Committee of Adjustment

4:30Good afternoon, Guelph.

4:32I'd like to call to order the May 14th,

4:352026 hearing of the Guelph Committee of Adjustment.

4:39This hearing is being held in a hybrid format

4:41with attendees appearing in person or remotely.

4:44It is being live streamed and recorded.

4:47Please be advised that public hearings form part

4:49of the public record and the words, names,

4:51or images of those participating will be recorded

4:54and posted online.

4:56We have received regrets from member Mambrenio

4:58that she will not be attending this hearing.

5:01Before I outline the hearing format,

5:03if you are watching online and wish to speak

5:05to an application that's listed on the agenda

5:07and have not submitted a request in advance of the hearing,

5:10please call the number displayed on the screen now,

5:13which is 519-822-1260 extension 2524,

5:21and you will be given instructions on how to participate.

5:26For those attending the hearing in person,

5:28you will also be given a chance to address the committee.

5:30A final call for delegations will be made

5:32when each application is called.

5:35The agenda for this hearing has been posted online

5:38at guelph.ca forward slash c-o-f-a.

5:42I will remind all committee members and staff participating

5:45in the hearing to please mute your microphones

5:47when not in use, and applicants will be unmuted

5:50when their application is called.

5:52I'd also like to share the hearing format we will be using

5:55to navigate through each application.

5:58Each application will be called by the secretary-treasurer,

6:01and the call-in number for those wishing to speak

6:03to an application will be displayed on the screen.

6:06Afterwards, the applicant will be given an opportunity

6:09to add anything further to their application

6:11to a maximum of 10 minutes.

6:14You will hear a chime when there is 30 seconds left,

6:17and another when the 10 minutes has elapsed.

6:20If you are an applicant and have nothing further to add,

6:23then you can simply say so.

6:25Following this, for some files,

6:27staff may provide a brief presentation.

6:31The committee will then be able to ask questions

6:33to the applicant or staff.

6:35After that, we will hear from members of the public

6:38who wish to comment on the application.

6:40Please note that all comments should be addressed

6:43through the chair.

6:44Please avoid repeating concerns already stated by others

6:47and focus on adding new information.

6:50Comments are limited to 10 minutes or less.

6:53You will hear a chime when there are 30 seconds left,

6:56and another when the 10 minutes have elapsed.

6:59For delegates that have advised staff in advance

7:01of the hearing that they wish to display a presentation,

7:04your presentation will be displayed on the screen,

7:06and a remote is available at the podium

7:09for delegates in person to advance the slides.

7:12Any members of the public who have submitted a request

7:15to speak prior to the hearing will be first invited

7:17to provide comments.

7:19For those watching the hearing online,

7:21if you wish to speak to an application

7:23and have not submitted a request in advance of the hearing,

7:26please call the number displayed on the screen now.

7:30For those attending, the hearing in person,

7:32you will also be giving a chance to come forward

7:34to the podium and address the committee.

7:37Once all comments from the public have been heard,

7:39the applicant or staff will be given an opportunity

7:42to respond to comments, and then finally,

7:44the chair will turn to the committee for emotion,

7:46deliberation, and a vote on the application.

7:50When the committee is making a decision on the application,

7:53the chair will be asking the secretary treasurer

7:55to conduct the vote by roll call,

7:57the secretary treasurer will call each of the members' names,

8:01and each member will respond if they are in favor

8:04or opposed to the motion,

8:05and the chair will announce the result of the vote.

8:10If you wish to receive a copy of the decision

8:12on an application, you must submit a written request.

8:16A written request can be made by contacting staff

8:20using the contact information shown on the screen.

8:23To receive a copy of the decision,

8:25please email cofa at gulf.ca with your name

8:29and the file number you were interested in.

8:32Please note that owners and applicants

8:34automatically receive a copy of the decision.

8:38And now I will ask member Fitzpatrick

8:40to provide the indigenous territorial acknowledgement.

8:44I will also ask everyone to stand

8:45who was able to do so.

8:49Thank you, Madam Chair.

8:51As we gather, let us take time to reflect on our privilege

8:55to live and work in Guelph,

8:57a city built over rich indigenous histories.

9:00We are guests here,

9:01and we should reflect upon the responsibility

9:03to care for this land,

9:04the people who live here today,

9:06and the generations to come.

9:08If our actions today can move us toward reconciliation,

9:12we should take pause and make those decisions

9:14with intention and gratitude.

9:17This place we call Guelph has served as traditional lands

9:20and a place of refuge for many people over time.

9:23But more specifically, the Atawanda-Ranc

9:26and the Haudenosaunee,

9:28this land is held as the treaty lands and territory

9:31with the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation.

9:35Guelph lies directly adjacent to the Haldeman track

9:39and is part of a long-established traditional hunting ground

9:41for the six nations of the Grand River.

9:44Many First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples

9:48have come from across Turtle Island

9:50to call Guelph home today.

9:59Thank you, Member Fitzpatrick.

10:03Now to clear disclosures of pecuniary interests.

10:06Committee members, are there any disclosures

10:09of pecuniary interest this month?

10:12I'm seeing shaking hands, so I assume then no.

10:17Next, we will move on to approval of a minute

10:20from our April 9th, 2026 meeting.

10:23Can I ask a member to move?

10:25I move the vote for the approval of the minutes.

10:28Thank you, Member Meir and a seconder.

10:30Member Ross, seconds.

10:33All of those in favor, please raise your hands.

10:36Great, that motion carries.

10:39I've confirmed with the Secretary Treasurer

10:41that we have no deferral requests

10:43and I will now call on the Secretary Treasurer

10:45to announce our first application.

10:53Thank you, Chair.

10:56Our first application is file A-18-26

11:02for 60 Dufferin Street variances

11:06to permit reduced front and interior

11:08side yard setbacks for proposed second story addition.

11:19Sorry, Chair.

11:21If you wish to speak to this application,

11:23please call the number 519-822-18.

11:292260, extension 2524.

11:34When your call is received,

11:36staff will provide you with instructions

11:38on how you can delegate remotely by phone.

11:41This is the final opportunity

11:43to call in regarding this application.

11:48Thank you.

11:49Is the applicant present?

11:51Right, can you please come forward?

12:00Good afternoon.

12:01Can you please state your name

12:02and your relationship to the application?

12:04Oh, I don't know that your mic is on, however.

12:07There you go.

12:08Oh.

12:10Is that on?

12:11Yes.

12:12My name is Jeff Carlton,

12:14the application and designer for the proposed addition.

12:18Okay, thank you.

12:19And was the sign posted

12:20as per the Planning Act requirements?

12:22Yes, it was.

12:23Thank you.

12:25Have you received staff comments

12:26and are you in agreement?

12:28Yes.

12:28Great.

12:29So at this point you have 10 minutes

12:31to address the committee.

12:32Okay.

12:34I believe I had a PowerPoint presentation.

12:42So yes, 60 Dufferin Street.

12:44We're proposing a new second story addition.

12:52So this is the existing house.

12:54So one, one and a half story brick dwelling

12:57on Dufferin Street.

13:04So it's just a rendering of our proposed second story.

13:08The plan is to maintain the existing footprint

13:12of the building in brick

13:14and add a second board and batten style siding

13:18to complete the second story.

13:24So the setbacks that we require

13:27because the existing structure is non-conforming

13:30to the setback requirements.

13:33The side yard setback there is currently at two feet

13:37and requires to be five feet.

13:39So we're requesting to have that allowance

13:42to come out, it's roughly three feet or 900 millimeters.

13:47So we can align our second story wall

13:49with the existing footprint on the first floor.

13:54Is similar for the front yard setback.

13:58That small portion in the corner does extend out

14:01I believe is 3.8 meters as a front setback.

14:06And the requirement is six meters.

14:09So it's about 2.2 meters.

14:11We're requesting to again continue that second story

14:14on the existing footprint of the existing building.

14:24So even, we are getting closer to that setback

14:29but as going up for this full second story

14:31we still do meet the height requirements for the house.

14:37It's that 45 degree line off of the street

14:40and we're still pretty clear from there.

14:42It's hard to see that line there

14:43but it is well below the actual height limit.

14:52And if we look at other buildings in the neighborhood

14:56this is 64 Dufferin Street, it's the direct neighbor.

15:00They have a very similar house construction.

15:03I believe they also have non-conforming setbacks

15:06on the side and that front portion in the corner

15:09is at the same frontage as 60 Dufferin Street.

15:14They do have more of a second story on that already.

15:17So it would be similar to that, though a little bit taller.

15:24And then we look to the other neighbor,

15:26it is 58 Dufferin Street.

15:28It is a full two-story brick dwelling.

15:32It is a little bit setback further from the front

15:35but it's still with those non-conforming

15:37side yard setbacks.

15:40And beside that as well,

15:4254 Dufferin Street is essentially the same house.

15:48So we feel that it will go with the neighborhood

15:51and there is a lot of two-story dwellings there.

15:53So we're really just trying to maintain

15:55that same footprint of the existing structure.

16:04This is another one, 70 Dufferin,

16:06it's about two and a half story

16:08similar with the side yard setback.

16:12Yeah, it's messy.

16:18Okay, thank you.

16:20I'll ask you to wait there for a second.

16:22Some of the committee members may have some questions for you

16:24but first I wanna check in with staff

16:26and see if staff have any comments today.

