backyard.

18:12The backyards, the tip, the tree inventory protection plan that's underway is calling for root sensitive excavation.

18:20The intention is to try to keep them.

18:22We might not know for years if they're going to survive or not.

18:25In the event they don't survive because our client is the owner and going to rent these places and be that situation for many years,

18:35they will plant new trees and or put a fence in the event that the trees don't survive.

18:43The comments and traffic about traffic, sidewalk and safety have been identified, but the cedar gulf has not identified these as a concern.

18:52There's been concerns for parking.

18:55In this case we meet parking quite easily.

18:59There's two parking spots in front of each other in front of the building as well as one in the garage.

19:04That means three parking spots per semi.

19:07The rule is at least one parking spot per unit.

19:11So we easily meet the zoning requirement.

19:14In summary, the need for housing is clear.

19:17All levels of government have responded in various ways and the City of Guelph's zoning bylaw has set up the bylaw intentionally to encourage intensification on all neighborhoods, even the large lot ones.

19:29A key measurement of fitting and compliance is the zoning bylaw and this application meets or exceeds the minimums.

19:37Yeah, this project is different about what exists in this area in terms of large bungalows to the sides.

19:45But will it fit? Yes it does.

19:48City of Guelph planning staff has made that clear as well as our consultant that you'll hear from in a minute.

19:56The goal and objective is to increase housing intensification and if we don't intensify the growth targets will not be met.

20:03Concerns and comments have been given about major and number of the technical matters and our work shows that all the city requirements in terms of engineering, tree protection will be met and they will all be addressed as part of the conditions that will be a part of this application.

20:22We are confident that this property can support this development.

20:25Change is hard.

20:27The neighborhood did not expect this change in their neighborhood and they don't really like it.

20:32The law is following the recipe provided by the city, province and federal government.

20:37This change seems significant but it will be more commonplace and acceptable.

20:42I guess I'm cut off.

20:44I ask for your support.

20:47It was two lines away.

20:49Thank you.

20:51I'd like to ask if committee members have any questions for the applicant and committee members have any questions for staff.

21:04It doesn't appear that way.

21:10In that case, thank you for your presentation.

21:13We'll hear from some delegates now.

21:19Secretary Treasurer, have we received requests for delegation?

21:24Mr. Chair, we have received a number of delegation requests.

21:28The first one is Miriam Kelly.

21:30Miriam Kelly, are you here?

21:34Welcome.

21:44If you could just state your name.

21:46Sure.

21:48Hello to the chairperson and the committee members.

21:52Thank you.

21:54You've got up to 10 minutes to speak.

21:56Thank you.

21:58On gentle density, quoting from wealth master plans, allowing four unit gentle density in all low density residential zones throughout wealth is to be encouraged.

22:12This can include our dues or garden suites.

22:16Just so that I understand that correctly.

22:19What I would like to speak to you about first, and we've heard many technical details from from our surveyor and I'm sure we'll hear more, but I'd like to speak a little bit about the importance of local knowledge in planning.

22:35And what I understand this to mean is allowing voices of those that are in immediate proximity to participate and to have standing in the redevelopment process.

22:45And I think that's to some extent what we're doing here now.

22:51I can't resist any musical anecdotes though.

22:55So whatever you do musically, one thing that I've learned is you want to make it count.

22:59Many seasons of observing surface water flow, traffic patterns, pedestrian patterns and road use.

23:05These observations count and should be recognized in addition to by law adherence, which to me seems to be the lowest bar possible.

23:15And these observations are made by the immediate neighbors to number 10, Orchard Crescent, and they have opinions and that needs to be recognized.

23:25Learning by doing and learning by using.

23:28Well, this is a concept not necessarily invented by Jane Jacobs, but certainly something that she took into consideration with her remarks and her writing about urban planning.

23:44You know, Jane Jacobs, wait a minute, what's Kelly doing? He's going to go down a rabbit hole here.

23:48Not everything that Jane Jacobs spoke or wrote about was immediately a rubber stamp for densification.

23:55In fact, I think her comments and other urban planners had a lot of respect and patience and willing to listen to people in the immediate proximity of redevelopments.

24:10And a rabbit hole.

24:12Well, speaking of rabbits, local knowledge can inform us of the hazards in a vicinity, but also its charms.

24:18So for example, return from a gig late at night, there's a rabbit on my lawn frozen in the headlights.

24:25That's so peaceful. That's so beautiful.

24:28In the morning when I wake up and realize that same rabbit is churned up the grass and is looking for grubs.

24:34You know, I can ask a neighbor what what do I do about that?

24:37That's an example of local knowledge.

24:39It cannot be rushed.

24:41This is one example of being in place where on Orchard Crescent, for example, families have enjoyed such a condition for in many cases, multiple generations and their voices need respect.

24:52If I understand the city's development plan correctly, the implementation of a gentle density program hopes to address our national housing crisis by increasing supply and increasing affordable supply.

25:05And these are laudable goals, right?

25:07But how will this project impact the dearth of affordable housing in Guelph?

25:12And I would suggest that Spruce Living, with all due respect, may need to maximize the number of units on the site in order to make the project economically viable.

25:23And this will simply not work for the surrounding neighbors.

25:26And more on that from my fellow presenters.

25:29That's one of the reasons why there's opposition to having so many units on this site.

25:35This project will increase supply numbers here on Orchard Crescent, possibly doubling or tripling the number of residents, tripling the number of cars, and more on that from my fellow presenters.

25:46But this is a short-term solution with many potential pitfalls in the longer term.

25:51So if you're allow, if you will allow, some examples from my lived experience that may shed some light on the dual concepts of housing supply and affordable, affordability rather.

26:02So a bit more local knowledge.

26:06I noticed a few years ago that many older apartment buildings in Toronto where we are recent recently came from, those older buildings were under renovation, being brought to code and, yeah, sure, given more attractive exteriors, balconies and the like.

26:22I also began to notice ubiquitous signs for a certain property developer called Achelius.

26:30And a simple Google of their corporate name shows that they own rental apartments, find available rental apartments in New York, Boston, Washington, D.C., Toronto, Montreal, Paris, and London, you know, wow.

26:45After noticing these signs, I began to also read about the downside, something known as renovation and the destruction of affordable housing in Toronto.

27:00So spruce living, Achelius, yeah, it's apples and oranges and I know I've done this before with you, so please be patient.

27:09However, they're both private entities with a rental property portfolio designed to maximize profit and to its credit, spruce living is local for the time being.

27:22But who's to say that once spruce living builds up an attractive portfolio of sweet rental units that they won't sell up to an international hedge fund and go redevelop eco resorts in Costa Rica or some such attractive locale?

27:34I mean, I might.

27:40Once Guelph in the city sees redevelopment guidelines for this property will they're gone forever and there's absolutely no guarantee that the directive of gentle density will be achieved for coming generations.

27:53And there's a lot more wide lot single family dwellings in this area to be picked from.

27:59So gentle density and affordability.

28:02Another brief remark said like to make affordability is a new nuanced concept and I would like to describe more local knowledge of my own and lived experience with the region park development in downtown Toronto.

28:17I bring this up as the concept of affordability goes hand in hand with our national housing crisis.

28:24Way back in 1989.

28:27In fact, Rosie and I.

28:30Hosted.

28:32Or my American family for a few days prior to our wedding.

28:36Now my grandfather Sam Sigmund and his brother high were both civil engineers and high was a planner for the city of New York, Queensborough.

28:44In the days prior to our wedding.

28:45He wanted to see if we had any ghettos in Toronto and I'm sorry to be offensive, but I drove him around region park.

28:52He commented this is not a ghetto.

28:54Nothing like it.

28:55Well, many decades later during my tenure on the Toronto Arts Council, the redevelopment of region park really got underway and many discussions were had with city councillors such as Norm Kelly and the Daniels Group Development firm.

29:09Now that now that the project is mostly complete, we can look to it for guidance and with the benefit of hindsight.

29:16By some accounts, the region park redevelopment has been a successful public private partnership and new community recreation and arts facilities.

29:24And importantly, the intention was for mixed income residents, but on the downside, many long term residents were not really included in the planning process and they felt patronized and ultimately lost the local knowledge and sense of community that existed before the buildings were knocked down.

29:42And many had to relocate to far flung parts of Toronto.

29:49So the resultant gentrification was unavoidable.

29:52Income disparity and quality of the life conditions remain as far apart as ever.

29:58And I know this because I spent time at Sherburne Queen rehearsing ensembles at the Harris Institute for Recording Arts and the street life immediately outside that school is alarming.

30:08Mad Max alarming.

30:09Not unlike wealth where I'm sorry to say, reading in the Waterloo record just yesterday that, you know, there's altercations happening downtown with people chasing each other with broken bottles and hatchets and absurd displays of unhinged violence.

30:25If you want to take care of that housing crisis, don't waste time tooling an existing successful neighborhood.

30:31Maybe go directly to go build some proper shelter for those most in need.

30:35This attempt in Regent Park by top down planning on the part of the city and developers and developers had mixed results and we in wealth need to exercise far more caution before paying lip service to the concept of affordable housing as necessary as it is.

30:52Bruce Living has not made the case that its properties will be affordable and they cannot guarantee that the properties will remain affordable in the future.

31:01So let's not cede complete control of our built structures and neighborhood properties.

31:06In some jurisdictions in the world, well, non-residents can't own property.

31:11New Zealand, for example.

31:13Other countries simply by buying a property you can get citizenship such as Costa Rica.

31:18Excuse me.

31:20So what do we want for Canada, Ontario and Guelph?

31:23In our justified desire to address the Canadian housing crisis, let's not throw the baby out with bathwater, retain strict control of redevelopment in successful neighborhoods such as Aramasa Hill, St. George.

31:35Address gentle density with a tripartite approach granting equal status to residents associations, the city and to the developers.

31:44Thank you.

31:45Thank you for your presentation.

31:49Committee members, do you have any questions for this delegate?

31:53Okay, thanks very much.

31:58Secretary Charger, do we have another delegate?

32:01We do.

32:02The next delegate is Tammy Kizoff Duncan.

32:22Can you state your name please?

32:25My name is Tammy Kizoff Duncan.

32:27Okay, thank you.

32:29And you have 10 minutes to address the committee.

32:32Thank you.

32:34Good afternoon, everyone.

32:35Thank you for having us here today and for hearing our concerns.

32:39My name is again Tammy Kizoff Duncan and I live at 22 Orchard Crescent.

32:44I'm sorry if I repeat anything that's going to be said today, but these are concerns that we have.

32:52So I see you have the Eleanor Avenue slide deck up.

32:56I wanted to start by showing you some Google Street View pictures of my parents, Street and Scarborough.

33:00Their street was established 75 years ago.

33:04The houses were built in the 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s.

33:08And if we could forward through the presentation, do I do that?

33:13Oh, I do that.

33:17Okay.

33:19So as we forward through the presentation, you'll see that there aren't sidewalks on this street either.

33:26Just like on Orchard Crescent.

33:28Orchard Crescent.

33:30They also have very wide lots, just like some of the lots on Orchard Crescent do.

33:33In the last 15 years, and you'll notice this from the pictures,

33:37those older houses built in the 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s have been knocked down and newer, bigger, more modern homes have been put up.

33:46These new homes dwarf the older homes.

33:49As you can see, the pictures that I've included, there's older homes, there's newer homes.

33:53They also show that the newer homes don't really fit in with the way and the aesthetic, the look and the aesthetic of the older homes.

34:01They further show that the number of cars that are parked at each home, you can see the one on the far right,

34:07that there are a lot of cars parked there.

34:10Remember that Toronto has an amazing public transit system and that many, many people who live in Toronto also work there.

34:16Some of the people who live in Guelph may work here, but many others commute all over the GTA, I'm one of them.

34:21They need cars in order to do that.

34:25So this is just some views.

34:29Now these two houses on the left, I took this picture because it shows you there's about four feet of room between those two houses.

34:37That's what four feet looks like.

34:39And I believe there are some numbers like that in the development plan for 10 Orchard.

34:46It's not a lot of space between the properties.

34:48This is my parents home.

34:50It's 75 years old and it is dwarfed by the two houses that have been built up beside it.

34:57Now, I don't know if this is set up for me for the next slide presentation.

35:03Okay, so here's Orchard Crescent, but I was hoping to go to Eremosa Drive in my ordering of things, but we'll see how it goes.

35:12Okay, so turning to the proposed development on 10 Orchard Crescent, on behalf of the Gallows,

35:18Duncan, Stansfield, Creighton and Cunningham, and Hanoosiak families on Orchard and Callender Drive,

35:25I'd like to present our concerns as parents about the Spruce Living Plans for 10 Orchard Crescent.

35:31You've had a chance to read our individual letters and I thank you for taking the time to do that.

35:35What you'll have seen in those letters are some common concerns over safety as we are all parents of children on the street.

35:43Okay, so I was hoping for the Eremosa Slide Deck, but we can get back to that.

35:48So in our neighborhood, we have two options to get, I can go backwards, right?

35:55Just want to check. Okay, perfect. You know what? I'll slide through this and I'll get to my Eremosa.

36:03There it is, Eremosa Road. Perfect.

36:06So there's two ways to get to Eremosa Road from our neighborhood.

36:10You can take Orchard or Callender.

36:13Both intersections are hazardous due to the nature of the Eremosa Hill.

36:16So I took this picture just down the street from my house going, what would it be, west.

36:21So my house is on the right here and this is looking towards downtown.

36:26I moved up a little bit further and this is where you'd be if you want to turn right or left off of our street to get onto Eremosa.

36:35So due to the nature of Eremosa Hill, it has poor sight lines.

36:38Increased residences means increased traffic at these intersections, which has the potential for increased collisions.

36:43We already have at least one catastrophic collision at Victoria and Eremosa Road every about six months.

36:51These collisions look like to take out light standards as a norm.

36:55The fact that Orchard meets Eremosa Road at the top of the hill leading down to Stevenson is, I believe, the reason that cars cut across our street.

37:03I believe this because taking Callender Road to where it meets Eremosa and trying to make that left-hand turn, right there, is very precarious.

37:10The cars that like to come barreling over the rise between Orchard and Callender, we get to hear them every morning, especially in the summer, while heading into downtown, make it a scary place to turn left.

37:22So this is looking west again, east rather.

37:27This is looking east a little bit further.

37:29This is how you do that in a car.

37:31You have to really move yourself over because you see the hedges on the right there and that's looking down into the city.

37:36Okay, so this is the end of Callender Drive, so it's already not a safe place with the number of cars we have using these roads as it is.

37:47So now I'm going to scroll back real quick to our road, which is too far.

37:57Sorry.

37:59Okay, I'll find it.

38:01Orchard Crescent at the proposed development site, thank you very much, is a hill.

38:06So in winter, Orchard Crescent Hill is a slippery slope.

38:12Frequently, vehicles get stuck at the bottom where Orchard meets Callender, even city snow plows.

38:17Speaking of which, we are a tertiary road when it comes to having our street plowed.

38:21We get plowed last.

38:23In winter, we regularly have snow and ice frozen to the street, which leads to a very tricky drive on any part of our Crescent, but especially at the base of Orchard where it meets Callender, right here.

38:35I'm often glad after a snowfall that I live where Orchard meets Aramosa Road, except for Janet and Dwayne, who are directly across from us.

38:43I feel bad for all of my other neighbors when they have to get their cars into our street and through the snow to their homes or when they have to go somewhere and they have to try to leave.

38:54This steep climb also means vehicles that are coming up the hill have limited visibility over the crest.

38:59As you can see, there are no sidewalks on Orchard Crescent.

39:03All pedestrians, including children, families and seniors, must walk on the road to the three schools in the area, as well as to Scov Park and Bullfrog Pond Park and to the drug stores and shopping centers nearby.

39:15Increased vehicle density on Orchard Crescent where people must walk is dangerous.

39:20So this is number six.

39:22That's number 10 on the right, and this is going up the hill.

39:26Gentle intensification in the number of units and people.

39:30Spruce living would like to take a single bungalow, the one you see here.

39:34Let's say it houses a family of up to four members and two to four cars once the children are grown and turned it into eight dwelling units, which is what they're proposing to do here.

39:44With the potential of eight families starting with up to 16 cars because we're talking one per adult.

39:50If it's only all adults living here, this is excessive.

39:53Imagine a space that goes from four people to a minimum of 16.

39:58Though we understand the need for gentle intensification in our growing community, Orchard Crescent is was not designed to accommodate the number of residents and vehicles on this lot that Spruce Living's multi unit development plan is proposing.

40:12Our small Crescent was designed long ago and it lacks many of the present day features that allow for a higher density to occur seamlessly.

40:20Density isn't a bad thing when the environment allows for it.

40:24Unfortunately, the safety of the residents of Orchard Crescent, especially the children, would be unnecessarily compromised.

40:30Another point, the University of Guelph is short by about 1,350 residents for new students and this was reported in the spring for this coming fall.

40:40Any rental units are open to rent to anyone, so in addition to having the proposed eight dwelling units, Orchard Crescent could have university students moving in and out each fall in spring.

40:50University students are known to be transient moving in at the end of August and out in April, not to mention the university students are known for their parties.

40:58This proposal by Spruce Living opens up the door to our street becoming a very, very busy little street with many, many more cars and people than we currently have.

41:06There will be a lot more happening on our little street than currently happens and it will increase the safety concerns and issues we have for our children.

41:15About more parking and about more cars and parking, additional vehicles parked on the road will cause winter driving hazards and possibly wintertime collisions.

41:25We cannot safely support the considerable increase in vehicle traffic and cars parked on the road.

41:29Cars will limit visibility on Orchard Hill, you can see that here.

41:34Even further and will narrow the roadway making it difficult for kids to safely walk and drive.

41:41I took this picture yesterday, I put my car and my husband's car on the road and then very conveniently Warren drove through.

41:47And so I got another picture there, whoops, too far, of Warren passing through.

41:53He had to pass through between our cars because that's all the room there is for that.

41:57So we get many cars parking on the street in the summer with baseball season, with the families that parked there and it very much clutters up the road.

42:09So imagine if we take, we add eight new dwellings with at least four cars.