16:30Not to this one, okay, that's great.

16:33So yes, committee members,

16:34so we have questions of this applicant.

16:38Member Smith.

16:42Thank you, Chair.

16:43This is directed to staff.

16:45I'm curious about not the side yard setback

16:49that is pretty straightforward.

16:52My curiosity is more the front yard setback.

16:59My understanding of the zoning regulation

17:03is that it should be the average

17:05between the two properties,

17:09or pardon me, the average of the two adjacent properties.

17:13And this seems to comply already.

17:15So I'm curious if I'm just misreading the site plan

17:22or is this really a necessary variance request?

17:37Staff, I think that question was for you folks.

17:40Through the chair to member Smith,

17:43that is a good catch.

17:44I think it is possible that that may be the case.

17:49That being said, staff's analysis is the same

17:52regardless of what technically the variance is for.

17:55Staff maintain that the addition wouldn't have

17:57a significant impact on the neighboring properties

17:59and just maintain that existing footprint.

18:02Staff have no concerns with, thank you.

18:07Thank you, Chair.

18:09That was my question.

18:10I appreciate the answer.

18:13Okay, thank you, member Smith.

18:15Other questions from the committee?

18:18Okay, seeing none, I will ask if we have delegations.

18:25Thank you, Chair.

18:26I can confirm we have no preregistered delegates

18:29and no delegates online.

18:31Thank you, Secretary Treasurer.

18:33Anyone in the chambers here this afternoon

18:35who would like to come forward?

18:38Okay, seeing none.

18:40Then I think we are over to asking members for a motion

18:44and looking for one of the members to go forward.

18:49Member Smith.

18:52Thank you, Chair.

18:53I move that we accept this application

18:58for the two variances

18:59with the recommended conditions by staff.

19:04Okay, thank you.

19:05And I second it.

19:06Member Meir seconds.

19:07Okay, that's great.

19:09Is there any discussion then on the motion in front of us?

19:16Seeing none.

19:17Okay, then I think we're ready to call the roll.

19:19Excuse me, Chair.

19:20Okay, yes.

19:21I just wanted to get some clarification on that motion.

19:24Staff have not recommended any conditions for this file.

19:28They're just recommending approval.

19:30Member Smith, does that make sense to you?

19:34It does and I withdraw that part of my motion.

19:40Okay, and to our secretary treasurer,

19:42does that satisfy protocol if we are able

19:45to withdraw that section of the motion?

19:48Yes, if we could just get the secondary to reconfirm

19:50and we can proceed.

19:52Okay, Member Meir has confirmed.

19:58Okay, thank you, Chair.

19:59Committee members, please indicate your vote

20:02by responding in favor or opposed to the motion,

20:06which is to approve the application.

20:13Chair Goodfellow.

20:14In favor.

20:16Member Smith.

20:18In favor.

20:19Member Fitzpatrick.

20:21In favor.

20:23Member Meir.

20:24In favor.

20:25Member Ross.

20:26In favor.

20:27And Member Spears.

20:28In favor.

20:29Chair, this motion has carried.

20:32Okay, great.

20:33So your application has been approved

20:36and so you are now free to leave chambers

20:38or stay if you'd like to continue on with us this afternoon.

20:43Okay.

20:45Thank you.

20:48Okay, I think then secretary treasurer,

20:51if you could call the next application please.

20:54Thank you.

20:55The next file is file A-20-26 for 128 Dufferin Street,

21:03variance to permit increased maximum front yard setback

21:07and permit location of accessory structures,

21:10shed and hot tub in front yard.

21:13Dufferin Street on the through lot.

21:18If you wish to speak to this application,

21:20please call the number shown on screen.

21:23The number is 519-822-1260 extension 2524.

21:36When your call is received,

21:37staff will provide you with instructions

21:39on how you can delegate remotely by phone.

21:42This is the final opportunity to call in

21:44regarding this application.

21:48Thank you.

21:50Is the applicant present?

21:53Yes, hi, please come forward.

22:04Hi.

22:06Hi, good afternoon.

22:07Can you state your name and relationship to the application?

22:10Yeah, Hailey Kies from Van Hart and surveying

22:12and the agent.

22:14Okay, great.

22:15And was the sign posted for the planning act requirements?

22:17Yes.

22:18And have you read staff comments and are you in agreement?

22:20Yes.

22:21Okay, great.

22:2210 minutes to address the committee.

22:24Thank you.

22:25So the property contains an existing dwelling and shed

22:28right now, which are planned to be demolished

22:30and a new house, shed and hot tub are proposed,

22:35essentially to be built in the same place.

22:37The property is a through lot.

22:39So there's frontage along Dufferin Street

22:41and the public lane.

22:43And being a through lot, there's two front yards

22:45and no technical rear yard,

22:47which is why the three variances are required.

22:51And these are all for the frontage along Dufferin Street.

22:56The yard essentially functions as the rear yard

23:01with the large amenity space.

23:04The front yard setbacks are all met from the public lane

23:07and the existing access will remain from the lane.

23:13Overall staff were supportive

23:15and there weren't any concerns raised.

23:18And the tree plan that is included as a condition,

23:22that's been completed and submitted to staff

23:25for their review.

23:26So if there's any questions, I'd be happy to answer.

23:31Okay, thank you.

23:32Wait just there for a second.

23:34We'll see if our committee members have some questions,

23:36but I'll check in with staff.

23:37Staff, do you have any comments to make to this application

23:40before we move to questions?

23:43No, okay.

23:45So yes, committee members,

23:46do we have questions for the applicant or staff?

23:51Member Smith.

23:55Thank you, Chair.

23:56Quick questions through you to staff.

24:00I understand that this is a through yard

24:01and so this is as the applicant stated

24:06is essentially grandfathering the way the site is at present.

24:15As it's been operating as a backyard forever,

24:18were another development application to come forward

24:23in the future, would they have to come back

24:26to committee of adjustment to,

24:30if they had any other sort of,

24:34let's say they wanted to bump out at the back,

24:36would that require another committee of adjustment here?

24:45Through the chair to member Smith.

24:47Yeah, that could potentially require another

24:50committee of adjustment application.

24:52Thank you.

24:57Thank you very much.

24:58I'm just curious, is there something that we could do

25:02as a committee that would allow this use?

25:07And so as long as any future application

25:12complied with the rear yard setbacks,

25:15that they wouldn't have to come to committee?

25:23Through the chair to member Smith.

25:26I think that's something that could potentially be done

25:27through another planning act application,

25:29but I don't know if that's necessarily appropriate

25:32for the, for a minor variance application.

25:34Rather, we're just reviewing what is being proposed

25:37to us by the applicant.

25:39Okay, I appreciate that.

25:41Thank you chair.

25:42I do have one follow up and it stems from

25:48what the applicant said.

25:51And through you, I'm not sure if this is to the applicant

25:55or it's to staff, but it was mentioned

25:57about the tree protection plan.

25:59Is there a little more information

26:01that we could have about what that would involve?

26:09Thank you.

26:10I mean, it's a pretty standard condition.

26:15Yeah, from what I understand, I'm not sure who completed it,

26:18but it's been submitted to the landscape planner

26:22for their review.

26:27Okay, I guess through you chair,

26:30I don't want to belabor this a whole lot.

26:33This is straightforward application.

26:35It's just, I know that this is quite a leafy backyard

26:39and there seem to be several mature trees.

26:42So I wasn't sure based on what's been said

26:46and presented if that would mean the damage

26:49or destruction to trees on that property.

26:55Yeah, to be honest, I haven't seen the tree plan yet,

26:59but I assume, you know, the house is in a similar place

27:04as to where it is now or sorry, the proposed houses,

27:08but they would take the necessary measures

27:10to ensure proper preservation for any trees,

27:15but I'm not certain how many may have to be removed.

27:21Okay, thank you for that chair.

27:24Can I ask staff to impine on that through you?

27:28Yes, certainly staff.

27:35Through the chair to members Smith.

27:37So this is a typical condition for applications

27:40that are expanding a footprint

27:41or changing a building footprint

27:43that our landscape planning staff request.

27:46The applicant is already a little bit ahead of the game

27:48and has already submitted their tree inventory

27:50and preservation plan to our landscape planner for review,

27:53but they haven't had an opportunity

27:54to review that in detail yet.

27:57So typically the way that it works

27:59is the landscape planner would receive that tip

28:03or tree inventory and preservation plan

28:05after the application has been approved conditionally

28:08and if they have any concerns

28:10about whether or not the proposal conforms

28:12with the city's tree bylaw,

28:14then they would take appropriate measures at that time,

28:16either for compensation or for modifications

28:20to the proposal in order to preserve trees.

28:23But ultimately our landscape planner can't determine that

28:26until they have seen the preservation plan

28:28and reviewed it accordingly.

28:33Thank you very much.

28:34I appreciate the information.

28:38Thank you, members Smith.

28:40Any other questions for the delegate or the staff?

28:46Okay, seeing none then I think we'll ask

28:48for delegations at this time.

28:51Secretary Treasurer.

28:53Thank you, Chair.

28:54I can confirm we have no preregistered delegates

28:56and there are no delegates online.

28:59Okay, thank you.

29:00Is there anyone in chambers who would like to come forward

29:02and delegate to this application?

29:07Okay, seeing none.

29:09Then I, at this point we can move forward

29:13and ask for a motion by our members.

29:17Member Meir.

29:18Yeah, I move the motion for approval

29:22and would like to keep the condition

29:23though the plan for tree has been submitted,

29:27but being in a dynamic state,

29:28I think we still keep the condition.

29:31Okay, thank you.

29:32Member Meir, a seconder.

29:34Member Spears, seconds.

29:37Okay, at this point then we can have a discussion

29:39on the motion.

29:40Any comments or thoughts from the members?

29:45Okay, seeing shaking hands.

29:47All right.

29:50Secretary Treasurer, can you please call the vote?

29:54Thank you, Chair.

29:55Committee members, please indicate your vote

29:57by responding in favor or opposed to the motion.

30:03Chair Goodfellow.

30:04In favor.

30:06Member Smith.

30:08In favor.

30:10Member Fitzpatrick.

30:12In favor.

30:13Member Meir.

30:14In favor.

30:15Member Ross.

30:16In favor.

30:17And Member Spears.

30:18In favor.

30:20Thank you, Chair.

30:21That motion is carried.

30:23Okay, thank you, Secretary Treasurer.

30:25So the application has been approved

30:27and you're good to go for this afternoon.

30:29Thank you.

30:33Okay, moving forward, Secretary Treasurer,

30:35can you call the next application please?

30:40The next file is A-19-26930 Woodlawn Road West.

30:50It is a variance to permit complimentary uses

30:53within a standalone building in combination

30:57with a primary permitted use on the same property.

31:01If you wish to speak to this application,

31:03please call 519-822-1260 Extension 2524.

31:16When your call is received,

31:18staff will provide you with instructions

31:19on how you can delegate remotely by phone.

31:22This is the final opportunity

31:24to call in regarding this application.

31:29Thank you, I see the applicant is present and at the podium.

31:32Can I ask you to state your name and your relationship,

31:35please?

31:35Agio, I'm the agent for Woodlawn Rest Mall.

31:38Okay, thank you.

31:39And was the sign posted

31:40as per the Planning Act requirements?

31:42Two signs were posted, yes.

31:43Great, and have you reviewed City staff or staff's comments?

31:48Do you have any, are you in agreement

31:51with the recommended commissions?

31:52Yes, I am.

31:52Okay, that's wonderful.

31:54You have 10 minutes now to address the committee.

31:56I have nothing to present.

31:57I, it's pretty self-explanatory,

31:59so I'm just here to answer any questions

32:01anybody would have on the committee.

32:04Okay, thank you.

32:06Short and sweet.

32:08City staff, do we have any comments

32:11or anything to add to this application?

32:13Okay, then I think we can move over to committee members.

32:18Do you folks have any questions

32:19for the applicant or staff on this application?

32:23Seeing some, okay, Member Smith, please go ahead.

32:28I'm three for three, I'm afraid to chair.

32:31Through you to staff,

32:33I guess I'm a little at sea about this.

32:41In a past meeting this year,

32:44we had a similar application in employment area,

32:53where a gentleman wanted to,

32:57sorry, my light is failing here,

33:01where a applicant was looking to put a yoga studio

33:06in part of employment area,

33:14and staff's recommendation was to refuse that application

33:19and we listened to professional staffs

33:21and agreed with them in that case.

33:24And so I, through you chair, I'd like to ask staff,

33:29what is different in this application

33:32than what we saw in that application?

33:40Through you chair, Demand, and Smith.

33:41So I don't think I was the one on the file for that one,

33:45but it sounds like the yoga studio

33:47would have been recreation use,

33:50or a use that's not normally permitted,

33:52it's being bought into the zone.

33:54So the difference between that one

33:56and the one you have before you

33:58is the one for 930 Woodlawn

34:00is only to permit complimentary uses

34:03that would have normally been allowed as a right

34:05if it wasn't in a separate building.

34:08So the yoga studio would have been a new use

34:10that's not permitted in the zone entirely.

34:14And this one, you're permitting it as a complimentary use,

34:19the key difference being in standalone building

34:22versus multi-unit building.

34:24Okay, so forgive me chair,

34:27I do have a follow up on that

34:29because I'm not quite following.

34:33What I'm struggling with is the difference

34:36between a complimentary use in the standalone building

34:42and what that entails,

34:46because it all seems to be employment

34:49rather than professional service or something like that.

34:58Through you chair, Demand, and Smith.

35:00So complimentary uses are meant to primarily service

35:04the primary permitted uses on a lot.

35:08So the ones that are currently permitted

35:10for complimentary uses, community centered,

35:12drive through facility, bank, office, and restaurant.

35:15So we can see that servicing the main employment uses

35:20that are permitted as a primary use.

35:23I think for the yoga studio,

35:25that wasn't quite the case that we could see it.

35:30Like a yoga studio directly servicing

35:33the employment lands nearby.

35:38Thank you for that.

35:39And one more final follow up chair, if I may.

35:45Hypothetically, where there's a yoga studio,

35:48would that be considered a complimentary use

35:51or would that be a new use

35:54and not permitted under the zoning bylaw

35:56and not considered minor in nature?

36:00That would be a new use and I wouldn't be minor in nature.

36:04If for some reason they connected the standalone building,

36:07we wouldn't need a variance today.

36:11Okay, I appreciate that.

36:13Thank you for the information.

36:16Thank you, Member Smith.

36:19Any other questions?

36:22I have one.

36:24So this question is for city staff.

36:27And I just want to make sure I have it crystal clear,

36:29my own head.

36:32I think you just made a comment that if this had been

36:35an attached building, this wouldn't be required.

36:38This variance wouldn't be required.

36:40So am I just understanding that all we are doing

36:45is looking at this grouping of buildings

36:49as a one unit versus three separate buildings?

36:53And what we're trying to do here is just make sure

36:55that they are viewed as one development

36:58or as one building so that it can be,

37:01we can have accessory uses, complimentary uses

37:05in building C.

37:08To you, Chair, that's basically it, yes?

37:11Yep, okay, that's good, then I've got it.

37:13Thank you for that.

37:15Then, okay, any final questions?

37:18Okay, I think then, Secretary Treasurer,

37:21we are over to delegations.

37:24Thank you, Chair.

37:25I can confirm that we have no pre-registered delegates

37:27and no delegates online.

37:29Okay, I'll turn to chambers.

37:31Is there anyone in chambers who would like to come forward

37:33and delegate on this application?

37:36Okay, seeing none.

37:38I think then at this point,

37:40I will just check in with the applicant.

37:41Do you have any final comments

37:43or thoughts you'd like to offer?

37:44No, that's okay, great.

37:47Then I will turn over to our committee

37:49and ask for a motion.

37:55Member Spears.

37:56I move that we approve this application

37:59following the approval or the recommendation

38:01by city staff.

38:03Okay, thank you, is there a seconder?

38:05I second.

38:06Member Meir is seconding.

38:09Okay, I guess now we can open the floor

38:11to discussion on the motion in front of us.

38:15Any comments or thoughts from our members?

38:20Okay, seeing none, then I think we can move

38:22into the roll call.

38:24Secretary Treasurer, can you please call the vote?

38:27Committee members, please indicate your vote

38:29by responding in favor or opposed to the motion,

38:33which is to approve the application.

38:36Chair Goodfellow.

38:37In favor.

38:39Member Smith.

38:40In favor.

38:42Member Fitzpatrick.

38:44In favor.

38:46Member Meir.

38:47In favor.

38:48Member Ross.

38:49In favor.

38:50And Member Spears.

38:51In favor.

38:53That motion has carried, Chair.

38:56Thank you, Secretary Treasurer,

38:58and thank you to the applicant.

39:03Okay, moving on, can you please call

39:06the next application for us, Secretary Treasurer?

39:12Thank you, Chair.

39:14The next file is B-30-26, 10N12 Mason Court.

39:22If you wish to speak to this application,

39:24please call the number shown on the screen.

39:27The number is 519-822-1260, extension 2524.

39:37When your call is received,

39:39staff will provide you with instructions

39:41on how you can delegate remotely by phone.

39:44This is the final opportunity

39:45to call in regarding this application.

39:49Thank you, is the applicant present?

39:51Yes, okay, please come forward to the podium.

40:06Welcome, can you please state your name

40:08and relationship to the application?

40:12Sure, I'm Justin Black, I'm a lawyer at Robson Carpenter,

40:15and excuse me, the applicant for the owner of the property.

40:19Okay, was the sign posted for the planning act requirements?

40:22I understand that it was, yes.

40:24And have you received staff comments

40:25and are you in agreement with their?

40:27Have received and agreed with the comments.

40:30Okay, that's great.

40:31You have 10 minutes to address the committee.

40:33Sure, so I'm really here just to answer any questions

40:39if there are, so I'll just do a quick run through.

40:43This application is, I think the first of its kind

40:46in a weird one, in that we're applying for severances,

40:52really just to change the certificates

40:56that were granted for the property.

40:58So these two properties, 10 and 12 Mason Court,

41:02were part of a previous severance application B4 slash 22

41:07to B12, 22, which were, the severance was completed

41:13in 2024, July 2024.

41:16On these two properties, there's already,

41:20following that severance, there's a semi-detached home

41:24on each 10 and 12 and then an additional dwelling unit

41:27in the rear yard, which was all a part

41:30of that original severance.

41:32I'm here today because essentially how that original

41:38severance in 2024 was completed or really applied for it

41:43was the application had a request to create new lots

41:48and lot line adjustments.