42:16You know, Spruce Living said when we met with them that people who rent aren't going to want to rent a place that doesn't have more than one parking spot if they have more than one car.

42:24But the reason they're building these four units is because we need more places for people to live.

42:30So if it's affordable for them and it's in a neighborhood they like and they have two cars but it's only one space, they'll take it.

42:40Thank you very much.

42:41Thank you for your presentation.

42:43Committee members, do you have any questions for this delegate?

42:46Okay, thanks very much.

42:53Secretary Treasurer, next delegate.

42:55The next delegate is Warren Libby.

42:57Good afternoon.

43:16Could you state your name please?

43:18Yes, hello.

43:19My name is Warren Libby.

43:21My wife Barbara and I live at Six Orchard Crescent, which is directly to the left of the subject property that we're discussing today.

43:29I'm here today to address this committee about one key concern that my wife and I have being directly adjacent to the subject property.

43:44Okay, is it the green button?

43:48Okay.

43:49And that is our key concern is what will happen with the 18 foot tall cedar hedge that currently separates our property from the property at Ten Orchard Crescent.

44:00This is our view of Ten Orchard Crescent from our side patio.

44:09As you might imagine, this is where we spend a great deal of time admiring our beautiful gardens and the row of cedars.

44:17And it also provides almost complete privacy from the bungalow that is currently on the subject property.

44:24In fact, you can just see the chimney poking through the cedars there right now.

44:29I would also like to draw your attention to our garden shed on the right side of that slide.

44:33That shed stands nine feet tall at the peak.

44:37And it gives you some perspective of how much lower our property is than Ten Orchard Crescent.

44:45So that is the view that we have today.

44:48If those cedars are killed by construction or subsequently removed, this is what our view will be.

44:57This drawing is roughly to scale based on the information that I was provided by the proponent.

45:05A 28 foot structure with one small bathroom window a mere inches from our fence.

45:12And our sitting area is an additional eight to nine feet lower than this.

45:18So we will be looking at a wall that is effectively 36 feet tall.

45:23For us, this does not look or feel like gentle densification and does not feel like it's a compatible structure.

45:32We hope that the committee can appreciate the importance of these cedars to us.

45:42For privacy as a sound barrier and also as for erosion control,

45:51as we have had some issues with water coming down the hill and in fact spent over $10,000 this spring dealing with water coming down the hill.

46:00We do not believe that erecting what is effectively a 36 foot tall structure at our fence line on the crest of a hill,

46:12which drains down to our property and shadowed our beautiful gardens is what is intended by gentle densification.

46:19Or at least we certainly hope that has never been the intent.

46:23We believe it's not in the best interest of the city or us residents.

46:28So the next question is can the cedar hedge be saved?

46:44Although it seems there's been a change of heart today at the previous committee meeting.

46:50The proponents stated that the trees can be saved, but would be need to give in, be given a little haircut if I remember the term used.

46:58I'd like to reference the city's own tree technical manual, which details how to preserve trees during construction.

47:07This manual was created by 23 city staff with expertise in this area.

47:13And it states that there must be no construction and no storage of construction equipment within a trees drip line plus one meter.

47:21Therefore, to adhere to the tree technical manual to protect these trees, there must be no construction within 3.5 meters of our property line.

47:34In fact, the manual further states that there must be a four foot tall plywood fence erected one meter beyond the tree drip line.

47:43That's called the tree protection zone.

47:46And no one should enter that tree protected protection zone.

47:50Now, while we appreciate that at this time, the tree technical manual is not mandatory for properties under one half acre.

47:59The principles contained in it for protecting trees during construction are relevant regardless of the lot size.

48:07A tree is a tree regardless of where it is.

48:10And the proponent, at least up until now, has indicated its intent to save those trees.

48:15However, the current proposal is to have a side yard clearance of just 1.2 meters.

48:26As shown in this slide, the trunks of those cedars all along the property line are roughly one meter from our property line already.

48:36So the foundations to be dug for the wall of the duplex would be just a few inches from the base of those trees, as shown by the yellow arrow here.

48:46Now, even if it were possible to dig a foundation so close to those trees, where would the construction workers stand to actually build the wall?

49:00There is virtually no room between that 1.2 meter point in our property line that is not full of tree trunks.

49:12So we ask the committee, is it logical that these trees can be said if the yard, side yard clearance is just 1.2 meters?

49:21After cutting off all the branches on one side of the tree, way back to the trunk.

49:28And after cutting off the roots on one side within inches of the base of the trunk.

49:33And after making room in the tree canopies to accommodate the first floor and second floor soffits and eaves, which will not be 1.2 meters from our property line, but less than a half a meter from our property line.

49:47And of course it's a logical thing that the workers can build the wall inside the stand inside the tree protection area.

49:57Our common sense says this is not possible.

50:01And if these trees subsequently die, or if the proponent decides to remove them before or after approvals, there is no obvious remedy for us.

50:10At least nothing within our lifetimes.

50:12Although I'm hesitant to quote bylaws because I'm not an expert in that area, my wife and I believe that what is proposed is not aligned with 9.3.1.1.

50:26In our opinion, the proposed building form, scale and height are not compatible in design, character and orientation with the buildings in the immediate area, that is our home.

50:39And we believe that the impacts on adjacent properties, again our home, are not minimized in relation to drainage, microclimate conditions, and in particular shadowing.

50:53We therefore respectfully request that the side yard clearances be a minimum of 3.5 meters to preserve these important trees and to retain some semblance of privacy from what will effectively be a 36 foot wall.

51:10Thank you very much.

51:14Thank you for your presentation.

51:16Committee members, do you have any questions for this delegate?

51:20Okay, thank you for your presentation.

51:23Secretary Treasurer, next delegate.

51:28The next delegate is David Gray.

51:43Good afternoon. If you could state your name please.

51:46My name is David Gray.

51:48And you have 10 minutes to address the committee.

51:51Thank you very much.

51:52So thank you, Chair and Committee members, for allowing us to speak today.

51:58I think we have a pretty strong delegation from our street here and a strong delegation from the neighborhood to show support of what we're talking about as residents in the area.

52:10We're also trying to be very respectful of your time and not multiplying our presentations as we've coordinated activity to make sure we've spread it out to get our points across.

52:21We'd like to present our facts and we know your job is very difficult and we have also attempted not to repeat things.

52:28So I'm David Gray, my wife, Lorraine Gray.

52:30We live at Five Orchard Crescent and have been there for 27 years since 1997.

52:37And I'd like to talk about first the Guelph Official Plan 9.3.1.1.1.

52:44As Warren just said, we did talk about the scale.

52:47We don't need to repeat what it says in the presentation.

52:50I apologize for my skills in putting presentations and the pictures together.

52:57But I think it sits to scale.

53:00The first house on the top, the current state is Six Orchard as Warren talked about.

53:05The next one is 10 where the proposal is the red lines will be what the new boundary lines of the property.

53:11So you can see there are very similar roof lines as Warren said.

53:14His house sits approximately eight to nine feet below the ground line of the remaining part of Orchard Crescent.

53:21If you have not walked up that street, you should.

53:25It is very steep as it comes from calendar up to the flat part as you get up to 10.

53:30The setbacks to not impose on the neighboring buildings in the current location, the scale, proportion and rhythm are consistent on the street.

53:38When you go to the proposed state, again, now you see what Warren talked about.

53:43Six starts to become dwarf by the first of the two duplexes.

53:47The setbacks are no longer consistent and they impose on the neighboring buildings.

53:51I would say that the scale, proportion and rhythm are no longer consistent with the street.

53:59Again, apologize for the editing skills here.

54:02The property lines aren't exactly accurate, but the top view is the current house on 10 Orchard Crescent.

54:08The bottom is the proposed two duplexes.

54:12They're pretty close to scale.

54:14You can see where the eight foot line to the top of Warren's shed and side garage are.

54:19So again, that's kind of a picture of what this new proposal would look like.

54:26Again, point two of the official plan.

54:29Lot infill will be compatible with the frontage of the immediate vicinity.

54:33If you look at this, the current lot frontages are between 75 and 125 feet.

54:39The proposed is four lots of 25.

54:41This, at least in my interpretation, doesn't seem to be compatible or near consistent with the current lot frontages.

54:50Surface parking and driveways shall be minimized as point seven of the official plan.

54:56Again, current driveways are 15 to 20% of lot frontage.

55:00The proposal is to go to 60% of the lot frontage with parking to accommodate one space per unit.

55:07I think was outlined on the Van Harten letter.

55:11This proposal is a significant change in character from the immediate vicinity.

55:15And previous variances on the street on Orchard Crescent have the conditions of no driveway with changes at the road.

55:22And that was a variance request at five Orchard Crescent.

55:27Again, proposal of my wonderful drawing skills here.

55:32Warren, Warren, help put this together shows the significant impact of the driveways.

55:41Okay, on the, sorry.

55:45So the Van Harten letter, which was stated in July 9th, just a few things want to go over.

55:50So the meeting with the neighbors, as was stated, we did have the meeting on Forest Street and Guelph.

55:56The Spruce Living people were very personal and nice.

56:00We had a pleasant conversation.

56:03They asked us if we had any questions and I, my question was have you prepared anything to deal with the concerns presented at the last committee of adjustment meeting.

56:13No formal agenda was presented and they wanted to showcase their build.

56:19They did provide pictures of what the duplex design would look like indicating eight units would be rented.

56:25When asked if this was the final design, it could change.

56:28And that's a little alarming to us as we're sitting as community.

56:32What is the real future? What is the next? What could the design look like?

56:37Again, force semi-detached units with an additional dwelling unit.

56:41This is a little bit confusing to me on is the proposal that actually I thought having an additional design.

56:48The additional dwelling unit out the back of the building was already said couldn't happen.

56:52So I was a little confused on that statement of force semi-detached with each with an additional dwelling unit.

56:58So again, that would be clarification.

57:00Somebody would need to make clear for us.

57:04The next part on the associated severances will facilitate modest intensification on the property.

57:10It will be the first of its type on the street.

57:12We agree with that.

57:13The proposal has been designed to fit with the neighborhood allow for modest intense intensification will be incompatible with the area.

57:20I would say going from a single family to eight families or more on the same property is not quite modest.

57:27Modest can be up to interpretation.

57:29For math, it would be an 800% increase on this one light lot eight times.

57:34Basic math would not call this modest.

57:36Currently there are 13 families on the street.

57:38It would increase to 20 is a 54% increase does not seem to be modest to me.

57:45The proposal for new is a high demand for new housing and the proposed provides a great opportunity to address this through infill.

57:53Again, as we look at 9.3.1, it's takes days with the infill guidelines are and with a lot frontiers, et cetera.

58:01This proposal is not compatible with the immediate vicinity or the guidelines of infill.

58:06If you look at the development will allow for some intensification for residential purposes.

58:14The city staff report on the website says it.

58:19Gentle intensification is the development that is not meant to be imposing, but rather the ultimate sign of successful gentle density is that it is gentle enough that one hardly notices.

58:31The proposal seems far from gentle.

58:33It is noticeable from size and shadowing to six or crescent.

58:37The frontage changes the roof line variation tree and hedge preservation driveway percentage and parking consideration.

58:44Again, this is my bad sense of humor.

58:48Just showed the picture again.

58:50Current zoning the property at 10 or crescent can have modest intensification has been talked about.

58:57It does not need a severance or variances to reach the goal of some density intensification.

59:03The building centered on the lot with two levels of living space with an additional 80 you would meet the current guidelines example or raise bundle or whatever design spruce living could come up with.

59:15The intensification would go to three families, which would be an increase of 15.4% to their current number of families on the street, which is modest in comparison to the proposal of 54.

59:25Three families on what is currently 10 or crescent versus the proposal of eight families is three versus eight times.

59:31Summary demolishing a building that has been upgraded the house on orchard has gone through quite an upgrade seems to be wasteful from a sustainability position and a strain on our waste and landfill sites.

59:43The proposal is not gentle intensification is and is very noticeable.

59:47It does not fit into the immediate vicinity for scale height mass appearance, frontage driveway and orientation.

59:53It does not meet the official plan 9.3 point 1.1.

59:57Recommendation severance be disallowed.

1:00:01It be the variances be disallowed and the current planning and zoning does allow for modest intensification, which they can implement immediately.

1:00:10And I just one other comment.

1:00:12The Van Harten proposal or opening statements said there would be parking in the driveways and parking in the garage and that was clearly not what was communicated at this spruce living meeting that we had.

1:00:26The garage would be totally for storage and would be for garbage containers, et cetera.

1:00:33There would be no parking in the garage.

1:00:35So I'm a little confused on Van Harten's what they said versus what spruce living told us at our meeting.

1:00:41And that's the end of my presentation.

1:00:43Thank you for your time.

1:00:45Okay. Thank you for your presentation.

1:00:47Committee members.

1:00:49Do you have any questions for this delegate?

1:00:52Okay. Thank you for your presentation.

1:00:58Thank you.

1:00:59Next delegate, please.

1:01:01The next delegate is Ron Hebden.

1:01:15Good afternoon.

1:01:17Good afternoon.

1:01:19Just state your name for the record, please.

1:01:21My name is Ron Hebden.

1:01:23Okay. And you've got 10 minutes to make a presentation.

1:01:25Okay.

1:01:27My whole process here started probably back in April because the city looks after zoning and variances.

1:01:34And bylaws.

1:01:36So I called my word counselor.

1:01:40And at the time, knowing that the property had been sold next to my property, he indicated that he talked to the developer and told me who it was, which was spruce living.

1:01:51But they had no plans at that time for what they were going to do on orchard crescent.

1:01:57So then we had our committee meeting, your committee on the 27th of June, at which time we really found out what they were planning.

1:02:07And this was severing the lots.

1:02:08So I contacted my counselor again.

1:02:12And his reply to me was, I'm also frustrated by this.

1:02:19When council approved allowing forplexes in our new zoning bylaw and envisioned increasing density in ways that fit with the neighborhood.

1:02:28However, I for one did not expect someone to split the property into four separate properties, each of which could have three units in them, thereby turning one family home into possibly 12 family homes.

1:02:45This process has made me think that the city needs to come up with design guides for duplex, triplex, fourplex units.

1:02:54So we ensure that these proposals actually fit with the neighborhood.

1:02:59As David Gray had just said, the gentle density is an approach to where by development that focuses on slightly increasing the number and variety of homes in our neighborhood is that typically accommodate only low density single detached homes.

1:03:18And also that it should be hardly visible.

1:03:20This developer, along with the planning department has come up with a different plan because these are going to be rental units and we take the lot, split it into four so we can get more units.

1:03:33Now, I don't find this a minor variance or a minor change.

1:03:38So at the end, he's still going to own all four lots.

1:03:47They aren't really separate.

1:03:48So you look around approximately if you go down orchard crescent, walnut drive, Sherwood drive and calendar drive.

1:04:02If you look around 120 or 30 of these properties, some may have rentals.

1:04:10Some may have multiple families.

1:04:13You know, some may have day rentals and some may have a day rentals.

1:04:20Some have just been renovated with large additions.

1:04:24So we're not sure what's there and that's the way it's supposed to be because the end result is every property is still sitting on the original property in the original plan.

1:04:37So things haven't changed.

1:04:41Now, my other concern is the same as what Orrin is with the hedges.

1:04:49Now, this row of cedar trees gives us privacy, but it also retains stability of the land and the property and water retention.

1:05:02I think Orrin showed very specifically that in order to put a foundation down eight feet or whatever they have to do,

1:05:11you cannot do this without removing that one meter of soil where the trees are placed.

1:05:19So the trees will be lost.

1:05:21Now, I have a topographical survey which was done by Black Shoemaker Robinson and Donaldson, another surveying company.

1:05:30The elevation, the back of orchard crescent, 10 orchard, is 1158.68 feet.

1:05:40If you move further down the hill to the front of my property, the elevation is 1144 feet.

1:05:52This is a 15.68 foot difference.

1:05:56So you can see what the slope of this hill actually is.

1:05:59Basically 4.9 meters of elevation change from their property to the front of Orrin's property and my property.

1:06:07I think I know where the water is going to go.

1:06:10It does go downhill.

1:06:11Now, there was a very detailed letter presented to the committee by Mr. Michael Hoffman concerning the soils and the waters.

1:06:22So I only want to bring a few points from that.

1:06:25The impervious areas will greatly increase as 60 to 70 percent of the lot will be covered.

1:06:33Vegetation will be reduced and will not intercept and use water to the extent that currently occurs.

1:06:42The proposed buildings are close to the crest of a hill and the surface water will flow downhill.

1:06:49Rainwater that infiltrates into the soil and structures such as a French drain as they're proposing has a potential increase subsurface water flow to houses built in the north.

1:07:02And the roots of the hill below the crest of the hill.

1:07:05That certainly involves me.

1:07:07So I guess what we're asking is please follow the rules.

1:07:10Don't change the rules.

1:07:12Thank you.

1:07:15Thank you for your presentation.

1:07:17Committee members, do you have any questions for this delegate?

1:07:20Thank you.

1:07:22Secretary Treasurer, another delegate.

1:07:27The next delegate is Alan Ramsey.

1:07:46Mr. Chairman, I am not Alan Ramsey.

1:07:49I'm John Valerio.

1:07:50I'm appearing in advance of Alan.

1:07:55Alan is a qualified land planner.

1:07:58I'm more representative of the other people who have spoken like to perhaps give my presentation and that will enable Alan to give a more fulsome presentation.

1:08:10Okay, we can do that.

1:08:14Then you have 10 minutes.

1:08:20Mr. Chairman, members of the committee.

1:08:22I reside at 82 counter drive, which is within the impact area.

1:08:31And my comments this afternoon evening really represent two aspects of this application of these applications.

1:08:39Firstly, my basic concern and issue is with respect to the request for severances by the developer.

1:08:49Simply put, severances are not necessary to affect increased density on this lot.

1:08:59With the existing zoning in place, you don't need three severances plus multiple variances to increase the density on this lot.

1:09:14Tan Orchard Crescent is currently one lot, 90 meters under feet across.

1:09:23And now, and it's similar to every other lot in the area.

1:09:30And now as a bright, there can be three dwelling units on this lot.