41:50And I mean hindsight being 2020,

41:55it was created unforeseen problems.

41:59So essentially what had happened is that the property

42:04that was subject to that initial application

42:06had two separate parcel registers

42:09that were not consolidated in the land registry office

42:13at the time of the application and the completion.

42:17So what happened was the,

42:20and the base on how the requests were made

42:22is that in the end, 10 Mason has two separate consent

42:28certificates and 12 Mason also has two separate

42:31consent certificates.

42:34Is there a way to throw the reference plan on this green?

42:39It was part of the application.

42:40It would be helpful.

42:48So yeah, so this is the reference plan

42:50from the original severance and is the reference plan

42:55intending to be used here as well.

42:57So 10 and 12 Mason are highlighted in blue and red,

43:05but basically they're both properties are made up

43:10of two parts on that reference plan.

43:12And that's essentially because the underlying

43:15existing parcel registers, the line between those two

43:19is the line between one and seven and two and eight.

43:25So even though right now parts one and seven form 12 Mason

43:31and two and eight form 10 Mason,

43:34I hope I don't have that backwards, but that's fine.

43:39Right now both parts one and two,

43:42which are the fronts of both of the lots

43:44have the, what's commonly referred to as the

43:47once a consent always a consent certificate.

43:51And parts seven and eight have the one time

43:54consent certificates.

43:57And those, so what this has done is,

44:01it's a really technical planning act issue,

44:04but essentially, from our clients perspective,

44:10they can't hold 10 and 12 Mason

44:13in the exact same registered ownership

44:16or else parts seven and eight will merge together

44:20legally under the planning act.

44:23And from our clients perspective,

44:26this is important to get the new consent certificates

44:30for, because they, even though they separate all these

44:34through the severance process,

44:36they intend to hold them longterm for rentals.

44:39And ideally want these two properties being either side

44:43of a semi-detached to be under the same ownership,

44:45but just more broadly, there's a,

44:47I think a fundamental planning act issue here

44:50with how it's done in that technically,

44:54because parts one and two, which are the first,

44:57the front parts of both 10 and 12 Mason

44:59have the once a consent, always a consent stamp.

45:03Those half of those lots could be transferred

45:07to a third party, leaving the remnants,

45:10which would be part seven for 10 Mason

45:13or parts eight for 12 Mason as a landlocked,

45:17but legally separate lot,

45:20which is not desired by our client,

45:23nor is it, I think, in the interest of the city.

45:25So this application is really just to correct

45:28the consent certificates with the request

45:30to basically replace the existing certificates

45:33so that there's just one certificate for 10 Mason

45:36and one certificate for 12 Mason.

45:42Okay, thank you for that explanation.

45:45That is more clear in my head at least,

45:47so I appreciate that.

45:51I guess at this point, I'm just gonna check in

45:52then with city staff and see if there are any comments

45:55on that.

45:56Yes, please go ahead.

45:58Through you, Madam Chair.

46:01Yeah, so essentially this is really

46:03a technical procedure in nature.

46:05There's no new buildings proposed, no new lots proposed.

46:09The existing semi-detached dwellings

46:11at 10 and 12 Mason will remain on the site.

46:14This is really just cleaning things up

46:16from a planning act perspective.

46:18So staff have no concerns with this application

46:21or the following application,

46:22which is kind of parcel of the same situation.

46:27Okay, yes, thank you.

46:29That's helpful as well.

46:31All right, then I'm gonna turn to our committee members

46:33and see if there are any questions.

46:34Yes, Member Mears.

46:35Yes, Madam Chair, to the staff.

46:38I just have a query, as a adjustment committee,

46:40what we are trying to approve here

46:43because this is more a planning issue

46:45should have been sorted at your end

46:49by the certificates which have to be realigned.

46:52So it's not a variance, it's not something.

46:55So what makes this case to come here to adjustment,

46:59just for understanding?

47:01So we are approving more here.

47:09Sure, through the Chair, to Member Meagher,

47:11maybe I'll let the applicant speak to that a bit further,

47:14but ultimately maybe the order of the applications

47:16would have been better if it was reversed,

47:17but the following application is to rescind

47:20the previous severance application

47:22and then this application would be to put in

47:25a new severance application that would clean things up.

47:28So that way parts one and seven will stick together

47:30and parts two and eight will stay together.

47:33So it is just a bit of a legal issue.

47:36The style of development, severing existing semi-detached

47:41or single detached lots and building semi-detached lots

47:45is something that was relatively new in the city

47:47at the time that this was approved.

47:49So that's kind of like the applicant had said,

47:51it was a bit of a hindsight is 2020 situation.

47:54The applicant and the city would have insisted upon

47:57doing it the right way if we knew that this was

47:59the improper way of going about things,

48:02but it's in hindsight that we realized that

48:05this is now the proper way of doing things

48:06the way that the applicant is looking at it now.

48:09Yeah, through the chair if I may.

48:12Yeah, so this severance was one of the earlier applications

48:18which our client has done I think six since this one at least.

48:22And our office working with city staff have really cleaned it up

48:27to ensure this won't happen again.

48:29I think one of the biggest changes that we've seen

48:32on all of the severances following this one

48:35is any instance where there's two parcel registers

48:39that are part of the application,

48:41one of the conditions imposed is that those be consolidated

48:46first as a condition of approval

48:49with the land registry office.

48:50So this exact scenario can be avoided.

48:55And it was just a further technical aspect

48:58on the original application is that

49:02it was approved with the statement that for part seven

49:06and eight that the planning act applies following

49:10because they were part lots.

49:11So it was just, yeah, I think it was an inadvertent

49:15that again we've cleaned up the process

49:18and I think it's pretty standard now for anything like this

49:22that I've seen through this committee

49:23that a condition is imposed for consolidating

49:27those parcel registers to avoid this.

49:32Member Meir, does that address your question?

49:36Yep, okay, that's great, thank you.

49:38Any other questions for members?

49:43Okay, seeing none, then I'm going to turn

49:45to our secretary treasurer and ask if there are delegations.

49:49Thank you, chair.

49:50I can confirm that we have received no delegation requests

49:52and there are none online.

49:54Okay, thank you.

49:55I'll turn to the chambers.

49:56Is there anyone in chambers who'd like to come forward

49:58and delegate?

50:00Okay, seeing none.

50:03Then I think at this point I'll just check in

50:05with city staff to make sure there's no further

50:07thoughts or comments you folks would like to add.

50:10Okay, shaking head and the applicant, nothing further.

50:13Okay, that's great.

50:15I think at this point then we can move forward

50:18and I will ask committee members for a motion.

50:21Member Fitzpatrick.

50:24A motion that we approve the application

50:30as outlined in the agenda

50:32with the conditions that that was opposed.

50:36Thank you, is there a seconder?

50:38Member Ross.

50:40Okay, that's great.

50:41Any discussion on the motion in front of us?

50:46Okay, seeing none, then I think we can, secretary treasurer,

50:50I think we can go forward with the vote, please.

50:53Thank you, chair.

50:54Committee members, please indicate your vote

50:56by responding in favor or opposed to the motion,

51:00which is to approve the application with conditions.

51:04Chair, good fellow.

51:05In favor.

51:07Member Smith.

51:09In favor.

51:10Member Fitzpatrick.

51:12In favor.

51:14Member Meir.

51:15In favor.

51:16Member Ross.

51:17In favor.

51:19And member Spears.

51:20In favor.

51:22Thank you, chair, that motion has carried.

51:24Thank you, secretary treasurer.

51:26So your motion has been approved

51:29and I understand that you are staying with us

51:31for the next one, so I'll ask you maybe

51:32to just hang right there.

51:34And secretary treasurer,

51:35can we please call the next application?

51:39Thank you.

51:40The next files are B-31-26,

51:45B-32-26,

51:47B-33-26,

51:50and B-34-26.

51:52For 10 and 12 Mason Court,

51:55it is a request for cancellation certificates

51:57for the previous consent files,

52:00B-4-24 through B-7-24.

52:06If you wish to speak to this application,

52:09please call the number shown on screen.

52:12The number is 519-822-1260,

52:20extension 2524.

52:23When your call is received,

52:24staff will provide you with instructions

52:26on how you can delegate remotely by phone.

52:29This is the final opportunity

52:30to call in regarding this application.

52:34Thank you.

52:35Since the applicant is already here,

52:39but I do need to ask you to state your name again

52:42and your relationship with the applicant.

52:44Certainly, chair.

52:45Justin Black, lawyer for Robson Carpenter,

52:48we are acting on behalf of the owner as an applicant.

52:52Okay, thank you.

52:53And was the sign posted for the planning act requirements?

52:57This was part of the original application,

52:59but I don't believe there was actually a sign

53:00for this request.

53:02It's a weird one.

53:04Okay, fair.

53:05Thank you.

53:06And have you received staff comments

53:08and are you in agreement with recommended conditions?

53:10Received, I agree.

53:11Okay, wonderful.

53:12So you have another 10 minutes.

53:14If you'd like to make use of that, please go ahead.

53:19Thank you, chair.

53:20I think I hope this will be, excuse me, quick.

53:24So this is in relation to the previous application just heard.

53:29This is a request to cancel the existing consent certificates

53:34for 10 and 12 Mason.

53:36This request comes because the planning act, section 50,

53:39there's a subsection that says we need to apply for

53:43and have the committee approve the request for cancellation.

53:47So as part of the issuance of the new consent certificates,

53:53we need to cancel the original,

53:56and that's the request on this application.

54:01Okay, thank you.

54:02Very helpful.

54:04City staff, anything to add there?

54:06No, okay, that's great.

54:08So I think then members,

54:11do we have questions for staff or the applicant?

54:16Yes, member Meir, please go ahead.

54:18For the applicant, the administration requirements

54:22like fees to pay another condition,

54:25have you already met it for the cancellation?

54:29As you are aware of these conditions.

54:32So these requirements that the fee should have been paid

54:36and this in order to, so what?

54:39So the, I know the fee for this application to be heard

54:44tonight has been paid.

54:47There's a separate condition for a further fee

54:50that would be part of the conditions of approval,

54:53but yeah, I'm not sure exactly what you're asking.

54:59No, I'm asking the requirement

55:01by the committee of just my administration was

55:04that the fee to be paid.

55:08So these are conditions for us to approve.

55:11So are you, should we approve with these conditions

55:15or part of them are already met?

55:17So I'm just wondering where do we stand in this case?

55:35So there is in the proposed conditions,

55:38there's a administrative fee to be paid

55:42for the issuance of the cancellations.

55:45I will say this is the,

55:47from what I understand in talking with city staff,

55:51this is the first that the city of Guelph has

55:55and this committee has seen a request for cancellation.

55:58So we're actually still trying to work out exactly

56:00what the process is going to look like

56:02as far as registration.

56:04But in these, in the draft conditions,

56:09there's an administrative fee.

56:11Our client had no dispute over that fee.

56:14So we're not protesting or asking for it

56:17to be changed or struck.

56:18I will rephrase what I mean is this approval

56:24with condition means this administrative.

56:27So is it that, so it's still to be processed, right?

56:31Then we will incorporate the approval

56:33with the requirements.

56:35Otherwise, if that is already achieved,

56:37then there is no need to add any such requirement.

56:42So just for my sake, if we have to move the motion,

56:49then is it with the condition or without the condition

56:51if you have already met?

56:53Really it is not a very issue rather than the cancellation.

56:57So this is the only part where we are looking at it.

57:02I maybe can try and clarify.

57:04Yes, yeah.

57:05What I mean.

57:06I think you're asking if any of the three conditions

57:10as listed have already been met.

57:13Yes.

57:14In advance of this hearing.

57:15Yeah, if that is done, then we only say approve.

57:19Otherwise, say approval with that.

57:21Yes, okay.

57:22So yes, I guess to the applicant then,

57:25of the three conditions listed,

57:27have any of those already been met

57:29and could be removed from the application

57:32that we are about to review?

57:34Okay, understood.

57:36No, from my perspective,

57:39none of the three conditions have been met yet.

57:43The first being the administrative fee

57:45for the issuance of the certificate,

57:47much like we see for the issuance of the certificates

57:53for an actual severance.

57:54So that hasn't been paid yet

57:56because that comes right when we're about

57:59to be ready to register.

58:01The second being registrable legal description.

58:06So this is the actual document

58:08that our office will be preparing to provide

58:11to the city to approve.

58:14That has not been prepared yet either.

58:16And that's also one thing we're still trying to work out

58:18what it actually looks like.

58:19Cause this is a relatively new provision in the planning act.

58:24And then the third is the undertaking

58:27that I would be providing

58:29that we would provide the registered document

58:32once it's registered.

58:33And I have not completed that undertaking either.

58:36So no issue with these three conditions.

58:39And I think they all honestly should be part

58:43of the committee's decision tonight.

58:46Thank you.

58:47Yep, that's great.

58:48And thank you for that additional explanation.

58:50I think I was also confused about this set of application.

58:54So appreciate the additional detail you've gone into here.

58:58Any other members with questions?

59:02No. Okay. Great.

59:03And then I think a secretary treasurer.

59:06Do we have any delegations?

59:09Chair, I can confirm that we have no pre-registered

59:11delegates and no delegates online.

59:14Okay. Thank you.

59:15Anyone in chambers who would like to come forward

59:17and delegate?

59:19Okay. Seeing none.

59:21Then I think we're back over to the committee

59:24to look for a motion.

59:26Does anyone like, would anyone like to make a motion?

59:28Yeah. Member Meir.

59:29Yeah. I move the motion with the condition for approval.

59:33Okay. Thank you.

59:34A seconder.

59:36Member Fitzpatrick.

59:38All right.

59:39Open the floor to discussion then on the motion.

59:42Members, any thoughts or comments here

59:43before we move to a vote?

59:46Okay. Seeing none.

59:48Secretary treasurer, can you please call the vote?

59:52Committee members, please indicate your vote

59:54by responding in favor or opposed to the motion,

59:57which is to approve the application with conditions.

1:00:02Chair Goodfellow.

1:00:03In favor.

1:00:04Member Smith.

1:00:06In favor.

1:00:07Member Fitzpatrick.

1:00:09In favor.

1:00:11Member Meir.

1:00:12In favor.

1:00:14Member Ross.

1:00:15In favor.

1:00:16Member Spears.

1:00:17In favor.

1:00:19Chair, this motion has carried.

1:00:21Okay. Thank you.

1:00:22Your application has been approved.

1:00:24Thank you, Chair.

1:00:25Thank you.

1:00:28Okay. Secretary treasurer,

1:00:30can you please call the next application?

1:00:34Thank you, Chair.

1:00:35The next file is a-21 slash 26 for 265 Eremosa Road.

1:00:44It's a variance to permit reduced setbacks

1:00:47from lotline abutting and institutional use,

1:00:51reduced first story window transparency,

1:00:54and reduced minimum building, sorry,

1:00:57reduced minimum building height

1:00:59for proposed standalone restaurant with drive-through.

1:01:03If you wish to speak to this application,

1:01:06please call the number 519-822-1260 extension 2524.

1:01:18When your call is received,

1:01:20staff will provide you with instructions

1:01:22on how you can delegate remotely by phone.

1:01:25This is the final opportunity to call in

1:01:27regarding this application.

1:01:31Thank you.

1:01:33Looks like the applicant may be with us in chambers.

1:01:35Can you come forward to the podium, please?

1:01:42Welcome.

1:01:44Can you state your name and your relationship

1:01:46to the application?

1:01:47Yes. Good afternoon.

1:01:49My name is Claudio Belbinow from the Agor Research Group.

1:01:52We're representing the registered owner of 265 Eremosa Road.

1:01:56Okay. Thank you.

1:01:57Was the sign posted for the Planning Act requirements?

1:02:00Yes, it was.

1:02:01Okay.

1:02:02And have you received staff comments,

1:02:04and are you in agreement with the recommended conditions?

1:02:06Yes, we received staff comments,

1:02:07and we are in agreement with the report.

1:02:10Okay. Thank you.

1:02:12You have 10 minutes,

1:02:12and I'm just gonna ask you if you could get

1:02:14a little closer to the microphone.

1:02:16Of course. Thank you.

1:02:17Is that better?

1:02:18Yes, thank you.

1:02:18Appreciate that.

1:02:20Yes, you have 10 minutes, so please go ahead.

1:02:21Okay. Thank you.

1:02:23We submitted a couple of site planning and elevation.

1:02:26I wonder if you could show that on the screen.

1:02:30For some context.

1:02:32Great. Perfect. Thank you.

1:02:34Okay. So, as you're aware,

1:02:35the development proposal entails the construction

1:02:37of a new standalone Burger King drive-through restaurant,

1:02:41measuring approximately 244 square meters,

1:02:45which will be located on the northeast,

1:02:47sorry, northwest corner of the site, Shondong Green.

1:02:51The balance of the site comprising

1:02:52of the existing retail commercial plaza will remain as is.

1:02:58The owner is seeking minor variance relief

1:03:01for the following three zone standards

1:03:03related to the 2023 Gulf Sloning Bylaw.

1:03:07The first variance is related to the reduction

1:03:11to the minimum setback of a drive-through facility

1:03:14from any lot line that abuts an institutional use

1:03:18from 15 meters to 12.81 meters

1:03:21to permit a drive-through facility on the site.

1:03:24In order to mitigate the setback reduction,

1:03:26the applicant has increased the landscape buffer

1:03:28north of the building footprint area by more than double

1:03:32from three meters to 6.8 meters.

1:03:34Furthermore, a new 1.8 meter acoustic fence is proposed

1:03:39along the northern property line.

1:03:43Also of note is a substantial difference in elevations

1:03:45between the proposed drive-through facility

1:03:48and the adjacent and institutional use.

1:03:52The institutional use ground level is approximately

1:03:54two meters below the ground level

1:03:57of the proposed drive-through restaurant use,

1:03:59thereby further buffering the two uses.

1:04:03The second variance relates to reducing

1:04:07that the transparent windows and active entrance surface area

1:04:12the front onto Aramosa Road.

1:04:15Applicant is requesting a reduction

1:04:18from the required 40% of the area to 31% of the area

1:04:22within the first four and a half meters

1:04:24of the building height from ground level.

1:04:27Unfortunately, due to the structural design of the building

1:04:30and the interior floor plan layout,

1:04:33it was difficult to increase the transparency

1:04:35of a window surface area more than 31%.

1:04:40The third variance is requested to permit

1:04:43a minimum building height of 5.38 meters

1:04:47instead of the required 7.5 meters height.