1:09:37And that's without the need for the severances that are being and the variances requested.

1:09:42The absolute right to three dwellings on this lot exists in the bylaw.

1:09:56Two additional dwellings, two additional dwelling units totaling three is certainly consistent with the concept of gentle intensification in the area.

1:10:08In an area, members of the committee, which has predominantly single detached dwellings and predominantly, but not exclusively occupied by single families.

1:10:21Even more important is this, it is consistent with the understanding and the acceptance of this neighborhood population.

1:10:37That three units on a single lot is permitted.

1:10:42This neighborhood acknowledges the city's interest in intensification, both not only in this area, but in the other.

1:10:50But once again, it has to do more with the severances.

1:10:55Now, Alan Ramsey, as I indicated, he was qualified land planner and he'll follow and give a more expansive discussion on that.

1:11:03But my second point for your consideration, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee really has to do with you as a committee of adjustment.

1:11:14Committee of adjustment, the city of Guelph and every committee of adjustment, the province of Ontario, is a remarkably independent body.

1:11:25City council appoints you to this position, but you do not answer to the city of Guelph council.

1:11:35The only party that you answer to at any time is the land tribunal of province of Ontario.

1:11:43Now, it used to be that almost any applicant, participant in a hearing such as this, could appeal whatever decision you make.

1:12:05But that's no longer the case.

1:12:07That's gone out the window and as you know, that all changed and the absolute right to appeal your decision rests only with the applicant and the city for that matter.

1:12:23No others, no others particularly.

1:12:27All these people here this evening, this afternoon, the letters that you've wrote, they have no absolute right to appeal your decision.

1:12:36None.

1:12:39Now, what does this lead to?

1:12:43Well, it leads to simply this, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, that we ask you to be particularly thoughtful, if you will, in your deliberation with respect to this application.

1:12:58That's to say, unless you are really absolutely and totally convinced that these applications, four separate lots, free, free standing lots, each separate in separate ownership is the best proposal for this neighborhood.

1:13:20And if you don't believe that, then please deny the application.

1:13:25Why?

1:13:27Well, because if you approve the application, despite having some doubt that you may have with respect to what people have said here today and the information that you've received, then this neighborhood has no right, no absolute right to appeal that decision.

1:13:43However, if you, as a committee, have some doubt that this is not the very best development that can exist on this lot, then we respectfully ask that you decline the application.

1:14:02Thus again, I say, if you have that doubt, please give this neighborhood the benefit of your thoughtful consideration.

1:14:13Thanks very much.

1:14:15Thank you.

1:14:17Committee members, do you have any questions for this delegate?

1:14:21Okay, thank you for your presentation.

1:14:38Good afternoon.

1:14:40I'm guessing you're Alan Ramsey.

1:14:42That's correct, yes. Alan Ramsey.

1:14:44Thank you.

1:14:45Thank you very much.

1:14:47So I've been asked by the residents of the area to provide an independent planning opinion with respect to these applications.

1:15:05And I've prepared for you a copy of a planning brief, a fairly detailed brief that I think is corresponding to nine in your package today.

1:15:20And I'm not going to go through that in detail, but I am going to address some of the key points.

1:15:26And I'm going to try to use this thing if I can.

1:15:30So page six of my presentation.

1:15:36And I am going to start off by talking about there are policies in the official plan that require consideration of the character of neighborhoods when you're considering consent and variances.

1:15:55And what I've done is I've gone through the neighborhood and I've defined what I consider to be the broader neighborhood as well as the immediate context.

1:16:07And in that, there's 137 lots within that broader context and 15 lots within the immediate context.

1:16:16And then what I did was I looked at a lot characteristics in terms of lot area and lot frontage in both the broader and the intermediate areas.

1:16:28And I'm not going to go through this in detail, but essentially what's being proposed here is so out of character what's in this neighborhood today.

1:16:39It is so far out of character in terms of both a lot frontage and lot area.

1:16:46So the broader neighborhood, clearly there are no lots that are of this size.

1:16:54With respect to the immediate context there, there's a bunch of numbers there, but you'll see that none of the existing lots are anywhere close to the size of what's being proposed.

1:17:04And in terms of lot frontage, the same thing as well.

1:17:08The 7.6 meter lots do not exist in this neighborhood, nor do they exist in the immediate context area.

1:17:22So with that said, I've looked at these applications and I believe that the key issues are conformity with the official plan,

1:17:33regard for section 51-24 of the planning act, and in particular the impacts that I consider to be on the neighborhood character,

1:17:42privacy, overlook, site drainage, streetscape, building separation, loss of mature vegetation, and lack of studies.

1:17:56And if we go to the official plan in this section of the plan has been referred to, but section 9.3 identifies some key objectives for residential designations,

1:18:12and it's my opinion that the proposal does not conform with 9.3F as the size of the lots and the proposed single detached bill form will be out of place with the existing development,

1:18:36which consists mostly of large lots with generous setbacks.

1:18:41Furthermore, the proposal does not conform with section 9.3I as the consent will facilitate a development that will result in privacy issues and will result in drainage concerns.

1:19:02And in particular, as we've seen, there will be a loss of mature vegetation, which will worsen the concerns about privacy.

1:19:15The applicant has not submitted any plans in support of the proposal.

1:19:22There hasn't been a tree preservation plan, there hasn't been a drainage plan, and there hasn't been a stormwater management plan.

1:19:31These reports are needed for your consideration now, and they should not be made a condition of approval.

1:19:39You need to know the findings of those studies to properly consider whether there's going to be impacts of drainage to assess whether the proposal, for example, conforms with the official plan.

1:19:54There are also policies in section 9.3.11, and these have been referred to.

1:20:03The key policies really are section 9.3.1, sub 1, and this is criteria for intensification.

1:20:15And in my opinion, the proposals will result in a built form, a scale and height in setbacks that are not compatible with the design and character of the area.

1:20:31Similarly, with respect to criteria 2, the severances will not be compatible with the lot frontages within the area.

1:20:44As I've said before, in terms of the infrastructure, there hasn't been any detail work done to date to be able to satisfy that there is sufficient infrastructure to handle stormwater, for example.

1:21:01And then the official plan also contains policies in section 10.8, which deals with criteria for subdivisions, and it requires that the consent conforms with the official plan, and in my opinion, it does not.

1:21:22And it also has criteria that the plan is considered to be necessary timely and in the public interest, and in my opinion, the proposal is not in the public interest.

1:21:33It will actually disrupt the neighborhood and certainly would not be in the public interest.

1:21:40Let's go over to section 5124 of the Planning Act. This is the consent criteria, and it's my opinion that the proposal does not have regard for criteria in B, C, and F, and that the proposal in particular is not in the public interest,

1:22:05and that the proposal does not conform with the city's official plan, and that the de-mentioned shapes of the lots, although in rectangular in shape, will result in lots that are undersized for the neighborhood.

1:22:26The last set of comments I want to deal with is whether you have the authority under section 45.1 of the Planning Act to deal with the variances, and it's my opinion that you do not have under section 45.1 the scope to add new site-specific regulations to the bylaw.

1:23:02The section 45.1 gives you the authority to vary provisions of the bylaw. It doesn't give you the authority to add new regulations.

1:23:16Furthermore, what's being proposed here is to replace provisions in the new bylaw that have been appealed, and again, the intention of the Act is not to permit the Committee of Adjustment to usurp the Ontario Land Tribunal appeal process with respect to those appealed sections.

1:23:43Lastly, in terms of your authority under section 45.1 to pass regulations, effectively you can only deal with regulations that are currently in effect.

1:24:02Passing changes to appealed regulations would essentially be moot because those changes would only take place when the appealed regulations become enforced in effect.

1:24:15So I would suggest that you may want to get an opinion from a lawyer on whether that's true or not, but in my experience as a planner with having worked both in the public and private sector, that's how I see the scope of the Committee of Adjustment's role.

1:24:39So in conclusion, it is my opinion that the proposal to create three additional watch does not conform with the policies of the city official plan that require development to maintain the general character of built form in the existing established neighbourhood hoods and be compatible with the surrounding land uses and the general character of neighbourhoods.

1:25:04And it's my opinion that the consent and variance applications should be refused.

1:25:12Thank you for your presentation.

1:25:14And just to deal quickly with your comments on section 45 of the Planning Act, we've gotten some advice on that.

1:25:25Members of the Committee, do you have any questions for this delegate?

1:25:31Member Spears.

1:25:32Yes, this is a question through you, Mr. Chair, to the staff. There was a reference in this submission that talked about subdivision. Could one of you perhaps just clear up whether that word and whether this has got anything to do with subdivision and whether those points are valid?

1:25:53Through the Chair to Member Spears, so the subdivision criteria outlined in section 51-24 of the Planning Act are something that should be reviewed when considering consent applications, yes.

1:26:11So this is not a draft plan of subdivision application, but these are provisions that should be considered.

1:26:18Thank you.

1:26:26Okay, thank you for your presentation. Madam Secretary Treasurer, do you have another delegate?

1:26:36The final registered delegate we have is Justin Black.

1:26:40Good afternoon.

1:26:57Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.

1:26:59Good evening.

1:27:01Justin Black.

1:27:03Thank you.

1:27:05So just first off, I'm surprisingly as a delegate here of the public in support of this application.

1:27:13I'm hoping not to take up too much of your time.

1:27:16And I'm really here to just kind of try to provide a different narrative to what we've heard so far from really ultimately those that prefer not to have development of somebody attached homes in their neighborhood where they live.

1:27:32Now, it's been mentioned a few times already.

1:27:36The province of Ontario is in quite dire need of more housing and in particular rental housing.

1:27:45And the city of Guelph being within the province of Ontario is in particular need of both new housing and new housing that is rental housing.

1:27:57The development at 10 Orchard is providing some of this much needed rental housing and is doing so without changing the character of the neighborhood in any significant way.

1:28:12The proposed development is to take a really an unneedingly large lot and a sprawling bungalow and turn that into semi-detached homes that really provide more opportunity for a larger group of people to have a house to live in.

1:28:31We're not talking about an increase of density such as a request to put a multi-story building or a large condominium in a neighborhood that is not used to such development or really a rectangular building attempting to maximize the use of a small footprint.

1:28:53These houses proposed buildings are traditional looking with pitched roofs and shapes keeping the character of a typical Ontario home.

1:29:08Now, the houses are also being constructed by Spruce Living.

1:29:17Spruce has designed these houses with the intention for Spruce to hold onto these properties long term.

1:29:27The houses aren't being rushed with the attention to get on the market and sold as soon as possible.

1:29:34They're being designed and constructed with the care and intent for the builder owner to hold onto as long term rental housing.

1:29:46I guess that kind of speaks to the character of the builders here.

1:29:54Spruce Living is owned and operated by two local and long term Guelph residents.

1:30:02In my line of work, I work with a lot of builder developers, freely all types.

1:30:11One of the reasons why I'm here today is that I'm confident that Spruce Living and their principles are one of the good builders that care about the surrounding environment where they build and they care about the proper growth of the city of Guelph where both of those principles of Spruce live.

1:30:33I understand ultimately that change can be extremely difficult, especially when there's change to a built out landscape in a neighborhood in which we live.

1:30:49We're used to seeing the same houses, the same structures around us and it can be difficult to fathom a change to that landscape that we see.

1:31:03Luckily with these proposed severances and what's being proposed to be constructed on those new lots, the change is not drastic.

1:31:13Again, it's keeping the character traditional looking homes, not a large condo.

1:31:19I think we really just need to focus on what we all hear of the dire need for increased housing.

1:31:33This is not just something that the Ontario government introduced because they had to.

1:31:38It was introduced incentives to create more housing because we truly are in this province in dire need of places for people to live.

1:31:52So again, just to wrap up, just trying to be as quick as I can.

1:31:57This proposed consent today, this application for 10 orchard is taking a large sprawling old style subdivision lot and it's reusing it in a way that is beneficial to the city of Guelph and to city of Guelph residents.

1:32:18And for that matter, I believe it should be supported. Thank you.

1:32:23Thank you for your presentation.

1:32:27Committee members, do you have any questions for this delegate?

1:32:30Thank you.

1:32:31Thank you.

1:32:32Secretary Treasurer, do we have any other registered delegates?

1:32:40Chair, we don't have any other registered delegates.

1:32:43Do we have any delegates online?

1:32:46We don't have any phone-ins, but we may have some individuals in the audience that may want to speak.

1:32:51Yeah, I just wanted to ask now if there's any members of the audience that wanted to make any submissions.

1:32:59Oh, yeah, please come forward. Good afternoon. If you could state your name, please.

1:33:26Hi, Mr. Chairman. My name is Chris Kuroski and I am a land use planner acting for Spruce Living and helping Van Harden with this application.

1:33:39And I just had a few comments that I would like to make as well.

1:33:48I think I'd like to start off with one of the provisions of the official plan that hasn't been talked about.

1:33:58And that is the back of the official plan. There's a definition of compatibility.

1:34:12And what it says is development or redevelopment, which may not necessarily be the same as or similar to the existing development,

1:34:22but can coexist with the surrounding area without unacceptable adverse impact.

1:34:29And everyone has an opinion.

1:34:37And our opinion is that this proposed development meets the tests of compatibility.

1:34:52What's being proposed is that a single large house on a very large lot be replaced with two dwellings, both semi-detached dwellings.

1:35:07So there's four units, each of those containing an ADU. So there's eight units.

1:35:15And as was just mentioned, housing is a concern that's been sounded federally, provincially, and very loudly within the city of Guelph as a very significant concern.

1:35:33So in putting together this application, our client did its homework.

1:35:41It looked at steps the province has been taking, amendments that have been made to the Planning Act and various other acts,

1:35:50bills called more housing quicker, things like that.

1:35:57So changes made at the provincial level, which have filtered down to the city,

1:36:03and those changes have been reflected in recent updates to the official plan in the zoning bylaw.

1:36:08Cities also had a number of housing workshops recently in the last year, year and a half.

1:36:16And the city has made a pledge, housing pledge, which is quite a first, I think, where they've committed to trying to facilitate 18,000 new housing units by the year 2031.

1:36:33The official plan contains policy that indicates that 46% of all of this new growth, not just to 2031, but to 2051, will occur through intensification within existing built-up areas of the city.

1:37:00One of the key changes to the Guelph zoning bylaw has been removing what would be described as an exclusionary approach to zoning,

1:37:17where certain zones would permit certain uses, certain residential uses like the old R1B zone only permitted singles, R1C permitted semis and singles.

1:37:33The new RL1 zone permits singles, semis, townhouses, duplexes.

1:37:40So a variety of housing types are permitted, and in establishing that zone and applying it broadly, very broadly across the city,

1:37:51there would be some thought that people would like to build those uses within an RL1 neighborhood.

1:38:04So what that means is, even though there might be an existing single detached house on a lot, it could be replaced.

1:38:13And it could be replaced with one of these other types of housing units, and that housing unit could also have ADUs.

1:38:20So there's no doubt that this has been an idea of the city as a means of generating increased housing supply.

1:38:45City planning staff believe the same thing.

1:38:47I've read their report to this committee and they've reviewed all key policy and zoning considerations,

1:38:53and they categorically support the applications and recommend that they be approved with conditions.

1:39:04So consistent with the planning framework that we're all now dealing with, which has changed in recent years,

1:39:13in order to build more houses faster, neighborhoods are supposed to transition and change.

1:39:17Varied housing types are supposed to be in so-called stable neighborhoods.

1:39:24Things are not supposed to remain status quo.

1:39:31Status quo in planning has been one of the reasons we're in this dilemma with housing in the first place.

1:39:38So I mentioned 18,000 new units by 2031 and 29,000 new units by 2051.

1:39:52So that's a lot of growth.

1:39:54And in order to achieve those objectives, particularly if 46% of it is supposed to come within existing built up areas,

1:40:04this type of intensification that we see in this application has to happen.

1:40:12It's maybe new, maybe different.

1:40:16Ten years from now, people will be more used to it.

1:40:23The definition of compatibility clearly does not mean identical.

1:40:29I think the definition can broadly include the types of units that are identified in the zoning by-law for RL1,

1:40:40which would be semi-detached, or other higher density, well, not higher density, but other lower density type forms.

1:40:50The official plan contains a number of sections which provide various criteria and objectives.

1:40:57And we believe we meet these, maintaining the general character of built form while accommodating compatible residential infill and intensification.

1:41:14Building form scale, height setbacks, massing appearance, and siting are compatible with the immediate vicinity.

1:41:27So we know compatible doesn't mean identical.

1:41:30What's there now is a house. That house will be replaced with two houses.

1:41:36That's similar. In my view, that's compatible.

1:41:43Some of the concerns that have been identified with respect to technical issues will be addressed.

1:41:53Normally, the processing wealth is you go through this committee, and if you get approval,

1:42:01the conditions require you to meet the technical test before the severance is finalized.

1:42:09So by the committee approving these applications, that doesn't jeopardize or remove the fact that the technical studies have to be completed

1:42:21and they have to be submitted to the city and reviewed, and the city has to be satisfied that all requirements are met.

1:42:29Servicing, stormwater has been mentioned, tree plan will be prepared, all of those things.

1:42:37And if things don't work technically, and that's really up to the city, that's not up to us, then the development won't move forward.

1:42:51I take a look at Mr. Ramsey's report and I agree this area does contain larger lots, but that really means it's a good candidate for intensification.

1:43:07This is the first on the street. I live on a street in Guelph that has big lots.

1:43:15We have a six-story or eight-story apartment building right at the end of the street.

1:43:18It's always been there, you know, everything works and there's no major issues.

1:43:27So in summary, I've reviewed staff comments, we agree with those, and we ask that the committee support these applications and approve them with the conditions that have been identified.

1:43:43And those conditions will safeguard that the technical requirements will all be met.

1:43:50Thank you. Committee members, Member Bellamond.

1:43:55Through the chair, I, a lot of numbers have been thrown out tonight about the number of units.

1:44:06I know we have four dwellings and I'm, some of you, some people have said eight, eight units and some people have dropped the 12 because of the ADU.

1:44:22How many units are there going to be? I want to have a clear number before any decisions are made. Are there going to be eight?

1:44:30Okay, there's one lot now with one house.