1:04:51The difference in height is mitigated by the fact

1:04:53that the proposed Burger King restaurant ground level

1:04:56is approximately 1.2 meters above the Aramosa Road

1:05:00surface elevation, thereby achieving the urban street

1:05:03presence and an attractive street scape for pedestrians.

1:05:09Furthermore, it's our understanding that the minimum 7.5

1:05:14height standard is still under appeal

1:05:17and that the applicant is in compliance

1:05:18with the 1995 zoning by-law,

1:05:21where a three-story to a maximum 15-meter height

1:05:24is permitted.

1:05:27So in summary, we have read the Committee

1:05:29of Adjustment Comments from staff and agencies

1:05:32and agree with the report.

1:05:34We further acknowledge that staff have no objections

1:05:36to the approval of the minor variance requests.

1:05:39We also note that there are no conditions

1:05:41related to the approval.

1:05:43We further note that there were several comments

1:05:45from adjacent landowners.

1:05:47Most of the critical comments relate to traffic congestion,

1:05:50noise issues, lighting, and garbage.

1:05:53As part of the site plan approval submission process,

1:05:56traffic, noise, and lighting studies will ensure

1:05:59that the issues raised by the residents

1:06:01will not impact the properties.

1:06:04Furthermore, the in-ground garbage bin design

1:06:07reduces the amount of stray garbage on site

1:06:09as strong winds will not scatter plastic

1:06:12or paper throughout the property.

1:06:14So thank you for your consideration.

1:06:16I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have.

1:06:20Thank you.

1:06:22I'm going to turn to city staff to ask

1:06:24if they have a presentation before we move

1:06:26to committee questions.

1:06:29Yes, please go ahead.

1:06:30To you, Madam Chair,

1:06:31city staff do not have a presentation for this application.

1:06:35Okay, thank you.

1:06:39Then I guess at this point, we can open the floor

1:06:41to the members to ask questions

1:06:44of the applicant or city staff on this application.

1:06:47Members, Member Smith.

1:06:52Thank you, Chair.

1:06:53Through you to first to the applicant,

1:06:57and I wonder if staff can bring the site plan back up.

1:07:09Thank you.

1:07:10To the applicant through you, Chair,

1:07:16is it my understanding, looking at the site plan,

1:07:19that the active entrance will not be on Eremosa,

1:07:25but will be through the parking lot?

1:07:27Is that correct?

1:07:29No, the active, excuse me,

1:07:34through you, Madam Chair,

1:07:37the active entrance will be facing Eremosa.

1:07:41We also have elevation drawings,

1:07:43perhaps the second drawing that we provided

1:07:47would be possible to, there it is.

1:07:49Okay, so I do see the door on that one.

1:07:52Yeah, it's the upper left-hand corner elevation.

1:07:56That will be the active entrance.

1:08:02Okay, through you, Chair, to the applicant,

1:08:07on your plan, if we can have the site plan up again,

1:08:13active entrance appears to not be consistent

1:08:17with what you said.

1:08:19The arrow, the red arrow seems to indicate

1:08:22it's through the parking lot and not on the Eremosa side.

1:08:27Okay, so apologies for the confusion.

1:08:31The zoning by-law required an entrance on facing Eremosa,

1:08:35but the active entrance is where the red arrow is showing.

1:08:41Okay, thank you.

1:08:44Again, through you, Chair, to the applicant,

1:08:47is it my reading of this site plan

1:08:51that it's proposed to remove the existing walkway

1:08:56from Eremosa and replace it with one

1:09:00close to the Eremosa car entrance?

1:09:03Is that the case?

1:09:05Yes, that's the proposal,

1:09:06and that was based upon discussions

1:09:08with the city landscape architect

1:09:11and also the city engineer.

1:09:14Okay, thank you.

1:09:15And I guess I'm a little unclear

1:09:20about where the 15-meter setback lands.

1:09:29The setback isn't indicated on the plan.

1:09:32This is the, I guess, item A.

1:09:41It would-

1:09:42So basically it's the northwest corner

1:09:48to see the little jog out there

1:09:50where the drive-through window is.

1:09:55So that is supposed to be,

1:09:57the requirement is for that to be 15 meters

1:10:00from the lot line.

1:10:02So we're requesting a distance of 12.81 meters.

1:10:08Okay, thank you.

1:10:10And through you, Chair, to the applicant,

1:10:15I do note 1.8 meter high acoustic fence is called out,

1:10:23but I'm not sure how far that extends.

1:10:26Does that adjust cover the first,

1:10:33like, number of meters,

1:10:36or does that go all the way back to the proper line?

1:10:40No, so if we blow it up a little bit more,

1:10:44again, it's, okay.

1:10:46So it, yeah, so existing fence, okay.

1:10:52So see where it says new 1.8 on the corner

1:10:55where now upper right-hand corner?

1:10:56I do.

1:10:57Yeah, so it'll go right along up to the drive-through,

1:11:00the order boards, which is located

1:11:04at stacking space number four.

1:11:07So it starts at that location and carries?

1:11:12No, it starts right from the,

1:11:14almost the property line on narrow-mose

1:11:17and goes all the way past the number four stacking space

1:11:23where the order boards are located.

1:11:28So it doesn't extend past number four

1:11:30and it doesn't include, I don't know if that's the,

1:11:36considered the south elevation

1:11:37or the south property line behind the existing building.

1:11:43So that's the north, that's the north property line.

1:11:46So we still have to go through site plan approval.

1:11:49So that's still, and we still have to,

1:11:52obviously have a noise report.

1:11:55And I think what's basically gonna happen

1:11:57is depending on the noise levels,

1:11:59that's where the acoustical fence will basically end up.

1:12:09The extent of the fence from Aramosa

1:12:12back into where the drive-through lanes are,

1:12:16or sorry, the stacking lanes are,

1:12:18that'll be governed by the noise report.

1:12:21Also, keep in mind that the building north

1:12:26of the property line, that is all concrete and bricks.

1:12:30There's no windows there at all.

1:12:32All the way down.

1:12:34Right, I guess through you, Chair, to the applicant,

1:12:40I guess my concern is based on some of the comments

1:12:44from the neighboring property owners

1:12:47about light transmission, not just noise.

1:12:51And given that modern vehicles basically have search lights

1:12:58reminiscent of World War II blitz London,

1:13:01I'm curious about mitigating the impact

1:13:06of traffic lighting on the adjacent properties.

1:13:11Okay, so if we can zoom out the site plan,

1:13:15would it be possible?

1:13:17Even a little bit more to show

1:13:18where the residents are located.

1:13:20So keep going, keep going.

1:13:22Okay, so the residents are located at the bottom,

1:13:25let's call it the bottom of the site plan, on Metcalf.

1:13:30So that's where the residential properties are located.

1:13:35So it's kind of shielded by the existing building as well.

1:13:40Through you, Chair, to the applicant,

1:13:44if we look at the bottom of the plan

1:13:45where it says zone RL1,

1:13:48there are a number of residents back there as well.

1:13:51Correct.

1:13:52And is there any plan for fencing there?

1:13:57There's no plan now, but again,

1:14:00it'll be governed by the noise report

1:14:03and the lighting report.

1:14:06Okay, thank you.

1:14:08Chair, I have some questions of staff.

1:14:10Can I ask them now?

1:14:11Yes, please go ahead.

1:14:13Thank you.

1:14:15Through you to city staff,

1:14:18I understand from the presentation

1:14:20that there will be traffic and noise studies

1:14:23that will be undertaken in site plan review.

1:14:27Is that your understanding?

1:14:32Through the chair to member Smith,

1:14:34that is our understanding that we have asked

1:14:37for a detailed noise study and a traffic study

1:14:40or traffic plan for this application.

1:14:44Okay, thank you for that.

1:14:46Just to follow up on the traffic study,

1:14:48will the traffic study impact Metcalf as well as Aramosa?

1:14:55I note that Aramosa is,

1:14:58that's a very hot corner at the present time

1:15:03with no left turn lane and anyone coming

1:15:07from the Northeast quadrant of the city

1:15:11is going to have to turn left at that intersection

1:15:16and back up onto Metcalf.

1:15:18So is that traffic study designed to encapsulate

1:15:23everything that's going on, not just on Metcalf,

1:15:26but on Aramosa, on the city bound side?

1:15:33Can you just turn on your microphone again, please?

1:15:36Yeah, that's okay, thank you.

1:15:37Sorry, it's through the chair.

1:15:38So the traffic study will look at all the access points

1:15:42that are on the perimeter of the site

1:15:45and we'll also look at the, it's called the Geometrics.

1:15:48So the traffic flow within the site as well.

1:15:53Okay, I'm not sure I got that answer

1:15:57that I was looking for,

1:15:59but we'll let it go with that.

1:16:02I guess with city, again,

1:16:06the city staff through you chair, if you'll permit me,

1:16:10is there any consideration to lighting in site plan?

1:16:21Through the chair to member Smith, yes,

1:16:23through site plan, that would be a consideration

1:16:26that would be evaluated through site plan process.

1:16:32And I do wanna make a note that those properties

1:16:34along Cadillac Drive, which border

1:16:38along the Southern property line,

1:16:40there is a sufficient landscape area,

1:16:42sorry, landscape buffer that exists.

1:16:47There's a large amount of trees and vegetation there

1:16:51for those properties.

1:16:52So there are already natural vegetation in place

1:16:57to create a landscape buffer between

1:17:00those low density residential homes

1:17:02and the commercial plaza.

1:17:07We can agree to disagree.

1:17:09Thank you, chair.

1:17:11Those are my questions.

1:17:12Oh, I do have one other question.

1:17:13Sorry, forgive me for city staff.

1:17:16The Children's Aid Society next door

1:17:19is considered sensitive use, is it not?

1:17:28Through the chair to member Smith.

1:17:32Is this related to the noise study?

1:17:37No, just in planning terms, I assume that

1:17:41I haven't gone into all aspects,

1:17:45but I assume that given the playground

1:17:48and the nature of Children's Aid Society

1:17:52that their facility would be considered a sensitive use.

1:17:55And that's what's driving the 15 million setback.

1:17:59Am I out to lunch on that?

1:18:03Through the chair to member Smith, that is correct.

1:18:05That's if it were not an institutional use adjacent

1:18:09to the subject lands and variance A would not be required.

1:18:14Thank you very much.

1:18:15I think that's got my questions answered.

1:18:17Appreciate it.

1:18:19Thank you, member Smith.

1:18:21And any other questions?

1:18:23Yes, member Ross.

1:18:25Through you, Madam Chair,

1:18:26I have two questions just for clarification.

1:18:30Can you walk me through the circulation

1:18:33to get to the pickup window for the New Burger King?

1:18:38Sure, so the circulation,

1:18:44is basically, okay, let's take a look at the layers.

1:18:50There's a gray layer there

1:18:52that is basically gonna be untouched.

1:18:54And the white surface area on the site plan

1:18:57is the area that is gonna be changing.

1:19:00The circulation, once the customer comes to either

1:19:07the Metcalfe entrance or the Aramosa road entrance,

1:19:12they'll be going towards the back of the Burger King

1:19:18and making a right.

1:19:19And then what they'll do is they'll go right

1:19:23to the Northern property line

1:19:24where it says stacking space number 10,

1:19:27which they will enter the stacking lane

1:19:31and they will proceed west up the rear property

1:19:37to the order boards.

1:19:38And from the order boards,

1:19:39they'll flow to the drive-through window.

1:19:42Once they receive what they ordered,

1:19:45they'll be basically going around the horseshoe

1:19:49and then back up to where the loading area is,

1:19:53making a left turn to exit the site.

1:19:57Sorry, a right turn to exit the site.

1:20:02Thank you.

1:20:03Does staff have a way to identify that on screen

1:20:09with your cursor?

1:20:13The circulation once a person is on the site,

1:20:18just so I can't get close enough to the drawing

1:20:21to see it very well.

1:20:25Is this what you're looking for here?

1:20:30It's where the, when people come off of either Metcalfe

1:20:35or Aramosa start there.

1:20:38Okay, so once they come off one of the access points,

1:20:43they'll be heading towards the number 10 stacking space.

1:20:47If you can just blow up the entrance to the stacking lane,

1:20:53would it be possible to blow that up?

1:20:56Zoom in.

1:20:58Keep going.

1:20:59Okay, and just shift it north.

1:21:02No, we're looking at the stacking lane.

1:21:05There's a number from one to 10, the cars.

1:21:09Keep going, keep going, keep going, keep going down,

1:21:12down, down.

1:21:14No, there it is.

1:21:15So there's number 10 right there.

1:21:17So that's where they're gonna enter the stacking lane.

1:21:22Which will direct them to the order boards,

1:21:24which will direct them to the pickup window.

1:21:28If I can continue.

1:21:30So let's say I want to go into the Burger King.

1:21:33Is that, is it gonna be one of those Burger Kings

1:21:35where I can go in and park outside the building?

1:21:38Yes, so the parking for the Burger King,

1:21:41you can see is along the primary entrance

1:21:48where the two handicap are.

1:21:50So there's two handicap spaces,

1:21:53plus there's four parking spaces.

1:21:57And then if you can zoom out again,

1:21:58there's more parking across the laneway.

1:22:03And then there's the electrical EV parking spaces as well.

1:22:13My second question relates to your comment

1:22:15about the elevation of the building.

1:22:17So is it, is the existing elevation to continue

1:22:22to be used or is there an adjustment to the elevation?

1:22:26No, it'll be a brand new building.

1:22:29Understood, but the actual,

1:22:31right now there's a retaining wall.

1:22:34So you had, so is the,

1:22:37like what happens at that retaining wall

1:22:39between the institutional use and the new Burger King?

1:22:42Okay, that will remain.

1:22:44And there's a two meter difference in elevation.

1:22:47So the institutional use is two meters below

1:22:52where the Burger King,

1:22:55the King ground level will be.

1:22:59Thank you.

1:23:02May I continue?

1:23:02I have a question for staff.

1:23:04Yes, please go ahead.

1:23:07So I'm looking at the entrance off Aramosa

1:23:11related to the intersection with Metcalf.

1:23:15And I'm assuming that the proximity of that entrance

1:23:20is consistent with city staff's

1:23:24guidelines in terms of commercial use

1:23:29close to an intersection.

1:23:41Through the chair to member Ross,

1:23:42I can't speak to the details of that specific number,

1:23:49but this will be fleshed out through the site plan process.

1:23:56Just one final observation.

1:24:00I live and shop in that area.

1:24:03It's a pretty busy stretch,

1:24:06but noting that these are commercial properties

1:24:09and this is where commercial is supposed to be.

1:24:13So what I hear you saying, and correct me if I'm wrong,

1:24:16is that those would be the kinds of things

1:24:18that you would sort out through the site plan process,

1:24:21the adequacy of the distance between the intersection

1:24:24and that entryway into the Burger King off of Aramosa.

1:24:29That's correct.

1:24:29We've already had discussions with the city traffic department

1:24:33and engineering that access point is existing.

1:24:37And keep in mind that it's a right in, right out only.

1:24:40So there's no left turns into the property

1:24:42and there's no left turns out of the property

1:24:44at that location.

1:24:47Through you, Madam Chair.

1:24:48So that would be continued right in, right out.

1:24:51Yes, exactly.

1:24:52So no full turning movement then.

1:24:53Not on Aramosa.

1:24:55Full turning movement then on Metcalf.

1:24:57On Metcalf, yes.

1:24:58Which as I recall Metcalf, is that where the subway is?

1:25:03Or there's a sandwich shop there, is that correct?

1:25:07I got that right.

1:25:11I think it's across the street from this development.

1:25:13If I recall correctly.

1:25:14Yes, yes.

1:25:16So to staff, can you pull the drawing

1:25:18so we see more of Metcalf?

1:25:24Yes.

1:25:28Okay, thank you.

1:25:35Okay, thank you, Member Ross.

1:25:39Good discussion so far.

1:25:40Any other questions from the members?

1:25:44Member Smith, please go ahead.

1:25:48Sorry, I did forget one question

1:25:51and given the comments from neighboring property owners

1:25:59and a number of the things that are raised

1:26:02will be dealt with in site plan where there's to go ahead.

1:26:06This is through you to staff.

1:26:11I understand the site plan review process

1:26:13is not a public process, is that correct?

1:26:19Through the chair to Member Smith, that's correct.

1:26:22It's not a public process.

1:26:24Thank you.

1:26:25So through you chair to staff,

1:26:28that means that any chance for the public to opine

1:26:34on this rest with our committee,

1:26:37is that correct?

1:26:40Through the chair to Member Smith, that's correct.

1:26:44Thank you very much.

1:26:47Thank you, Member Smith.

1:26:49Member Fitzpatrick, please go ahead.

1:26:53Thank you through you chair to both the applicant and staff.

1:26:59So following up on Member Smith's last comment,

1:27:05has anybody addressed the concerns of the neighbors?

1:27:09So one has there been discussions

1:27:13with the institutional use next door

1:27:16as to making sure they had no concerns

1:27:20and are there have there been conversations

1:27:22with the residential to the south of the property?

1:27:32Through the chair to Member Fitzpatrick,

1:27:34to my knowledge, the city hasn't had discussions

1:27:37with either of those property owners.

1:27:39That being said, this is the venue

1:27:41in which they would submit comments.

1:27:43The institutional use to the north

1:27:45hasn't submitted any comments.

1:27:48Additionally, the variance for the reduced setback

1:27:50is relatively minor.

1:27:51It's from 15 meters down to 12.8.

1:27:54So we're talking about a 2.2 meter reduction.

1:27:57And as noted in the staff comments,

1:27:59the increase in landscape buffer and fencing

1:28:03satisfies staff's concern regarding that setback reduction.

1:28:07And related to the other variances,

1:28:09those variances don't really directly impact

1:28:13the residential properties to the rear.

1:28:17So in other words, if the facade design

1:28:20of the building were changed,

1:28:23then and the setback was increased slightly

1:28:26from the institutional use,

1:28:28then we wouldn't have to be here today at all.

1:28:31So in staffs, none of the variances

1:28:34that have been brought forward really directly impact

1:28:37the residents to the rear,

1:28:39although the site as a whole

1:28:41or the proposal as a whole might,

1:28:42the variances themselves don't have

1:28:45a particularly significant impact on those residents.

1:28:53Okay, thank you.

1:28:56Any other questions?