1:44:32I know that.

1:44:33That lot will be severed initially to allow for two semi-detached dwellings.

1:44:41A semi-detached dwelling contains two units, one on each side.

1:44:46So each of those units is intended to have an ADU.

1:44:51So an ADU, but someone, they've also, the applicant has also said that those within this each semi, there would be two units and an ADU.

1:45:03Is that correct?

1:45:05Well, the semi-detached dwelling is the building.

1:45:10So that building will contain two units. Those are the semi-detached units and each of those units will contain an ADU.

1:45:18So there'll be a total, in simple math, eight units total.

1:45:23That's all, not 12.

1:45:25That's right.

1:45:35Thank you.

1:45:36I'm going to turn the chair to the delegate.

1:45:38I just follow up question on the same thing. I have the same issue with the numbers.

1:45:42As I understand it, and I'm pretty sure I do, that each of those properties, forget all the other stuff.

1:45:49Yes, it could have one unit. Yes, it could have an ADU, but it's allowed to have three units per property.

1:45:56So there could be 12.

1:45:58There could be eight?

1:46:00There could be four.

1:46:02That's all okay.

1:46:03I think what we're asking is clarity around what is the real intention?

1:46:09Is it going to be eight or 12?

1:46:11Well, my understanding is that the applicants are proposing to build eight.

1:46:16Thank you.

1:46:23Member Goodfellow.

1:46:25Yes, through the chair, I'm going to wade into this too.

1:46:27So I understand and I have heard tonight that some of the planning isn't finalized.

1:46:34So I think my question then is whether the eight is final or is there still a chance that it could be 12 or some number between eight and 12?

1:46:45Well, yeah, what's proposed are eight units.

1:46:49That's what I understand.

1:46:51And the bylaw would permit one additional ADU per unit.

1:46:58So based on the bylaw, theoretically additional units could be added.

1:47:05So there could be up to 12.

1:47:08Pursuant to the bylaw.

1:47:10And yeah, that would be.

1:47:13You'll have the chance to speak.

1:47:19Just let.

1:47:25So through the chair, I do have a follow up question if you would allow it.

1:47:29So I think that also gets to another question I have.

1:47:32And I believe this one is for city staff.

1:47:35If there were to be 12 units, how many parking spots would be required?

1:47:40And is there space available on the site as constituted or as sketched out currently to support parking for 12 units?

1:47:50Thank you.

1:47:52Through the chair to member Goodfellow as designed right now, they're showing.

1:47:56I'm going to do just for one half of a semi and it's the same for all four of them.

1:48:01The garage space is one legal parking space.

1:48:04And then the driveway width maximum is 4.6 meters to park side by side.

1:48:11You need a media minimum of five meters width.

1:48:15So technically they can only stack these spaces in a row.

1:48:19They're not permitted to park side by side.

1:48:23And as designed with the front yard setback here, there are two additional parking spaces in the garage.

1:48:31So there's a total of three required parking spaces for three units, which this design can accommodate.

1:48:41Okay. Thank you.

1:48:43So through the chair, just one, hopefully final question on this point.

1:48:48And maybe just to confirm more so than ask an additional question as currently laid out in the drawings from Van Hart and surveying, there is parking enough parking space for 12 units.

1:49:05That's correct.

1:49:07Okay. I really appreciate that clarification.

1:49:09Thank you.

1:49:10I have a question.

1:49:15One of the earlier delegates mentioned that at the forestry meeting, there'd been a comment that the garages weren't intended to be used for parking, but would be used for storage.

1:49:27Is that correct or?

1:49:29I was at that meeting, Mr Chairman, but I didn't hear that specific question answer.

1:49:38That wasn't my answer.

1:49:39I assume my garage is used for all sorts of things.

1:49:45Sometimes a car, sometimes mostly other stuff, but I can't answer.

1:49:52It wasn't me that clarified that.

1:49:55Okay. Thank you.

1:49:59Any other questions for this delegate?

1:50:01Thank you.

1:50:03Thank you.

1:50:21Could you state your name, please?

1:50:23Kevin Thompson.

1:50:25Okay. You have 10 minutes.

1:50:27I'm a lawyer with SP law and I act for the applicant in this matter.

1:50:32I've been asked to speak specifically on a discreet point in relation to Mr Ramsey's presentation earlier.

1:50:38And specifically the comment that this council and this committee is urged to seek independent legal advice as it relates to its jurisdiction to make this decision.

1:50:46So I will be brief because I just want to respond on that.

1:50:48On that discreet point, Mr Ramsey suggested that under section 45 one of the planning act that this committee is intended and empowered to grant more.

1:50:57Minor variances.

1:50:59Whereas he characterizes these five regulations as new regulations.

1:51:04He then implores this committee to seek independent legal advice confirming its jurisdiction to consider this.

1:51:09In response, I would note that city staff, including the city legal department have vetted this application and this owner's approach in general.

1:51:17And city staff, including legal staff have confirmed they support this approach whereby variances are brought forward that essentially mirror what are under the law.

1:51:27And under appeal before the Ontario and tribunal as it relates to wealth's 2023 zoning bylaw.

1:51:32If the owner was seeking relief from any of the council adopted provisions, Mr Ramsey rightly notes that there is there's no jurisdictional issues in that regard.

1:51:41It would be somewhat of an absurd interpretation of the planning act to suggest that if you want to proceed with the development that doesn't meet minimum standards in the council adopted version, this committee is empowered to grant this relief.

1:51:53But if you elect to develop as council intended through its passage of the 2023 comprehensive zoning bylaw, you're stuck waiting for the outcome of those appeals.

1:52:03I'm intimately familiar with those appeals.

1:52:06I act for the Gwelford and District Homebills Association and the Gwelford and Development Association.

1:52:10I'm the one who is advancing those appeals on behalf of those development associations.

1:52:15My client notably in this case is not involved in those appeals.

1:52:17And he's frustrated, I think, by those appeals because the regulations that he needs to seek relief from remain under appeal.

1:52:25If those appeals were to be withdrawn tomorrow, none of the variances that are before you today would be required.

1:52:31All of those provisions would come into force as council adopted them.

1:52:36There are no new zoning regulations being proposed in this instance.

1:52:40But let's assume for a moment that these are new regulations, as Mr Ramsey asserts.

1:52:46That would still be within the jurisdiction of this committee.

1:52:49The new regulations in this case, as I mentioned, are permitted to grant additional uses under a zoning bylaw.

1:52:55And that's been confirmed by the divisional court.

1:52:57If you have the ability to grant new uses, additional uses within a zoning category, it is implied that you have the ability to add additional performance standards that relate to those uses.

1:53:06I say that not because that's what we're doing here, but I say that's the expanse of the powers of committee of adjustments.

1:53:12And if I'm wrong about that, I note that, you know, if we don't look to 45-one of the planning act,

1:53:17if we look to section 45 sub-2b, it's a rarely used provision in the planning act.

1:53:23But it's in the same section that deals with extensions of legal non-conforming uses, but it's different.

1:53:27That section says, in addition to its powers under subsection one relating to the granting of minor variances,

1:53:33the committee upon any such application where the uses of lands, buildings, or structures permitted in the bylaw are defined in general terms,

1:53:40may permit the use of any land, building, or structures for any purpose that, in the opinion of the committee,

1:53:44conforms with the permitted uses in the bylaw. This is a broad permissive power.

1:53:49So even if you agree with Mr. Ramsey that this committee is not empowered to grant the variances sought,

1:53:55you still have the authority under that ancillary provision of the planning act to grant additional relief.

1:54:00Rest assured, you have the authority to make the decision tonight.

1:54:04Mr. Ramsey's second point on the jurisdictional issue was that we're somehow usurping the OLT process that's underway,

1:54:12and that certainly is not the case.

1:54:15The relief that my client is seeking is simply to bring forward the regulations as adopted by City Council in April of 2023.

1:54:26Those regulations are under appeal.

1:54:28My developer clients are seeking more relaxed standards.

1:54:32They're seeking wider driveways. They're seeking reduced side yard setbacks.

1:54:35They are seeking reduced parking. They are seeking smaller garages.

1:54:38All of those provisions are more relaxed provisions that the client in this instance is not concerned with.

1:54:48He is interested in moving forward with development that is compatible and complies in every way with what Council determined in its wisdom

1:54:55was appropriate in April of 2023 when it passed the comprehensive zoning bylaw.

1:54:59The only reason he needs to seek the relief in terms of these variances is because of those appeals.

1:55:04If my developer clients were to withdraw their appeal tomorrow, those variances would not be required.

1:55:10We would simply be before you in terms of the law creation, the four severances.

1:55:18When those appeals are settled, there's going to be either a confirmation that the Council adopted version is the appropriate standard.

1:55:29What my developer clients want is the appropriate standard or somewhere in between.

1:55:32That's sort of the range of what the OLT is going to do on appeals, either through a contested hearing or through a negotiated settlement.

1:55:39There's not going to be a situation in which there's going to be more stringent performance standards than the Council adopted version.

1:55:47And so we're not usurping the OLT process.

1:55:50My client is saying I'm happy with what Council adopted in April of 2023 and I'm prepared to build and provide more housing on an immediate basis based on that.

1:55:59I don't want to wait for the outcome of what some of the other developers in the development community are trying to push for.

1:56:06More relaxed standards, increased density.

1:56:09If we waited for that, then there could be even more intensive build out as of right on this property.

1:56:16My client's not interested in that.

1:56:18He wants to play by the rules.

1:56:20He wants to do what Council approved in April of 2023 and meet all zoning regulations.

1:56:26There's no actual relief being sought in this instance.

1:56:29Of course you need to approve the law creation and you've heard from staff and you've heard from Mr. Kuroski that these are good planning.

1:56:38They meet the public interest.

1:56:40They conform with the city's official plan.

1:56:42They meet the criteria in section 5124 of the Planning Act.

1:56:45I'd certainly be happy to answer any questions.

1:56:48Those are my brief comments.

1:56:50Thank you.

1:56:52Committee members, do you have any questions for?

1:56:56Okay, thank you.

1:56:57I'm very satisfied we have the authority to consider these minor variances.

1:57:06Are there members of the public who'd like to speak?

1:57:12I'd like to make sure we hear from members of the public before we hear from the applicant again.

1:57:19Thank you.

1:57:35Yes.

1:57:37Thank you.

1:57:39Warren, just a very quick clarification on the garages.

1:57:40We were told that the meeting on Forest and we were told specifically garages will not be used for cars.

1:57:47They're for storage for the multiple units.

1:57:50Each dwelling unit would have a key so they could keep their garbage cans and things like that in there, but it would not be a parking space.

1:57:59At that same meeting, we were told that the development that they're proposing on 10-orges would be 8 units, basically an A-Plex, not 12.

1:58:12So it's quite disturbing to hear tonight that that might have also changed since the meeting we had enforced.

1:58:22So thank you.

1:58:24Okay, thank you.

1:58:26Any questions for Mr. LaVie?

1:58:27Okay, thank you.

1:58:47Quick, the community is not, and our street is not against intensification and a change in that area.

1:58:54We just believe the definition of compatibility.

1:58:57And as I said in my presentation, just look at the consistency, the compatibility and the harmony in the community.

1:59:04So we can intensify and address what the needs of the city are.

1:59:07We just don't need it to the level of 8 or 12 units on what currently has one family.

1:59:15So again, minor intensification and as it was highlighted, the city staff report, I think it was very clear that the staff report earlier said if it's gentle, it would hardly be noticed.

1:59:25So again, my picture would say that is very far from what this proposal is.

1:59:31So thank you for your time.

1:59:38Thank you.

1:59:39I wanted to speak.

2:00:09Thanks. If you could say your name, please.

2:00:13In Ion Renfield Street.

2:00:15Okay.

2:00:17One of the things I'm concerned about here is affordable housing.

2:00:21And from my point of view, this is not about affordable housing.

2:00:26This is about taking advantage of the changes made by the provincial government on who and where and when you can build homes.

2:00:33The people that will be able to afford those homes, I don't know who they're going to be.

2:00:42But you're looking at something that's taking a long time.

2:00:48Some of those people have lived in that neighborhood for 50 years.

2:00:52And the lady I talked to the other day, at conservatively saying that she paid $5,000 a year taxes, have got $250,000 or $300,000 in the neighborhood.

2:01:03And she invested in that home that she lives in.

2:01:07You take that by the whole neighborhood, there's millions of dollars invested in a neighborhood.

2:01:12And I think when you sit back as members of the committee, you have to look at the effect that that's going to have on all of those people.

2:01:20And I don't think affordable housing under the guise of affordable housing is truly the bottom line here is about money.

2:01:28How much money you can make by tearing down one single family home and building multiple buildings on this piece of property.

2:01:38And I bet you dollars to donuts, it won't be eight, it'll be 12 by the time they're done.

2:01:43Because once you've approved the application, they can build whatever they want.

2:01:47So I just ask you to really think seriously about the people and the neighborhood because it truly the bottom line is money.

2:01:55Right, thank you.

2:01:57Thank you for your comments. Any questions for Selegan?

2:02:05Okay, if unless there's any other questions from the public, we could hear from the applicant now to respond to any of the comments.

2:02:13Excuse me.

2:02:27Yes, Andrew Arcley. Hello everyone. Thanks for taking the time to hear my delegation this evening.

2:02:37Again, my name is Andrew Arcley. I'm co-founder of Spruce Living.

2:02:39I've lived in Guelph for 20 years and I'm raising three young children in the community along with my wife, Christina.

2:02:45Myself and my business partner are trying to build housing in the city that needs it desperately.

2:02:51This was echoed by a recent article in Guelph today that speaks to the 77% decline in housing starts so far in 2024.

2:02:58A 77% decline at a time when unanimous consensus is that we need to increase housing supply.

2:03:04Guelph's rental market is equally as troublesome.

2:03:07The July rent report from rentals.ca lists Guelph as the number 11 most expensive city in Canada and is consistently the most expensive second tier city outside of the Vancouver and GTA sub markets.

2:03:19What we are proposing for this development not only adds to the housing supply in a rental market but also has city staff support meets all of the requirements under the new Biola regime which was unanimously approved by city council.

2:03:30This is an infield development which is much more favorable than Greenfield for a multitude of reasons.

2:03:37By virtue of being zoned R01 in the 2023 Biola, this site has been deemed compatible for this type of development.

2:03:46Again, this is unanimously approved by city council.

2:03:49To echo Chris Karoski's statement and just to refer to page 5 of the city comments package which addresses compatibility specifically.

2:04:00In conclusion, compatible development does not mean identical or even necessarily similar to the existing development in the immediate vicinity.

2:04:11Compatible development should fit into the neighbourhood without having a significant impact on the neighbouring properties that would impact their ability to use their property.

2:04:19This development would not significantly impact the ability for anyone in the neighbourhood to use their own property.

2:04:24I encourage anyone who is hesitant to what this type of development would look like to drive by our infield development on 26 Forest Street in Guelph.

2:04:34We recently toured city council and staff of this property and they were blown away by how well it looked.

2:04:39One councillor actually thought she was in the wrong location because the houses were too nice.

2:04:43At the same property, a young couple cried when they picked up their keys because they were so thrilled with their new rental home.

2:04:50The neighbours have now approached us to say how well the development turned out and that their fears were largely unwarranted.

2:04:5726 Forest also includes three fully wheelchair accessible units.

2:05:01Another development that is underway on Water Street, which again was furiously opposed, is now being praised by the new community of residents that will soon occupy these much needed rental units.

2:05:13The general consensus is that these new townhouses fit seamlessly into the space, the very definition of gentle density.

2:05:20Based on the committee's recommendation, we met with the Orchard neighbourhood group at the Forest Street location to show them this development and answered every question that was posed.

2:05:31We are happy to do this going forward for all of our projects.

2:05:34We are also happy to continue these discussions with respect to tree preservation, privacy fencing or other ways we can be good davers.

2:05:41Both my business partner and I live in Guelph and have vested interest in keeping all properties in good order in attractive curb appeal.

2:05:48In addition, we are happy to pay for a sidewalk along the entire front of our property, like we did on Water Street, should the neighbourhood want to also give up a portion of their frontage to do the same.

2:05:58Further to this, going forward, we have committed through CMHC to include 10% affordable units in all of our developments to make a meaningful impact on affordability.

2:06:09A 77% drop in housing starts need to be shouted from the rooftops.

2:06:14Our community needs housing and having this infill opportunity gets us closer to our housing goals.

2:06:20Spruce Living just wants to help build these houses and we're following every rule set out by the city.

2:06:27Please allow us to help provide rental stock to our community before the problem gets worse.

2:06:32Thank you.

2:06:34Thank you.

2:06:35Committee members, any questions for this delegate?

2:06:40Thank you.

2:06:49In the absence of any further delegations, I would like to ask the committee for their thoughts for a motion.

2:07:02And your thoughts.

2:07:03Member Spears.

2:07:11Well, I'll make a motion but I'd like to preface it by saying I really appreciate all these delegations.

2:07:16I feel for your situation.

2:07:19However, I'm going to move that we accept this application with the conditions recommended by city staff.

2:07:27Do we have a seconder for that motion?

2:07:32Okay, member Mbigno.

2:07:36Any discussion from the members?

2:07:40Member Balavan.

2:07:50Through you, Mr. Chair, I'm having a hard time with this one.

2:07:54I find it to, I don't see the compatibility from the way I look at compatibility.

2:08:02And I understand, yes, they're permitted under the zoning bylaw, but I don't see this as seamless and fitting in with the neighborhood as well as I'd like to see it.

2:08:15You know, maybe if there was two single detached dwellings or something of that nature, it's just the number of units.

2:08:23It's the whole, it's just, it doesn't fit in.

2:08:30And I know it's, you know, there's lots of things that go into compatibility, but it just doesn't fit with me.

2:08:43So I don't think I'm going to be able to support that motion.

2:08:51Okay, thank you.

2:08:53Member Goodfellow.

2:08:55Yes, I have been also considering this one deeply.

2:09:02And for some of the same reasons as member Balavan has already, that has, she has already identified.

2:09:08But I've been very thoughtful about the definition of compatibility and it needing to coexist without unacceptable adverse impacts.

2:09:16I think one of the adverse impacts I'm most concerned about is around parking, pursuant to my questions.

2:09:22And the fact that there are no sidewalks in that neighborhood in that section, I was intrigued by the applicant's offer to construct sidewalks.

2:09:33But I think we would need time to consider that.

2:09:36That's not something I feel like I can assess and sort out short notice at this point in the evening.

2:09:42But I also think that the size of the development doesn't appear to conform with the official plan as it's defined for intensification.

2:09:53So for all of those reasons, I don't think I can support this motion.

2:09:59Thank you. Member Balavan.

2:10:01Yes, Mr. Chair.

2:10:02One other thing, I think that, you know, the whole gentle densification thing that the council has mentioned in their thinking along these lines of this, these new provisions.

2:10:17I just don't see that this is a gentle densification.

2:10:22And it's brought into things like the erosion control and all the effects it's going to have on neighboring properties because of it not being set back from neighboring properties is again another reason why I'm having difficulty with it.

2:10:42Thank you. Member Spears.

2:10:47I guess from my perspective, I just want to bring back and remind us as a committee that in the conditions.

2:10:58The studies are required to be done and those studies assessed by city staff, engineering planning, et cetera.

2:11:07And unless city considers these things correct and feasible, it won't be permitted.

2:11:15And I think, and I understand your concern.

2:11:18I truly do.

2:11:19And I think we're saying, okay, I don't know that this is going to work out.

2:11:23Well, you wear it.

2:11:24Maybe true.

2:11:25And I'm trusting the staff and I'm trusting the city to make the correct analysis and do the right thing.

2:11:32And if it's not right to stop it then.

2:11:36And that we're being preemptive, I think by stopping it now.

2:11:39Any further comments from the member?

2:11:53Good fellow.

2:11:54Maybe just one.

2:11:55And I do respect Mr. Member Spears comments to about the city staff's role in all of this.

2:12:02And I think a lot of the conditions really do address the technical issues.

2:12:07But however, there isn't one here that I can obviously point to that would assess kind of some of these concerns about traffic and parking in that immediate vicinity.

2:12:19I also noticed too that the condition for the tree preservation plan is specific to city owned trees.

2:12:27And so that would preclude or exempt, I believe the hedge, which is, you know, one of the concerns raised by the community as well.

2:12:36So I think again, for those reasons, I will continue to refuse the support for this application.

2:12:43Thank you.

2:12:47Yeah, just from my own perspective, I don't think I can support this either.

2:12:58I'm just concerned about compatibility.

2:13:01It's compatibility is, you know, it's like reasonableness.

2:13:07It can be quite broad.

2:13:09But I just don't see this as being compatible with that neighborhood, which is kind of a unique street, even within that area.

2:13:20So I can't support this motion either.

2:13:28Unless there's any further comments, we'll put this to a vote.

2:13:31Committee members, please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the motion, which is to approve the applications.

2:13:45Vice Chair, Sarah.

2:13:47Opposed.

2:13:49Member Balaban.

2:13:51Opposed.

2:13:52Member Goodfellow.

2:13:53Opposed.

2:13:55Member Membranio.

2:13:56In favor.

2:13:57And Member Spears.

2:13:59In favor.

2:14:00That motion isn't carried.

2:14:04Mr. Chair, we'll need another motion with the majority vote.

2:14:08Thank you.

2:14:09Let us ask the committee for, if there's another motion they want to put forward, Member Goodfellow.

2:14:36Through the chair, I think I believe this would go to the secretary, treasurer, but what are our options here in terms of what kinds of motions we could put forward?

2:14:49Are we able to make a motion to defer?

2:14:53Are there other options here?

2:14:55Looking for some clarification.

2:14:59Through the chair to member Goodfellow, if the committee wishes, you can put a motion on the floor to refuse the application.

2:15:06It's important that we have a decision with the majority of the committee in agreement on.

2:15:13Unfortunately, that last motion didn't have the majority vote on that.

2:15:17There also is an option for the committee to defer the application if they feel further information is warranted.

2:15:40The matters before the committee.

2:15:43The matters before the committee, please.

2:15:45Thank you.

2:15:49Member Balaban.

2:15:51I move that we refuse the application.

2:15:54Thank you.

2:16:25Am I in a position to second?

2:16:30Secretary treasurer.

2:16:41Vice chair, if that's something you would like to do, preferably it's usually a motion that comes from the committee.

2:16:48Like I said, there's the option if there's no seconder, that motion isn't on the floor.

2:16:52There is a deferral option available to the committee as well.

2:16:57I would just encourage the committee to keep in mind that this application has already been deferred once and there would need to be some reasons for that deferral.

2:17:05Thank you.

2:17:06And I'd prefer not to be the seconder.

2:17:08Mr. Chair, I will second this.

2:17:14Okay.

2:17:15Secretary treasurer, can we have a vote on the motion, please?

2:17:18Thank you, Mr. Chair.

2:17:20I'll just ask the member Balaban since she moved that motion to provide some reasons for the refusal.

2:17:28So we have that for the decision if necessary.

2:17:33Okay.

2:17:34That it's not for compatibility reasons because it's, I don't see it as gentle densification because of parking and roads, road issues.

2:17:54That there are no sidewalks, issues with a possible erosion and stormwater management that we're unaware of at this time.

2:18:07Compatibility that I'm unaware of without adverse impact.

2:18:15I'm not convinced that there's not adverse impact.

2:18:19Thank you, member Balaban.

2:18:29Committee members, please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the motion, which is to refuse the applications.

2:18:36Vice chair, sir.

2:18:37In favor.

2:18:39Member Balaban.

2:18:40In favor.

2:18:41Member Goodfellow.

2:18:42In favor.

2:18:43Member Membranio.

2:18:44Opposed.

2:18:45And member Spears.

2:18:46In favor.

2:18:47That's carried, Mr. Chair.

2:18:49Your application has been refused.

2:18:51Thank you.

2:18:53We're going to be taking a 20 minute break for a quick, quick supper.

2:19:15So we'll be back in 20 minutes.

2:19:17Thank you.

2:19:18Yeah.

2:19:19Secretary Treasurer, if you could call the next application, please.

2:44:26The next application is file a dash 73 slash 22 variances to permit increased exterior side yard reduced parking space, require no electric vehicle parking space, and the next application is file a dash 73 slash 22.

2:44:41No parking space, require no electric vehicle parking spaces and recognize existing garage location and reduced interior parking space dimensions at 191 court ride road west.

2:44:54I'll note for those watching the meeting online, if you wish to speak to this application, you can do so by calling the number displayed on the screen, that is 519-822-1260 extension 2524.

2:45:06And when you call in staff, we'll give you instructions on how you can delegate remotely.

2:45:10Is the applicant present please hi welcome if you could state your name and your relationship to the application please

2:45:34Hello, sir vice chair members of committee. My name is Jennifer Godette, and I'm an associate planner with the HBC

2:45:41We're representing the owner on this file. Thank you and

2:45:46Was the sign posted in accordance with planning act requirements? It was thank you

2:45:51And have you received the staff comments and are you in agreement with them or have any comments?

2:45:58We did and we are okay

2:46:01Okay in that case. I just like to ask if you

2:46:05Would like to address the committee and

2:46:08Speak to your application any further

2:46:11Thank you all the brief. I know it's already been a long night

2:46:16The requested variance variances would facilitate the development of a triplex

2:46:21All the requested variances recognize existing conditions and capture provisions of the new zoning bylaw

2:46:29Since the time of submission

2:46:31Clarification has been received that confirms that variance E which is the variance that related to the interior parking space dimensions

2:46:39Is no longer required?

2:46:41Accordingly we support staff's recommendation and the proposed conditions and we're available to answer any questions. Thank you

2:46:49Okay, thank you

2:46:51Members you have any questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you

2:47:02Secretary treasurer do we have any delegations on this?

2:47:06Mr. Chair, we don't have any delegation requests online. Thank you. And are there any members of the

2:47:13Of the public that would like to speak to this matter

2:47:16Okay, I'd just like to ask the committee at this time if they have a motion. I'd like to put forward

2:47:28member good fellow

2:47:30Yes, I move we approve the application with the conditions as recommended by city staff

2:47:38Do we have a seconder for that?

2:47:42Member member Neil and any discussion on the motion. Okay, I think we can proceed to a vote

2:47:53Thank you, mr. Chair and before we proceed with the vote. I just wanted to double check with member good fellow

2:48:03Just to confirm. I know staff were recommending refusal of variance E. Are you still proposing?

2:48:10Approval for variance E as well

2:48:14Yes, thank you for requesting that clarification

2:48:18So my understanding is that the applicant no longer needs to include

2:48:24the request for variance E

2:48:27So we would only my proposal is to only approve ABC and D with the conditions recommended by staff

2:48:36Thank you for clarifying that

2:48:43All right committee members, please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the motion which is to

2:48:51approve the application with the recommended conditions

2:48:57Vice-chair Sarah in favor

2:49:00member Balaban in favor

2:49:02member good fellow in favor member mambrenio in favor

2:49:08member seagull in favor, okay and

2:49:19Member Spears in favor that's carried mr. Chair. Okay, your application has been approved proceed to the next application now

2:49:30The next applications are files B-38-24 to B-42-24 and a-52-24

2:49:45to a

2:49:4757-24

2:49:49consent to create five new residential lots with one retained residential lot and

2:49:54multiple related variances for proposed severed and retained lots

2:49:59at

2:50:0067 and 71 college Avenue West and 94

2:50:04University Avenue West

2:50:06Also note for the committee members as well as those

2:50:09Attending that correspondence was received after the comment deadline from Jim Stokes and Lisa of Aldi with concerns about the application and as well

2:50:18correspondence was received from Aaron J. Venek with concerns about the application and

2:50:23Those pieces of correspondence have been circulated to the committee members

2:50:28Staff in the applicant

2:50:29Also, if you wish to speak to this application and you haven't put in a delegation request

2:50:34You can do so by calling the number displayed on the screen that numbers 5198221260

2:50:40Extension 2524 and staff will give you instructions on how you can delegate remotely

2:50:47Okay, thank you

2:50:48If the applicant is present, please come forward

2:50:57Good evening, if you could state your name and relationship to the application Jeff Buseman

2:51:02representing the property owner. Thank you and

2:51:05Was the sign posted in accordance with planning act requirements? Yes, it was. Thank you

2:51:10And have you received staff comments and are you in agreement or have any comments on

2:51:15Yes, I'm in agreement with them and I did receive them. Thank you

2:51:19and

2:51:20So if you'd wish to address the committee

2:51:23Have any further comments on the application you have 10 minutes to do so that'd be great. Thank you if if be kind of put up the sketch

2:51:30That's beautiful

2:51:33Right now it's actually consists of three properties so it's three properties of being merged to create

2:51:40this development of

2:51:42Six parcels each with a 70 attached unit

2:51:46The developer

2:51:47Worked with the city staff on a number of different configurations

2:51:51To try to accomplish meaning their tasks of building an appropriate number of units making good use of the land

2:51:58And city gave us a quite a bit of feedback

2:52:01The configuration was changed several times and then we did submit this

2:52:07fundamental

2:52:07Presentation and then they asked for a few more changes and fundamentally shift everything a little bit more so there was more space to

2:52:14University Avenue so those were all done

2:52:18Also of note, there's a road widening required along the front along the college avenue there

2:52:24That revan road widening is 3.8 meters deep. So that kind of took away some of the land to be used for development

2:52:33Staff comments are positive

2:52:37There have been a few comments from the neighbors

2:52:38But I think that the fact that all these driveways face university that these these homes will all face university

2:52:46I mean face college. Sorry wrong road. I'll face college

2:52:51Then it'll it I think it'll just look and act independent from the rest of the residences down university avenue

2:52:59Um all the zoning requirements cement are met again. We have those those awkward

2:53:05Minor variances that we've talked at length about I think we're all familiar with that and

2:53:10So I just leave it that those variances

2:53:14Just to make sure that this complies with the approved zoning bylaw those variances should be approved

2:53:21Any questions or comments?

2:53:24Thank you. A member good fellow

2:53:26Yes through the chair. I think though just city staff

2:53:30I have a question at one of the

2:53:33Neighbors noted some sewage backup issues and that there is an assessment currently underway

2:53:40um

2:53:41To review the sewage capacity in the in the area

2:53:44Could city staff comment on the status of that assessment and whether or not this new development is going to put additional stress

2:53:51on that system

2:53:59As for the assessment itself, I can't comment on the status that would be a question for wastewater services

2:54:05um

2:54:07But the applicant will have to provide a functional servicing report

2:54:12That'll have to be approved before

2:54:15The development can go ahead. Okay. Thank you and just a follow-up question. So in that report if

2:54:24If there is a lack of capacity then before the development could go ahead

2:54:30There would need to be some arrangement or agreement the city the applicant somebody would need to be

2:54:36Upsizing that sewage piping

2:54:41uh

2:54:43Through chair and member good fellow. Yeah, the development would need to

2:54:46Uh

2:54:48Would need to address the capacity issue. Thank you. I appreciate that. Okay any uh members Spears through you mr. Chair to the applicant

2:55:00um

2:55:01I guess once can we have to I have to wonder about exactly how many units are we going to end up here or units per

2:55:09parcel

2:55:14Contemplating two in each unit in each semi-detached structure

2:55:18Um, thank you. Okay any other questions for the applicant. Okay. Thank you. Thanks very much. Thank you. Yeah

2:55:43um

2:55:44Secretary treasurer do we have any delegations registered for this?

2:55:49Mr. Chair, we do have one registered elegant for this file. Um, the name is just in black

2:55:55Just in black and are there any members of the public that uh, okay, please come forward

2:56:23Good evening. If you could state your name, please

2:56:25My name is Bruce Reed. I live at university, uh 81 university avenue west. Okay. You have to um, I just wanted to make a point

2:56:33That the first time I heard of this proposal was on july 3rd

2:56:38Coming forward for a hearing on july 11th

2:56:42Okay, um, and now we're here today, uh august 8th

2:56:46So it's been a very short amount of time for our uh neighborhood association to be made aware of this application

2:56:52And its implications

2:56:54Also, some of the immediate neighbors are had very little idea of what it's going on

2:56:59In terms of the scope of of this application and what it's going to mean

2:57:04In terms of the neighborhood and uh, whether it's compatible

2:57:09um a few things have been raised again, it was very illuminating to sit and listen to the

2:57:17Discussions going on regarding 10

2:57:19Orcid crescent because I think some of the same issues are being raised here again in terms of the number of units

2:57:25Six semi-detached units each of which could have a legal apartment as well as an accessory dwelling unit would actually be

2:57:31Six times three is 18

2:57:34And so that could be this way and again, I just we I think we need more information. Uh, there could be

2:57:4042 to 48 bedrooms in in this application

2:57:44And this these are most likely going to be student rental

2:57:47Units I would I would imagine and our experience here is that uh students drive cars

2:57:55And there's only six exterior parking spaces that I can

2:57:59Interpret in in these plans

2:58:01And so parking is a concern. I think and we'd like to know more about this

2:58:06Um, it is summertime and many of our people in our neighborhood have not been made aware of this and they're not involved

2:58:14As you can see we have no delegations here or anything. It's just myself and my neighbor

2:58:19So I think approval at this point would be premature. I think we need more information

2:58:23I would encourage the committee to consider a deferral so that the neighbors and the neighborhood association

2:58:29Can have a closer look at this application and its implications and also the sewage issue

2:58:34And there was a mention of sidewalks and all these things and so we just really feel that we have not been consulted

2:58:41at all

2:58:42and we would like to some further time to

2:58:45facilitate further consultations with

2:58:48Not only neighbors in the immediate vicinity but with our neighborhood association. Thank you

2:58:53Okay, thank you

2:58:55Members of the committee, do you have any questions for this delegate? Okay. Thanks for your presentation

2:59:05And are there any other members of the public that would like to speak to this?

2:59:12Um, I guess I'd like to ask the applicant if they'd like to respond

2:59:29Hello again, Andrew Arkby

2:59:31Sorry, just to clarify. I'm going to leave the sort of summary to Jeff

2:59:35But just to clarify a point from the previous delegate

2:59:39We did have a formal meeting with the old university residents neighborhood association

2:59:44If you got that right

2:59:46We met with john loss and who I believe is the current vice president and bruce ryan. He was the former president of that association

2:59:53Um, and they welcomed the development. Um, we've had ongoing discussions with them in the past

2:59:59My business partner has been involved with them in many different builds in the area

3:00:04Um, so we are in good terms with them

3:00:06They were again supportive of our design and the fact that we have frontages on college and we're trying to keep things to the periphery

3:00:14Um, so again, we did meet with the neighborhood

3:00:17association leaders

3:00:19Um, I apologize if this gentleman was not informed that that has happened, but I know that there was a

3:00:26Um

3:00:28A bulletin sent out to the neighborhood association members who

3:00:34Subscribe to that email

3:00:36Newsletter I'm on that list myself. I used to live in the area. So it did go out to the general

3:00:42Neighborhood, okay. Thank you

3:00:49Just a couple of small

3:00:51comments to clarify the

3:00:54There could be three parking spots per parcel like there's two there's one in the garage two in the in front stacked

3:01:01If that's of a comment or a concern

3:01:04Uh, proper notes has gone out for this application in oa

3:01:09I'm using the acronym. I'll old old university neighborhood association has responded written response and I think we've all seen that response

3:01:17um, I feel that uh

3:01:19uh, like I said

3:01:22We've worked with city staff to come over the configuration. It's great. I think we have to also think about this was three properties before

3:01:29And if you really think about it, those three could have been just changed into having three units each just as they were

3:01:35And so what we're doing is something as I'd say a little more intensification than that

3:01:40And actually good use of this land and especially that are fronts on college the major artery

3:01:46As for your support, I'd be happy to answer any more questions

3:01:50Any more questions for the applicant?

3:01:55Okay, thank you

3:01:58Vice chair, sir. I just wanted to note that we did have a call in for this item if you wanted

3:02:03Best to bring that delegate on the line. Yeah, if you could yeah

3:02:07So the name is uh nadine lozon

3:02:11And I believe she's going to be joining us via phone if you just give us a few moments

3:02:40Good afternoon

3:02:47Mrs. Lawson. Are you on the line?

3:02:50I am yes. Hello

3:02:52Hello, um, yeah, if you could just state your name and you have 10 minutes to uh

3:02:56Make comments on this application

3:02:59My name is Nadine lozon

3:03:02Thank you for taking the time to take my call. Um, I'm very appreciative of the opportunities to speak today

3:03:08I'm a resident of the old university neighborhood and I've been following along with interests related to the

3:03:14Gentle intensification plans of our neighborhood and the citywide

3:03:18It's been very interesting to watch the last several committee of adjustment meetings with the

3:03:22proposals being brought by streuselive

3:03:24streuseliving

3:03:26I want to commend streuseliving on the appropriateness of the location for this

3:03:31particular proposal

3:03:33um, this is a neighborhood that has a great deal of

3:03:37Hidden density

3:03:38Already, I live on a very small street

3:03:41Probably equal distance between their forestry development and this university avenue development proposed university avian new development

3:03:49There are basement apartments

3:03:51secondary suites

3:03:53multiple levels of density on our small streets that are not seen and this is a much more appropriate location

3:03:59compared to some of the other

3:04:01applications on orchard crescent or on ridgeway

3:04:04Um, as this is an area that certainly benefits and has a very active consumer

3:04:09in warden housing with university students that are coming

3:04:13um, I used to drive past this property daily

3:04:17However, this road has been closed for almost 11 weeks. So the signage

3:04:23Has not been readily apparent if one was not following along with the committee edge of adjustment

3:04:28One would easily miss this as university avenue

3:04:31Is closed past college so there's not much flow of traffic

3:04:35um

3:04:38My primary concern related to

3:04:40the severance and reparceling of the land in the city of guelph is

3:04:47Quite related to the

3:04:48Clear cutting of the trees that is happening with the reparceling of these lands

3:04:52um in

3:04:54following along the spruce livings social media

3:04:58And the pictures that they're showing of their development. There is a wholesale approach to remove

3:05:03The mature trees on their loss that they are combining and recovering

3:05:08um

3:05:09mature trees have a very important

3:05:13Aesthetic role in our neighborhood as well as functional with respect to groundwater climate

3:05:19um privacy

3:05:22It can't be overstated how important the mature trees are to our neighborhood

3:05:26um in reparceling this land and using

3:05:32The same type of developmental structure that has been proposed city-wide with spruce livings developments

3:05:38They're not considering the very mature trees that are on the land that are providing

3:05:43important

3:05:44Features of our neighborhood. Um, I think there's a lot to be said for this neighborhood or in that particular grouping of housing

3:05:51It can only get better because it's not a great luck right now

3:05:54Um, there's a lot of it's it's not a well-capped student house

3:05:58So I'm appreciative and looking forward to that improving but I do have real concerns about how little vegetation

3:06:04is going to be on the lives and

3:06:07Where these mature trees are going to be replaced because they don't materialize overnight

3:06:12Trees take time to grow and establish and there simply is not going to be

3:06:17sufficient room to keep them

3:06:19or sufficient room to replant the

3:06:22amount of trees and the impact that those trees have

3:06:25when these lots are

3:06:27becoming quite impermeable with structures

3:06:30um

3:06:32and with

3:06:33And with driveways and with you know, just lack of

3:06:37lack of the mature trees that are there. So I think there's

3:06:41Huge opportunity, but I am concerned about what happens on each lot when all of the mature vegetation is removed

3:06:48Um, I do know that in the application there was a note about a tree preservation plan

3:06:52Which I think is very important because while each individual lot doesn't meet the threshold

3:06:58combining them

3:06:59Does it is my understanding and I think we need to treat

3:07:04The trees and the vegetation on these lots

3:07:07With the respects for the what they what they offer us as part of the community. It's important from a you know, even just a heap for

3:07:15Shade and privacy and aesthetics and just the whole piece of these mature trees disappearing and being clear-cut

3:07:21um

3:07:23I'm curious if there's a way that these living can be

3:07:26Compelled or interested in being more

3:07:30Creative and strategic and maintaining what is there?

3:07:33Um, so I think this this is a more appropriate place than others and I'm really interested in eager to see

3:07:39What comes from it, but I would like to stress how important those trees are to our neighborhood

3:07:43And in particular the removal of these mature trees is not is not something that we get back

3:07:49We get back quickly. It will take time. It will take effort and I simply don't think

3:07:53um

3:07:55I'm unsure about whether that is something that will be part of the plan or

3:08:00Can be looked into

3:08:02um, it's one thing to have

3:08:04One or two lots like that, but if we've seen over the last four committee of adjustment meetings

3:08:09It's not one or two lots

3:08:10It's multiple parcels of land across the city and there is a real impact on our mature trees and our tree canopy

3:08:17Thank you

3:08:20Okay, thank you for your comments. Uh committee members. Do you have any questions for this delegate?

3:08:27Okay, thanks very much for your comments

3:08:30Thank you

3:08:38Mr. Chair, I'd like to if we have an opportunity to ask the applicant

3:08:43Just to comment on that delegation since we want to keep the order, right? But this is about the trees

3:08:54If you could be so kind as to put that sketch back up

3:09:12Great. Thanks

3:09:13There's a couple of trees good-sized coniferous trees at the at the corner in that sideline triangle that they're going to stay

3:09:20Um, there's a fairly large tree in the back. It's actually on the property to the rear or on university avenue

3:09:27That is staying

3:09:29There's some more trees along the back property line behind parcel number five and the retained parcel

3:09:36They're staying as well

3:09:37also the objective of

3:09:40Of this developer is to always plant new trees one in the back one in the front of each parcel and that will be done as well

3:09:48There are some interior trees. I don't know the details of the interior trees that will be removed for this project

3:09:54But yes, there will be a tip

3:09:57plan done as well a tree inventory protection plan

3:10:01I hope that answers your question. Mr. Spears. Yes. Thank you

3:10:05Can uh, Andrew, uh, just further to that. That's okay. Thank you. Um, just further to that

3:10:11All of our properties we are trying to preserve as many trees as possible and replant as many as we can

3:10:16Like jeff said at our forestry property. We planted a tree in the front and a tree at the back

3:10:21In addition, we have adus reary sorry rear yard adus of that specific property and forest

3:10:27And we actually pulled them all forward by about 20 feet to keep a row of mature trees

3:10:32Which we didn't have to do but we did to preserve the fabric of the neighborhood and to try to provide a bit of privacy

3:10:38in addition to that because those mature trees were

3:10:41Um, we're very mature therefore had not many limbs on the bottom

3:10:46Um, we agreed to plant an entire row of cedar trees

3:10:50Between the the rear yard adus and the lot line to satisfy the neighboring properties

3:10:56concerns as well

3:10:58So just to set that

3:11:00Person's minded ease that we're trying to preserve everything we possibly can't

3:11:04Thanks. Thank you. Okay

3:11:08Okay, uh, any more questions?

3:11:11Okay, thank you. I'd now like to ask the committee if

3:11:19Is any motion anyone would like to put forward

3:11:26Through you, mr. Chair. I move that we

3:11:29Accept this application with the conditions proposed by uh city staff member ballaban

3:11:39Okay, I would second that. Thank you

3:11:42Any discussion on the motion? Okay. I think we can put this to a vote

3:11:53Thank you, mr. Chair committee members

3:11:55Please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the motion

3:11:58Which is to approve the applications with the recommended conditions vice chair sarah in favor

3:12:04member ballaban in favor

3:12:07member good fellow in favor

3:12:09member membrane yo in favor

3:12:12member seagull in favor

3:12:15And member spears in favor that's carried mr. Chair. Okay, your application has been approved

3:12:20We can move on to the next application

3:12:32The next application is file a-58 slash 24

3:12:36Variants to permit reduced stacking spaces for proposed double lane drive-through for existing restaurant at 99 clare road east

3:12:44I'll note for those attending remotely if you wish to speak to this application

3:12:47You can do so by calling the number displayed on the screen that numbers

3:12:51519822

3:12:531 2 6 0 extension 2524 and when you call in staff will give you instructions on how you can delegate remotely

3:13:00I

3:13:02Can I'd like to ask if the applicant is present?

3:13:16Mr. Chair, I'm just confirming that the applicants are appearing via video

3:13:20They just need to turn their video on for them to show on the screen

3:13:57um

3:13:58Good evening. Um, could if you're uh speaking to the application for 99

3:14:05Clare road, um

3:14:08East could you turn your video on please?

3:14:42Hello

3:14:44Hello

3:14:45Hi

3:14:47Hi, could you state your name, please?

3:14:49My name is Muhammad. Um

3:14:52I'm the architectural drafters in r&r designs and we are represent the

3:14:59The owner of the property the the

3:15:02Yeah, the property owners

3:15:05Okay, thank you. Yeah, and uh, was the uh, was the sign posted in accordance with planning act requirements?

3:15:12So we are proposing to add

3:15:17Another

3:15:19Drive-through lane to the existing restaurants

3:15:23Because actually the the existing restaurant have only one drive-through and we're proposing to add the

3:15:31the new

3:15:33Drive-through to be so they're proposing to be a doubled drive-through lane

3:15:39Okay, thank you. Um, can you confirm if the

3:15:43Sign was for the committee of adjustment was posted in accordance with planning act requirements?

3:15:50I've been told that the owner

3:15:53Had already installed this there. Yeah

3:15:58Okay, thank you. And have you received the staff comments and are you in agreement with or have any comments on the staff comments?

3:16:06We don't have any comments

3:16:08Okay, thank you. Um, so we have your application and you have up to 10 minutes if you

3:16:14Want to say anything uh in support of it or in addition to your written application?

3:16:22So

3:16:26We don't have any comment we would like uh, we just had um, like a recommendation approval from the

3:16:34from the designer staffs and

3:16:37We are willing to to get the approval

3:16:42On this

3:16:43Okay, thank you

3:16:45um committee members. Do you have any questions for the applicant?

3:16:50and

3:16:52Okay, thank you for your comments. And if you just stay on the line. Are there any uh delegations?

3:16:57Madam secretary treasurer

3:17:00Mr. Chair, I can confirm. We don't have any delegation requests. Thank you

3:17:04And any members of the public who would wish to speak to this?

3:17:09Doesn't appear that way. Um, okay, I'll turn it over to the committee. Um, if anyone has a motion they would like to put forward

3:17:20Um, madam or sorry member mbrenio

3:17:24Motion to move the application approved the application with a condition as suggested by staff

3:17:32Are there conditions? Thank you

3:17:36No conditions and there's no conditions. No conditions just approval. Yeah motion to

3:17:41Thank you. And member ballaban. Thank you

3:17:44Okay, any discussion on the motion? Okay. I think we can proceed to a vote

3:17:53Thank you, mr. Chair committee members

3:17:54Please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the motion which is to approve the application

3:18:00Vice chair sarin favor member ballaban in favor

3:18:04Member good fellow in favor member mbrenio in favor members seagull

3:18:10In favor and member spears in favor. That's carried mr. Chair

3:18:15Okay, thank you. Your application has been approved

3:18:18Thank you so much. Okay. Thank you. Thank you

3:18:22Bye

3:18:25Okay, we can move on to the next application now

3:18:36The next application is file a dash 59 slash 24 variances to permit side yard setback

3:18:42No landscaped open space beside driveway and no electric vehicle and designed electric vehicle parking spaces for proposed

3:18:50Triplex at 21 stevensson street north

3:18:53I'll note for those attending remotely if you wish to speak to this application

3:18:56You can do so by calling the number displayed on the screen that number is 519822

3:19:021260 extension 2524 and when you call in staff will give you instructions on how you can delegate remotely

3:19:11Okay, thank you. And do we have an applicant present to speak to this or online?

3:19:16Tom Murphy is here

3:19:21Okay, uh, welcome and good evening. Um, yeah, if you could just state your relationship

3:19:28To the applicant

3:19:30Please

3:19:31Yeah, um, I mean again, Sean Murphy. I represent the owner on this file

3:19:36Okay, and um

3:19:38Was the sign posted in accordance with planning act requirements? Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you

3:19:44Um, and have you received the staff comments and do you have uh, any comments? Are you in agreement with them?

3:19:51Yes, we have received them and um, I think we're in agreement with the uh, the recommendations

3:19:56Okay, thank you. And um, you have up to 10 minutes if you wish to speak

3:20:01Speak on the application or add anything to your written uh submission

3:20:06No, I think the only um issues there are the fact that we just don't have the electrical capacity for the ev parking

3:20:15I know that's under

3:20:18dispute with regards to the ev parking and also the

3:20:22The small distance between the house

3:20:26And the drive lane we just cannot achieve the required setback there. So

3:20:32Other than that we can achieve whatever else is required

3:20:36Okay, thank you. Um, committee members. Do you have any questions for the applicant? Okay

3:20:44Member mambinio

3:20:46Yes, um

3:20:48Units two and the units three that you have in your sketch. Uh construction is underway, correct

3:20:55It's no it's been in it's halted. We've we've been at a standstill waiting

3:21:00for approval on building department

3:21:03The building shell envelope is there

3:21:07The inside is sitting waiting for approvals

3:21:11So you're you build the shell without the approvals? No, no, no the shell was a previous owner

3:21:17We took over the building from a previous owner

3:21:20The shell was already in place. We've tried to reappropriate the building

3:21:26Okay

3:21:28so

3:21:30Another question the the setback you mentioned you cannot meet for the

3:21:36Driveway for unit two is that the unit?

3:21:40To your mentioning is the one in the back

3:21:44So the drive lane we are proposing passes through the

3:21:49Side yard and goes into the back of the property

3:21:53Now we are landlocked there where the neighboring development the townhouses they built or duplexes

3:21:59They literally the walkways, but right up to the edge of our driveway

3:22:03So there's no opportunity for us to expand

3:22:07We are basically

3:22:10Found by what was already proposed pre 1995 and this is how the land was set up

3:22:16from the beginning when the original buildings built

3:22:20but the

3:22:21The restriction that you have is for the unit that is in the in front the one that seems to be

3:22:28Empty is that is that unit going to be demolished or?

3:22:33What are your plans for that unit?

3:22:35We are proposing three parking spots in the back area of the yard

3:22:40But to get to that location you have to drive

3:22:44Like between the house and the drive lane and that is where we're like between that 20 feet

3:22:49Let's say there's no opportunity for us to put any kind of landscaping because their drive or their walkway

3:22:56butts directly up to our

3:22:59current driveway

3:23:01So you're keeping the footprint of the house correct. Yes

3:23:07Okay, thank you

3:23:10Any any more questions for the applicant?

3:23:14Okay, thank you. If you just want to hang on the line

3:23:17um

3:23:18Secretary treasurer do we have any delegations for this matter?

3:23:22Mr. Chair, we do not have any delegation requests. Okay, and is there any member of the public who would like to speak to this?

3:23:28Okay, doesn't appear to be so I'll turn it over to the committee and if anyone has a motion they want to bring forward

3:23:35Through you mr. Chair. I move that we accept this application

3:23:46With the conditions recommended by city staff. Thank you

3:23:50member good fellow

3:23:53Okay, thank you

3:23:55Uh, any discussion on the motion?

3:23:57Okay, doesn't appear to be so we can move to a vote

3:24:02Committee members, please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the motion

3:24:09Which is to approve the application with the recommended conditions

3:24:14Vice chair sir in favor

3:24:16Member ballaban in favor member good fellow in favor member membrane. Oh in favor

3:24:22members seagull in favor

3:24:25And member spears in favor

3:24:28That's carried mr. Chair

3:24:30Your application has been approved

3:24:32Okay, appreciate your time. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. Bye

3:24:39Okay, so I think we have one

3:24:42application left

3:24:46The next and final application is file a dash 60 slash 24

3:24:52variances to permit reduced park reduced number of parking spaces and temporary parking reduction until completion of parking structure

3:25:00At 201 omaira road south

3:25:02I'll note that correspondence was received after the comment deadline from laura and ryan scott

3:25:07With concerns about the application as well as from kathy johnston with questions about the application and those pieces of

3:25:15Correspondents have been circulated to the committee members

3:25:17The applicant and staff

3:25:19I'll also note

3:25:21For reference and this was noted on the staff comments document that the public notice emitted references to variances from the

3:25:271995 zoning by-law as the property is under a site specific appeal

3:25:33therefore variances from the

3:25:351995 zoning by-law are required and those have been noted on the staff comment document for reference

3:25:43And finally if you wish to speak to this application

3:25:45You can do so by calling the number displayed on the screen that numbers 519 822 1260 extension 2524

3:26:12Thank you. Mr. Chair trevor hawkins from mhbc on behalf of the owner it was

3:26:24See the staff comments we have and I

3:26:28I don't think I need to ask if you agree with them

3:26:31Perhaps I can offer the committee a bit more

3:26:34Clarity that might help. Okay. Maybe even help staff a little bit. Sure. And you've got 10 minutes to speak to your applications

3:26:40certainly the the application

3:26:43Essentially breaks into two pieces the first the first component

3:26:47Is a request to reduce the parking for the buildings you see before you?

3:26:52a bnc to 1.1 spaces per unit

3:26:56And as I noted in my submission

3:26:59the city of

3:27:01Guelph staff

3:27:03In addition to the consultants the two outside consultants they retained as part of the comprehensive zoning by-law

3:27:09recommended that very same rate

3:27:12For this property as well as many other properties in the city for apartment buildings

3:27:17So the requested rate of 1.1 spaces per unit is the same rate

3:27:22That had been recommended by staff as well as those outside consultants

3:27:26For a project of this nature. So our request

3:27:30Is we support that initial finding by staff as well as there

3:27:35The studies that went into form

3:27:37The regulations for the comprehensive zoning by-law

3:27:40And we request that rate for this project

3:27:45And there is some commentary in the in the staff comments about the rate applying

3:27:49To the whole site and you'll and you'll see certainly on the plan before you

3:27:53That there's a large wood lot in the middle, but there is some area

3:27:57That's not developed and hasn't been proposed with an application for development

3:28:02Further south on white law

3:28:05So I think the concern from staff was that the the requested variants would apply

3:28:10to

3:28:11Any future development of this particular property the same rate would apply to buildings that

3:28:17aren't yet essentially built

3:28:20and while

3:28:22I would say that staff

3:28:23Fully supported that very same rate for this property a year ago

3:28:28And the studies that they had done for it also recommended that rate

3:28:32For many properties in the city that had no plans

3:28:35No buildings nothing proposed and the rate was deemed appropriate in in these certain locations strategic growth areas

3:28:43Um the applicant is is certainly would accept a condition that limited that rate

3:28:49To buildings a b and c that is the intent of the application

3:28:52Is to lower the rate for these three buildings

3:28:55So that they can build a smaller scale parking structure with fewer spaces in it

3:29:01So that's the the nature of the first request

3:29:05The second request

3:29:07Is more of a temporary nature as I indicated in my submission

3:29:10And you'll see here on the plan before you that there's a large surface parking lot behind the homes on

3:29:15Elmira facing Elmira

3:29:17And the intent of that of that parking lot is to provide temporary parking

3:29:22for those

3:29:23residents moving into buildings a b and c

3:29:26Until the parking structure is built when the parking structure is built

3:29:30Uh most of those temporary parking spaces will no longer be required and would be you know removed

3:29:36Because they are intended to be temporary in nature

3:29:39There are 381 units in the three buildings. There are 300

3:29:45I believe 51 of those units are through so 330 are sold

3:29:50Through 51 of them are not sold

3:29:52And there's a certain number in each of the buildings as I wrote in my submission

3:29:57There are

3:29:58321

3:30:01Temporary temporary or permanent because some of the surface parking spaces

3:30:06If you look closely at the plan in and around the buildings

3:30:09Would remain after the temporary surface parking lot was removed. They would be permanent. So between those spaces

3:30:15And the temporary surface parking lot

3:30:17There's 321 parking spaces

3:30:21So the request is to allow those sold units

3:30:25to

3:30:26Proceed to occupancy

3:30:29With the temporary surface parking that's proposed on this plan that was subject to city staff review

3:30:35So there would effectively be nine units

3:30:38that wouldn't have

3:30:40A temporary parking space between the time they

3:30:43Occupied or moved into their unit in this case. We're talking mostly about building C

3:30:48And the time the parking structure was built

3:30:51And so the the idea with this application is to make it

3:30:55Have a sunset clause in place because the applicant and the owner

3:30:58Intends to construct a parking structure

3:31:01Which will alleviate the need for this temporary reduction

3:31:04But it is intended to allow

3:31:06The occupants who have who have purchased units in these three buildings

3:31:09To move in and occupy their units

3:31:12With the temporary with the supply of of the temporary surface parking on this plan

3:31:17So it results in a if we use the of the metric of

3:31:21Sold units to supply it's 0.96

3:31:25Staff I think has noted that if you looked at all of the units including the ones that aren't sold

3:31:30The ratio is actually 0.84. They didn't say that in the letter, but I think that was the intent of the comment

3:31:36so if the if the if the preference is

3:31:39That the regulation the temporary nature of the regulation applied to all of the units even the ones that aren't sold and wouldn't be occupied

3:31:46Because they're retained by the owner

3:31:49We're certainly prepared to have a rate of 0.84

3:31:52But the the sort of purpose of the application remains the same

3:31:56It's to allow people to move into their units with the supply of temporary surface parking lot

3:32:01and in this short amount of time between

3:32:04August

3:32:05Where we are today in september of next year when the parking structure would be built and everyone would get their assigned parking space

3:32:16Okay, thank you

3:32:17member valapin

3:32:21Through you mr. Chair

3:32:24So there would be

3:32:250.84 parking spaces per unit

3:32:30For the for the building in like forever

3:32:33No, that would that would just be the temporary nature that the the sort of forever request is 1.1 spaces per unit

3:32:401.1 so there will be

3:32:44Visitor parking correct

3:32:49member goodfellow

3:32:50Yes, um through the chair to the applicant

3:32:53So I just want to make sure I understand the timeline correctly

3:32:56Sounds like the completion of building c so move in dates are sometime in august

3:33:01so sometime this month

3:33:03And that the completion of the new parking structure would be next year in september if i'm getting that

3:33:10I believe building c will have and maybe staff knows more than I do but

3:33:14Building c will have occupancy over a certain number of weeks. They won't all be at once

3:33:19Sure

3:33:19Because each unit will have to be inspected and so on and so forth, but we'll say fall

3:33:23That the intent would be that the units in building c would be occupied this fall

3:33:28And then the parking structure would be built no later than next september it

3:33:32Hopefully would be built sooner

3:33:34But no later than then

3:33:36Okay, thank you. And so just a follow-up question then to confirm

3:33:39So there would be a period of one year where the point eight four would apply

3:33:43And then you would be moving then to the 1.1

3:33:47per unit parking spaces per unit

3:33:50Some sometime next before before no later than sometime next september correct. Okay. Thank you and the point and to really write the

3:34:00the point eight four

3:34:02Would include those units that the owner has not sold and is retaining for themselves at this time in recognition of the

3:34:09discrepancy between the temporary surface spaces and the number of units that would be occupied

3:34:14so there's that if you if you sort of

3:34:17Subtract out the units that the owner

3:34:20Has not sold and is retaining at this time. They will sell them when the parking structure is built

3:34:26Then it's point nine six. So there's really only nine

3:34:29There's nine sold units

3:34:31That would have no parking space

3:34:34Either temporary or permanent between now and when the parking structure is built as I sort of indicate in my letter

3:34:40And the owner is prepared to offer those nine units whenever they occupy their units until they get their assigned space

3:34:48A transit pass a monthly transit pass

3:34:50Okay, thank you for that clarification

3:34:56member valapan

3:34:57Mr. Chair through to staff

3:35:00Is this so there's site plan approval on these

3:35:03buildings, I guess building

3:35:07Staff so

3:35:09Are those site plan and it and it has a total different number of parking

3:35:15Approval numbers by the looks of it like 1.5 spaces per unit

3:35:21And 1.25 so there's different numbers. So are you gonna have is this gonna

3:35:27cause you problems if we

3:35:29Yeah, you're gonna have to because that's a registered document. Are you gonna have to then

3:35:37Re

3:35:38Visit that

3:35:40I just I'm asking because I don't want I don't want us to approve something that's gonna

3:35:45Cause you to have to revisit the whole site plan process again

3:35:59It's a it's an approved site plan and it's registered on title. That's why I'm asking staff if they you know, I don't

3:36:07It seems like we're balancing a couple of balls here

3:36:12Yeah, through uh

3:36:14Through the chair to a member ballaban. There is currently a site plan that was

3:36:18Approved and that included a rate of 1.5 spaces per unit. So there would have to be changes to that approved site plan agreement

3:36:26If it were this application approved if I could just add to that so

3:36:36The the plan that you saw before you earlier

3:36:39On the screen

3:36:41You will see it had a parking structure

3:36:44So there is an approved site plan

3:36:46with a parking structure

3:36:48That complies with the 1995 zoning bylaw sort of the the sort of

3:36:54Staggered rate of 1.5 for the first 20 units and then 1.25 for the units after that

3:37:00so

3:37:01Directly answer your question the owner would

3:37:04amend that approved site plan specifically for the parking structure

3:37:09Follow if if the application was approved and the idea would be that the parking structure would get smaller

3:37:17And there would be more space around the parking structures because it would be physically smaller

3:37:23So that you're correct in the sense that there would be a

3:37:28plan amendment required

3:37:30specifically to address the

3:37:32smaller parking structure

3:37:33But the the rest of the the site would remain the same

3:37:41So you wouldn't be providing the 493 parking spaces

3:37:47That were approved under that site plan

3:37:50No, it would be 420 instead

3:37:54Thank you

3:38:02Through you mr. Chair and to the applicant. I I I'm

3:38:07quite confused

3:38:09We start out at

3:38:11Between 1.5 and 1.25

3:38:13I'm going to just guess there's an average of 1.3

3:38:16And now we're talking about a final number of 1.1. So we've gone down considerably

3:38:22And we're talking about approving a situation where nine units

3:38:26Don't have any parking and in lieu of any parking they get a bus pass

3:38:31I believe i'm summarizing what you said

3:38:34So that the parking rate

3:38:37Is 1.5 for the first 20 units and 1.25 for all the remaining units. So there isn't any

3:38:43I think we we discussed 493 spaces

3:38:47And this would be at 1.1

3:38:50Which again is the rate that was recommended by the city

3:38:54put before council for parking on this property among many other properties

3:38:59Supported by studies. So it's not it's not a rate that

3:39:02Hasn't been vetted and and considered by city staff and and technical staff

3:39:08Um, it would be the rate going forward

3:39:11So you you would have one space for every unit plus point one spaces for visitors

3:39:17So there would be a 73 space reduction

3:39:21Sort of from where we are today to where we may be if it was approved

3:39:25The the nine the nine spaces that I referred to would that would only be temporary

3:39:30Once the parking structure is built every unit would get a space

3:39:33It's only for for sort of between now and

3:39:36Next september or earlier when the structure is built. It's just a temporary nature of that. No, I understand that I'm I'm

3:39:44Very concerned about the idea that you uh agreed to

3:39:48proposed put on a plan

3:39:51The one the one and a half and 1.25 and now are saying no no

3:39:56We're going to just we'll take the other the you know the current

3:39:59Recommendation forget what we said earlier. We're going to go with 1.1. This I I'm I'm

3:40:05I'm very concerned by this and the fact that

3:40:07People will move into this property and really being really stuck

3:40:12Especially if they own vehicles, which I think if you're going to choose to live in that location

3:40:16You're going to have a vehicle. It's it's it's way out there

3:40:20I don't I know I didn't pose that as a question. Um, but you may want to

3:40:26Put my mind at ease on this

3:40:28Well, I mean all of the units have purchased a parking space

3:40:32So under the 1.1 scenario, they would all get their parking space

3:40:38So the the sort of purchase and sale agreement

3:40:41They get a unit in a parking space

3:40:43Uh at 1.1. They would still get the the unit they purchased and a parking space

3:40:50So there would be in

3:40:52Sort of in the in the current scenario, which has a higher parking rate really

3:40:58There would be surplus parking spaces that I suppose someone could purchase

3:41:04Under the request that we've made

3:41:06There wouldn't be surplus parking spaces

3:41:09There would be the space you've purchased with your unit

3:41:11And there'd be spaces for visitors who come to visit you in the in the building

3:41:16Okay, thank you and and a follow-up. Um, oh, I've lost my train of thought

3:41:24I'll I'll hold that somebody else. I'm sure wants to ask a question

3:41:29Oh member bellivan

3:41:31Mr. Chair, how many visitor parking spots will there be in total?

3:41:37Uh under the request

3:41:40Yeah, when you're if you were to get this approval right tonight

3:41:44How many visitor parking spaces will there be for all three buildings?

3:41:49I believe there'd be 39

3:41:5339 visitor parking spaces

3:41:58For 381 units. Yeah

3:42:01Number Spears. Uh, it's come back to me. Um

3:42:09Once again, just put my mind to these is there is there an accepted plan for the parking structure?

3:42:17There's two two pieces to answer that question if I may one is yes, there is but it has

3:42:23400 and it has sort of the

3:42:261995 zoning bylaw parking rates. So it has

3:42:29That many parking spaces in it. Yes, there is an approved site plan

3:42:34This if this application is approved the parking structure would be in the same location. It would just be smaller

3:42:41So we would need to amend that approved plan to show the smaller parking structure. Yes

3:42:46And how many floors will this parking structure be?

3:42:50Uh, I believe the parking structure is five floors now. So it may potentially be

3:42:56Four and when you say september you're mean you mean

3:43:01Shovel in the ground or are you suggesting that in

3:43:0412 months of four or five story parking structure will be ready to occupy?

3:43:09I'm suggesting that next september it would be ready to occupy

3:43:14That's what the the purpose built

3:43:17Parking structure company has informed us. They would they would certainly be able to do that. Thank you

3:43:30for sequel

3:43:32Hi, thanks. Uh, through the chair of a few questions for clarification either from the applicant or staff

3:43:39um, first the 1.1

3:43:41The applicant indicated this was a staff recommendation, but I just want to clarify

3:43:46The 95 and the the 2023 zoning bylaw does have that staggered

3:43:521.5 and 1.25

3:43:54Correct. And then if so is the 1.1 published some more or that was kind of a background document

3:44:00Uh, I can answer and then certainly staff can

3:44:04Correct me if I err or add to it. Uh, the 1.1 rate was

3:44:11Uh, recommended by staff

3:44:13So there is a staff report that went with the 2023 zoning bylaw when

3:44:18It went to council in april

3:44:20And within that document they refer back to a couple of studies

3:44:25Notably a study done by ibi in 2019 that looked at parking all over

3:44:30Guelph as well as other municipalities and comparators and took

3:44:34in uh, you know measured various sites across the city and the usage of parking and all of those

3:44:39Um

3:44:40Findings in that study and then another one that was done subsequently by ba group

3:44:45All found that the usage of parking was actually less than one space for you and some you know 0.7 in some cases 0.8 in other

3:44:51in other cases

3:44:53Staff I think was asked to reconsider that parking rate

3:44:57They were asked to reconsider a parking rate in the gordon street corridor if I recall correctly

3:45:02And then they did a attachment seven. I think I have to the staff report

3:45:07which

3:45:09Spoke to those requests from council and still reiterated that they supported the 1.1

3:45:14parking rate and strategic growth areas and areas with the pa suffix in the parking in the zoning bylaw

3:45:20Council ultimately didn't agree with staff. So the parking rate between 1995 dance of the second part of your question

3:45:27And the parking rate in the 2023 bylaw did not change outside of the downtown

3:45:32Okay, thank you. So it's a proposal, but it wasn't approved as a site specific bylaw the the primary bylaw still applicable

3:45:40um

3:45:42And then my second question was to staff there was a

3:45:44Comment in the staff recommendation that the temporary reduction shouldn't be handled through committee of adjustment

3:45:52Can someone just comment on that further and what the process would be?

3:45:56alternatively

3:46:00Through the chair to members seagull

3:46:02If I may if I can first back up to your first question that mr. Hawkins already spoke on. Yeah. Um, so there was this

3:46:09Study that mr. Hawkins talked about recommending 1.1 units

3:46:14um

3:46:15per unit in strategic growth areas. This was ultimately not adopted by city council

3:46:21staff's concern is that the minor variance process needs to

3:46:25Have consideration for the intent of the zoning bylaw and I think

3:46:29Council made it pretty clear that that did not intend to approve that rate of 1.1 per unit when they rejected staff's recommendation at that time

3:46:38So staff aren't in a position to recommend approval of this application of this rate of 1.1

3:46:43Without seeing a site specific parking study and that's something that hasn't been provided at this time for this application

3:46:50So I think that's that's what staff's comment would be towards that first question towards that second question

3:46:55so we did have a quick consult with city legal staff and

3:47:00They were of the opinion that the committee of adjustment was not the appropriate

3:47:03type of planning act application to come forward with a temporary reduction such as is being proposed by the applicant today

3:47:11So we are more than happy to sit down with

3:47:15With the applicant and discuss what type of application might be more appropriate

3:47:19So far the applicant has not come forward to city staff to to discuss this application before submitting

3:47:24But we are more than happy to uh to work with them. Yes

3:47:27Okay, great. Thanks. Um, just one follow up to that. So if a site specific parking study was provided

3:47:35Then it would be considered

3:47:38Under evaluation for this proposal

3:47:41Again through the chair to to members Segal. So I think in the in the staff report

3:47:48I've outlined that our primary concerns are the lack of a parking study as well as the lack of a comprehensive plan for this site

3:47:55There is a significant portion of the site where

3:47:58there's currently nothing built and

3:48:01Um, it's possible that you know future projects will be built on this and will then fall under that parking ratio of 1.1

3:48:08So I think we need to see a more comprehensive plan of the site

3:48:12Uh before we can consider a parking reduction. I think a parking reduction is certainly something that staff

3:48:17Could potentially consider but we just don't have the information in front of us today to uh to recommend approval of such a reduction

3:48:24Okay, thank you. Yeah, I've got a question

3:48:32Um

3:48:35Why do you want to reduce the number of parking spaces from what's in the approved plan?

3:48:43Uh, well the owner wants to reduce the the supply of parking so that they can uh build the supply of parking that's been purchased

3:48:51So each of the units is purchased a parking space

3:48:55They're prepared to provide the visitor parking at 0.1 per unit

3:48:59and

3:49:00If they build more parking spaces than they sold

3:49:04Then they're you know spending

3:49:06Hundreds of thousands of dollars on a parking structure and parking spaces that uh people aren't purchasing so it's

3:49:12Why build a parking structure that's larger and more expensive?

3:49:16Uh that has empty unsold parking spaces in it

3:49:19When you can build a parking structure that aligns with the parking spaces that have been purchased

3:49:26Okay, thank you member spears

3:49:30Yeah, I think this is uh this may be to

3:49:33Madam secretary and treasurer

3:49:35In terms of process

3:49:37If we were to refuse this application

3:49:41Then this applicant cannot come back with the same application

3:49:46What are what then is their opportunity? What do they do next is what i'm trying to understand or should we be considering a deferral of this

3:49:54To give the applicant a chance to work further with with with city staff to make this make sense because i'm afraid it's still not making sense to me

3:50:04Through the chair to member spears

3:50:06um

3:50:09Obviously deferral is a is an option there. I think um staff did

3:50:14address the fact that they do feel that another type of planning act application is

3:50:20Is maybe more appropriate in that situation. So

3:50:24I'll leave it to planning staff to outline

3:50:26Outline that but in the event that the committee refused

3:50:30um

3:50:31This minor variance request. I'm not sure if there's an opportunity for the applicant to apply for some other type of

3:50:37Application type as well

3:50:42Uh, thank you, madam secretary treasurer. I'm

3:50:46Okay, i'm still I guess where i'm stuck is if we refuse this application

3:50:51And the temporary parking cannot be constructed as proposed

3:50:55Are we're in a situation now where?

3:50:58How many hundred units are we talking about here? Uh, what's the number?

3:51:03That maybe not hundreds in any case the number of units that have been sold that need to be occupied cannot be occupied

3:51:10That's what i'm really worried about is that a whole bunch of people can't move in

3:51:15So I I I don't know I feel quite stuck here. I don't know. I'm not sure what the best way forward is

3:51:22City staff have a

3:51:24Enough a good idea here mr. Ramble

3:51:27Uh through the chair to members spears

3:51:30Um, I think maybe buildings staff can correct me if i'm wrong

3:51:32But I believe there's nothing preventing the applicant from building the required parking for the units that are already to be occupied

3:51:40I think they're just requesting a lower rate at this time

3:51:42But I believe there is a proof site plan in place so they would be able to or if there's nothing

3:51:48That uh, if the committee were to refuse this application that would not prevent

3:51:52The applicant from being able to construct the necessary parking for for those units

3:51:59Is that temporary parking you're talking about

3:52:04Through the chair, I believe the site plan that was approved was not for temporary parking

3:52:08But rather for for permanent parking perhaps you can correct me from Ron Kelly

3:52:12And through the chair to members spears as well. Um, there is a temporary parking lot together with the parking structure

3:52:19um

3:52:21I will note though that the total parking for the units is included in the parking structure and I did place in my comments that um

3:52:30In where the parking structure is located

3:52:33We were at the committee of adjustment previously for a height variance, um an angular plane

3:52:40So which leads me to believe that there will be additional height on that parking structure

3:52:45Which does not have site plan approval yet

3:52:48But then after the parking structure is built and then to add additional height on it

3:52:55There is concern then

3:52:57How will you park in the parking structure as well when?

3:53:01There is construction on top of it

3:53:05So we may end up here again for another

3:53:09Parking reduction temporarily while

3:53:13Another building is being built on top of the parking structure

3:53:18There are a lot of unknowns

3:53:21at this moment

3:53:25Thank you for that. I I have

3:53:28Excuse me. I have one more follow-up. This is to the applicant

3:53:31you're asking for a variance to

3:53:35effectively

3:53:36Deny nine units parking

3:53:39Why or what is what is stopping those nine spaces to be built in in a temporary fashion? Well, are you really stuck there?

3:53:47Uh

3:53:49Three years just to to clarify that there is no plan

3:53:54Uh, staff's correct. There was a variance

3:53:57last year sometime to build a

3:53:59an apartment building on top of the parking structure

3:54:02that the the application before the committee now

3:54:07Would propose only a parking structure. There would not be a building on top of the parking structure

3:54:12There would be no more there wouldn't be more units using the parking structure. So this application

3:54:18Is a abc three buildings and a parking structure

3:54:23That the question about the temporary service if we put the plan back up

3:54:27You you are correct. You could

3:54:30conceivably add more temporary service parking spaces, but they would be a considerable distance from

3:54:36The buildings they would be on the

3:54:38Part of the site on the other side of the wood lot. Okay. I

3:54:45It's a variance

3:54:51To reduce the number of parking spaces and a temporary parking reduction until the parking structure

3:54:58So we're not talking about the parking structure. We're talking about reducing the number of temporary parking spaces

3:55:05That's what i'm understanding. Have i got this wrong? There's there's two pieces. You have the second piece. Correct. There is a request to temporarily

3:55:13allow

3:55:15Fewer parking spaces than the bylaw would otherwise require for

3:55:19on a temporary basis

3:55:22Until the parking structure is built

3:55:24The other variance is to allow 1.1 spaces for these three buildings per unit on a go forward basis

3:55:32And the parking structure if that variance was approved

3:55:36The parking structure would be built

3:55:38To achieve that parking rate for this property

3:55:42So in so in that scenario

3:55:45We'll just to make it easier with the numbers. Maybe this will help a bit

3:55:49If the committee approved 1.1 spaces per unit, there'd be 420 spaces required

3:55:56There's three there's

3:55:58less than 420 parking spaces

3:56:00Temporarily available on the site as per the plan the approved plan that you saw earlier

3:56:06So in order to allow the people to move into the units

3:56:10On a temporary basis until that structure is built

3:56:13We wanted to lower the parking rate

3:56:16So that so that the residents could occupy their units in compliance with the zoning bylaw

3:56:23temporarily, but they would get their parking space

3:56:27In compliance with the 1.1 rate so that the sort of go forward permanent rate

3:56:32When the when the structure was built which would be built by september or earlier

3:56:38So it's really a a period of time

3:56:40Where not every unit in those three buildings nine in particular nine sold units

3:56:47There would be a period of time until the structure was built

3:56:51Where they wouldn't have a temporary space

3:56:54They would get their permanent space when the structure was built

3:56:57But there would be a gap in time

3:56:59Or they wouldn't have a temporary space, but they would be able to move into their unit

3:57:05I get that I'm I'm I'm just totally stalled on the idea that there's units that won't have a place to park

3:57:11And they will have a car. I mean, I just don't I don't accept that people who

3:57:16Purchased a unit and in that location would contemplate moving into a place like that without their own transportation

3:57:23I just don't accept it. So we're leaving those people out and if you're saying to me

3:57:28No, we could put those nine places in they'll just be slightly less convenient

3:57:32I I don't we wouldn't be having the discussion that we wouldn't be looking at a reduction. You just say no, that's fine

3:57:37we have temporary parking and

3:57:40and then the only discussion would be the the the ratio of the

3:57:44The built structure that would and that's a different conversation as far as I'm concerned, right?

3:57:49And that's why I did want to distinguish. Yeah, I understand your concerns about the temporary nature

3:57:54That's why I'm trying to distinguish. There's two pieces to the variance. There's the one that

3:57:59Isn't temporary and there's the one that is temporary

3:58:02And if the committee has concerns with one versus the other

3:58:06I just want to clarify that they are distinct in that sense

3:58:14Through the chair to the committee

3:58:17Maybe if I could assist

3:58:19Buildings a b and c have a total of 381 units

3:58:25The temporary parking lot that they're proposing

3:58:28Which is on site has 308 parking spaces

3:58:33Those are the numbers

3:58:36That's all the parking that would be on the site for the 381 units

3:58:43I will note

3:58:45They're saying they just won't sell some units. They won't be occupied

3:58:50That's equivalent to

3:58:53Someone coming to the committee of adjustment for a house with 280 us

3:58:57But saying we don't have the parking for it, but it's okay. We just won't occupy them. So it's the same type of

3:59:06reduction like

3:59:09They're not asking for

3:59:11The ratio they've asked hasn't included the total of 381 units for the 308 parking spaces

3:59:20It's um, they're asked for to exclude some units

3:59:24that do exist

3:59:26from the parking ratio

3:59:29For the temporary parking lot only this has nothing to do with the park aid

3:59:33This surface parking lot on the property that

3:59:37Exists today. There's 308 parking spaces for the 381 units

3:59:49and the the 51 unsold units

3:59:53Like

3:59:57Does the

3:59:59is the owner

4:00:01like is the owner committing to not

4:00:04Selling those until parking is available or

4:00:08I think the owner

4:00:10The owner would be open to a condition that said they could have

4:00:14321 parking spaces for

4:00:17330 units

4:00:21Um with the understanding that those 51 spaces or 51 other units

4:00:26You know would be retained by the owner

4:00:29If there was a condition that uh, the committee was happy with that

4:00:32I really do think the owner

4:00:35wants to

4:00:37He wants to move ahead with building the parking structure

4:00:40and so

4:00:42The application that relates to the sort of permanent go forward parking rate is important

4:00:48To design that parking structure get it into staff for the site plan

4:00:52Amendment approval get it in for a building permit so they can build it and so they can

4:00:57You know stop worrying about temporary versus permanent parking

4:01:00They they they are really want to get that sorted

4:01:05Uh, I do think they would like to find a solution

4:01:08Uh to deal with the temporary situation so that

4:01:12People who have purchased units in building c

4:01:16Can move into their units. So I think that's the other motivation of the temporary

4:01:21So if there's a if there's a way I'm sure they will not

4:01:25sell the 51 units or or

4:01:28You know, uh rent rent them or whatever the mechanism the committee feels comfortable putting some type of parameter around it

4:01:36The idea is they want to be able to allow the people who have purchased their units to occupy the units when they're ready

4:01:42And in order to do that they have to you know provide the parking in accordance with the bylaw. So there's there's there's sort of a

4:01:50This is it

4:01:51And staff will agree with me. This is a very convoluted project

4:01:55I'm sure our heads have collectively exploded multiple times

4:01:58It's unnecessarily complicated and it's not mhpc

4:02:03And it's not always it's certainly not planning planning staffs

4:02:07Who who have created this some of some of it is the the sort of market dynamics and the changes and the cost of construction

4:02:13And all those things that we don't know a whole lot about

4:02:17But I do think they are motivated to you know, bring resolution to this issue so that people can occupy the units

4:02:23and they would like to

4:02:26You know have a 1.1 parking space

4:02:28For these three buildings on a go forward basis because it reflects

4:02:31What they've seen is the demand for parking in this in these three buildings based on the the purchases that have occurred

4:02:38And they certainly, you know, we're aware that staff supported that rate previously notwithstanding that council disagreed

4:02:46and like

4:02:48Obviously, I don't know the site or

4:02:52And there's there's no way that that

4:02:54temporary parking space

4:02:56You can't shoehorn another nine spaces in there

4:03:00Well, the

4:03:01Kelly's sort of noted that the surface the temporary surface parking lot is 308 spaces

4:03:07And there's another 13 spaces that would be available on a temporary nature

4:03:12Around the buildings, you know when the when the parking structure is built

4:03:15A lot of those spaces will become visitor spaces, but on a temporary basis we would use them for the unit purchasers

4:03:22So there's 321 if you count those as well

4:03:26And and yes, we've certainly spent time looking to see whether we could find

4:03:31Space and and really the the I mean if you haven't been out to the site if you're standing on white law

4:03:36The property drops quite severely down towards almyra

4:03:40So it's not like you could put you could just plunk down nine parking spaces where the parking structure is going to be you just can't do it

4:03:47So, yeah

4:03:49It's challenging

4:03:52Thank you

4:03:56If I may through you. Yeah, please chair. I think

4:04:00What had been discussed here? I think mr. Hawkins and what Kelly was talking about was uh

4:04:04For the temporary proposal there is a currently a proposal for 0.96 spaces per unit

4:04:10But that fails to account for the 51 units that the applicant says would remain unsold

4:04:15unfortunately

4:04:17The the applicant saying that they won't sell those units doesn't

4:04:20mean that they the by-law doesn't apply to them, right so

4:04:23Um the ratio I believe mr. Hawkins. You said 0.84 would have to be approved

4:04:30in this case and um, you can correct me if I'm wrong

4:04:34Secretary madame secretary treasure my understanding is if you are asking for a more significant reduction

4:04:39Then what was in the notice that there needs to be?

4:04:42A recirculation because if it's going to be revised down from a 0.96 to 0.84

4:04:48I don't think that's something that the committee can even consider at this meeting

4:04:51I think there would have to be a recirculation for that ask

4:04:59through the chair to

4:05:01expand on

4:05:03the staff persons

4:05:05Response typically in that situation where someone's proposing to an applicant's proposing to

4:05:11Change or revise the variance that they've asked for if it's something

4:05:16lesser than what they've

4:05:18Applied for we would typically recirculate that notice unless the committee felt that there was adequate notice given in this situation

4:05:25But we always default in the fact that we want to make sure that the public's aware of the exact

4:05:30Calculations that are being proposed at this time

4:05:37Okay, and I take staff's point that whether the

4:05:41Whether the units are sold or unsold may not impact the ratio, you know member spears

4:05:55Um

4:05:58My colleagues, how would we feel about a motion to defer this to give the applicant an opportunity to

4:06:05to further align these ducks

4:06:08Yeah, uh, if you're looking at me, so I hope I can answer

4:06:13Uh, I do feel

4:06:15That there may be some merit in deferring the temporary

4:06:19Um request because I do I hope that based on what I've heard that there may be a willingness to find a solution

4:06:25to that problem, but uh, I think in order to

4:06:30move ahead with

4:06:31The parking structure construction. I think it would be

4:06:35You know, we would very much like the committee support for that 1.1 parking space ratio

4:06:41I understand that staff has suggested, you know that a parking study

4:06:45Or something of that nature would be helpful

4:06:47But you know staff did all that work through the comprehensive zoning by-law. They know

4:06:52What the demands are for projects of this nature?

4:06:55They know that the demands are 0.7 0.8 spaces per unit. They got the data

4:07:02The data is relevant the data fed into the development of those rates

4:07:06So we know what those rates are we know in this case that

4:07:09Each unit has purchased a parking space

4:07:12And each unit will get a parking space through the 1.1 ratio

4:07:15So there's no magic to what parking study is going to tell us for this particular project

4:07:21This isn't a greenfield site where there's no buildings

4:07:24This is a site where there's three buildings that the units other other than those 51 units have all been sold

4:07:30And they've all been sold with one parking space and those other 51 units would be sold with one parking space

4:07:36So the the rate requested reflects the demand for this particular project in this case

4:07:41It's just it doesn't it doesn't seem to me that there's any missing data

4:07:47That would be

4:07:48Necessary for the deferral of the 1.1 request

4:07:52But there's a lot of missing data with respect to the remaining part of your property

4:08:03So without right and I indicated at the outset that I'd be that the owner would be content with

4:08:10the

4:08:11variants being conditional on it only applying to buildings a b and c

4:08:16Not any other buildings that aren't even on the plan yet. I don't even know I don't think we can

4:08:21separate

4:08:23And let and allow parking on part of a site. I don't think that's within our purview

4:08:29I think we have to apply it to the whole of the property

4:08:32Well, you could apply it and have it tied to the plan and the plan shows three buildings

4:08:38I don't know enough to know if we can do it or not

4:08:47Through you, mr. Chair. I I guess this is a comment to the committee. I feel like we defer or refuse because

4:08:54But I if I were the applicant I would be very keen to have a deferral to make this more clear

4:09:00and

4:09:01Because the a refusal is there's not a lot coming back

4:09:05Yeah, and if you were asking trevor hawkins

4:09:08I am asking trevor hawkins

4:09:09Then trevor hawkins would give you an answer if you're asking the owner the owner may give a different answer. That's all I I hear what you're saying

4:09:16The owner is not here. So uh, you're the guy. I think I think

4:09:20that

4:09:21I think if the deferral is for us to do a parking study and to come back and and resubmit

4:09:28I mean, I just don't know what that's going to going to tell the city. That's all

4:09:32I think it's a chance for you to work with staff. Yeah, and like just to comment but

4:09:38Yeah, like as you indicate the staff recommended

4:09:421.1 ratio, but council seems they were pretty clear that they didn't accept it. So

4:09:49We have to consider that also remember good fellow

4:09:52Oh, sorry member seagull. Sorry

4:09:56Thanks. Uh through the chair my thoughts on this are

4:10:00I agree to defer the permanent

4:10:03request until we have some more information and I'd also like to understand the legal mechanisms

4:10:09If we could apply, you know building specific

4:10:15Reductions, I

4:10:16Also wouldn't think that would be possible, but I'd be interested to hear and in terms of the temporary parking

4:10:23if

4:10:24You know the conditions typically on the

4:10:26Um, these exemptions are

4:10:29You have a condition and then once the conditions met you can get your bylaw

4:10:33In place not after your bylaws in place

4:10:37There's a condition. So for example for the temporary parking, I'd like to understand there's an illegal mechanism if a temporary rate was approved

4:10:46Where does that

4:10:47expire and how is that enforced? Um, I'm not clear if we have authority for that either. So I'd recommend

4:10:54deferral of the

4:10:56Permanent and then either deferral or refusal of the temporary on the basis of of the legal mechanisms

4:11:07Thank you

4:11:13any

4:11:14further consideration and motions from the committee

4:11:18I'll certainly make a motion right now

4:11:20I move that we we have deferred this application and in hopes that they can convince city staff to agree with their

4:11:27Their application in the future meeting

4:11:34I would I propose that we I move that we defer

4:11:38this application with the hopes that the applicant will

4:11:43meet with city staff and

4:11:45endeavor to get their

4:11:47approval

4:11:48Recommendation for approval for a future meeting. So we don't find ourselves in this position because it's untenable. I can't agree with this

4:11:55Member valiban. I second that any further discussion

4:12:06Um, I think we can put that to a vote

4:12:11Committee members, please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the motion which is to

4:12:16defer the applications vice chair sar

4:12:19in favor

4:12:20member valiban in favor

4:12:23Member good fellow in favor member membranio in favor

4:12:28member seagull in favor

4:12:30And member spears in favor that's carried mr. Chair

4:12:35Okay, thank you your application has been deferred and I believe

4:12:46We don't have no further applications

4:12:50Mr. Chair, we don't have any further applications. I do have one small staff announcement. Yes, please go ahead

4:12:58So just a brief

4:13:00Note to advise that an appeal to the Ontario land tribunal was received regarding the committee's decision to refuse files b-26

4:13:09slash 24 to b-28 slash 24 and a dash 36 slash 24 to a

4:13:1539 slash 24 and those are the applications for 34 ridgeway

4:13:21That were

4:13:23Refused at the june 27th 2024 hearing so just noting that we did receive an appeal for those applications

4:13:29And that's the only staff announcement. I have mr. Chair. Okay. Thank you

4:13:33Good I

4:13:34When what's reasonable to to expect and time wise for an appeal like that?

4:13:42Through the chair to member spears

4:13:44It's hard for me to answer that question because that's obviously up to the Ontario land tribunal. They control their timelines

4:13:54Yeah, we've seen many months sometimes it takes for a hearing for that it really it really depends

4:13:59I don't want to give you a timeline. I mean we have seen six months recently on our recent file

4:14:08Hopefully not but I don't want to say that there's no guarantee because obviously the city has no control over that when that

4:14:13That hearing date is held, but yeah, it does take some time for sure

4:14:23Thank you. If there's no further business I'd entertain a motion to adjourn

4:14:30Uh member good fellow

4:14:33And member spears member paladin. Okay all in favor

4:14:38Thank you. Okay. We're adjourned

4:14:41And thanks staff for staying so late