1:29:00I have just a couple, just to tidy up a few loose ends

1:29:03that I felt may have gotten lost

1:29:06along the excellent discussion we just had.

1:29:09First one is in the site plan approval.

1:29:10I believe this question is for city staff,

1:29:12but during the site plan approval,

1:29:14will stormwater issues be evaluated during that phase?

1:29:17I'm seeing nodding heads.

1:29:18So okay, that's great.

1:29:19Thank you.

1:29:21I also wanted to point out

1:29:24that there is another drive-through in this parking lot.

1:29:28And it's not perhaps very obvious, but it is there.

1:29:32And perhaps if I could ask city staff

1:29:34how noise, traffic, et cetera,

1:29:37will be assessed with two drive-throughs

1:29:41in one parking lot.

1:29:45To you, Madam Chair, to my knowledge,

1:29:48the traffic impact study would,

1:29:52I understand it would consider circulation

1:29:56for the Burger King restaurant,

1:29:58but I can't speak to whether or not

1:30:02it would also consider movements

1:30:05that are geared towards the Rexall drive-through.

1:30:09But in terms of movements and circulation,

1:30:15like coming in and out of the access points,

1:30:17the two access points off Aramasa and Medcalf Street,

1:30:21those would be considered as part

1:30:23of the traffic impact study.

1:30:26Okay, so I just wanna make sure I've got that straight.

1:30:28So the movements on and off the property

1:30:32would include traffic movements related

1:30:34to both drive-throughs and all of the other commercial uses,

1:30:39but the traffic on the site

1:30:43may not include the overview of both drive-throughs

1:30:49as a combined system.

1:30:51That's correct, to my knowledge, at least,

1:30:54but I'm not too familiar with the implications

1:30:58of the traffic impact study, but that's what I believe.

1:31:02Okay, thank you.

1:31:02It looks like maybe the applicant has a comment here.

1:31:06Yeah, clarification.

1:31:09Just for clarification, they will assess

1:31:12the traffic study and circulation study

1:31:14will assess both the drive-through locations.

1:31:19We've already had considerable discussions with staff,

1:31:22and that will be included in the terms of reference

1:31:27for the traffic study.

1:31:29It's quite extensive, actually.

1:31:31Okay, thank you.

1:31:33And so then we've just talked about circulation and traffic

1:31:36related to that other drive-through,

1:31:38but the other consequence of having two will be noise.

1:31:41And so just to understand and explicitly talk

1:31:44about noise here, will the noise impact study

1:31:47also include both?

1:31:49Yes, of course, because they're obviously gonna put

1:31:53monitors on the site in terms of the existing background

1:31:57noise, and they'll start off from there.

1:31:59So part of the background noise will be existing uses,

1:32:01and they'll get a metric or a level on that,

1:32:05and then they'll obviously, with their analog information

1:32:10on similar sites, will basically determine

1:32:13how much the additional stack in lane

1:32:17and circulation for the river king

1:32:18will add to the noise level on adjacent properties.

1:32:22So that will be included.

1:32:23Okay, thank you.

1:32:25And then just to follow on to that,

1:32:27so if that traffic, or sorry, the noise assessment

1:32:32identifies that the sound in the evening

1:32:37is higher than permitted or the residential value,

1:32:42then noise mitigation measures would be discussed

1:32:46and included as part of the site plan approval.

1:32:48I got that right.

1:32:50That's correct.

1:32:51So mitigation's measures will be evaluated

1:32:55and recommended by the noise report.

1:32:58And obviously if they're off the charts,

1:33:00then we have a problem and the site plan will not be approved.

1:33:07Okay, thank you.

1:33:08That's great.

1:33:09I do have one final question,

1:33:11and I know this is going long,

1:33:12but I think this one bears some additional response,

1:33:17perhaps from the city.

1:33:19We did talk earlier about sensitive use

1:33:23and institutional use for the children's aid society.

1:33:26And I just wanna make sure I understand this correctly.

1:33:29Is sensitive use a special category

1:33:31or a special designation under institutional use

1:33:34or is there, it really is just institutional use.

1:33:38There is no kind of sensitive category,

1:33:40subcategory underneath that designation.

1:33:46Through you, Mid-Encretia, that is correct.

1:33:47So it's evaluated based on the fact

1:33:49that it's an institutional use.

1:33:51There isn't anything specifically

1:33:52because it's a sensitive daycare use

1:33:55or anything along those lines.

1:33:57Okay, thank you.

1:33:58Those are my questions.

1:34:00I'm just going to check in,

1:34:01in case those have prompted other questions

1:34:04on behalf of the other members here.

1:34:06So any final questions from the members?

1:34:10No, okay, seeing none.

1:34:11Then I think we can move over to delegations.

1:34:14Secretary Treasurer, are there any delegations?

1:34:18Yes, Chair, we have one delegate.

1:34:21Morgan Dandy will be appearing via telephone.

1:34:25Okay, thank you.

1:34:26Welcome, Morgan, can you hear us?

1:34:35Hello.

1:34:37Okay, hi.

1:34:38Can you hear me okay?

1:34:39Hi.

1:34:41I can hear you fine.

1:34:42Am I coming through now?

1:34:44Yes, you are.

1:34:45So, can I get your name for the record please?

1:34:51My name is Morgan Dandy, D-A-N-D-I-E.

1:34:56Thank you.

1:34:58You have 10 minutes to discuss your thoughts

1:35:02on this application for the committee.

1:35:05So please go ahead and use as much of that time

1:35:07as you wish.

1:35:09Thank you so very much for this opportunity.

1:35:12And as I was listening to the discussion,

1:35:15there were a number of things that came up for me.

1:35:19I am predominantly a pedestrian.

1:35:22I use public transit to get around.

1:35:26I live within walking distance of this corner

1:35:29and I frequent this area as a shopping area,

1:35:34including my pharmacy across Metcalf.

1:35:39The first concern that I have that nobody addressed

1:35:44is the fact that when you look at the Google Maps

1:35:50photo from the location of where the drive-through

1:35:55is proposed to be, those wonderful stadium lights

1:36:00that member Smith was talking about

1:36:03will be shining into one or two residences

1:36:09across Aramasa.

1:36:12My next concern does absolutely have to do with the fact

1:36:17that there is a children's playground directly beside

1:36:22where these cars will be exiting from the drive-through.

1:36:28Having been someone that has worked at a drive-through

1:36:30in the past, I know how loud this can get.

1:36:36So I do have concerns about the volume

1:36:41that will be necessary for the drive-through workers

1:36:46to be able to hear the people providing their orders.

1:36:53And the people in their cars being able to hear

1:36:56the drive-through workers as well.

1:37:00The configuration of the ingress and egress

1:37:06to this property in conjunction with the secondary drive-through

1:37:12for the Rexall pharmacy really concerns me

1:37:15about the potential for collisions between pedestrians

1:37:21and vehicles while traversing through all of these

1:37:28very potentially busy internal spaces

1:37:32within what is ostensibly currently a parking lot.

1:37:38Getting back to the elevations at the corner

1:37:41of Metcalf and Aramasa, I know that this isn't

1:37:45the traffic studies, but I really do hope

1:37:49that it will be taken into account

1:37:53that this is a major crossing for school children

1:37:58going down Metcalf to school.

1:38:01There is a crossing guard that's there at the school times.

1:38:07And because of the uneven configuration

1:38:13of this particular intersection, as a pedestrian,

1:38:17standing at any of those four corners,

1:38:21it is extraordinarily uncomfortable.

1:38:25And the added traffic that a drive-through being proposed

1:38:31in 2026 when we are trying to reach our 2050 or 2030 goals

1:38:37for green walls really concerns me as well.

1:38:42So predominantly I've got major concerns for pedestrians,

1:38:47major, major concerns for pedestrians.

1:38:49This is already an incredibly scary place to be walking,

1:38:56nevermind biking, nevermind being a child.

1:38:59And the fact that the only way to enter

1:39:04the restaurants itself is having to cross a driveway,

1:39:18again, as a pedestrian, that causes me excessive concerns.

1:39:26And the playground next door,

1:39:28I really hope that we're gonna take into consideration

1:39:32there are gonna be children laying right there

1:39:37at family and children services.

1:39:42And those people across the street,

1:39:44how much light is going to be forced into their homes

1:39:50because that driveway is directly across

1:39:55from where they live.

1:39:56Thank you.

1:39:59Thank you for your comments.

1:40:01I'm just gonna check and see if our members

1:40:04have any questions for the delegate.

1:40:09No, seeing none.

1:40:10Okay, thank you so much for your time this afternoon.

1:40:13We really appreciate it.

1:40:16Through you, Chair, Member Fitzpatrick has a question.

1:40:18Oh, I apologize.

1:40:19Okay, Member Fitzpatrick, please go ahead

1:40:21for the questions to the delegate.

1:40:24Thank you, Chair and to the delegate.

1:40:27I understand your concerns around the traffic

1:40:29and being a pedestrian and the nature of the traffic there.

1:40:34Are you opposed to that specific use

1:40:39that entails a drive-through

1:40:42versus if it were another commercial operation?

1:40:50I am opposed to the location of it being a drive-through

1:40:55given that the only possible way to be able to access

1:41:00the restaurant itself will be crossing live lanes.

1:41:05They may be in a parking lot, but they're still live lanes.

1:41:09And if it were in the corner that is closer

1:41:15to the intersection, it wouldn't be acceptable there either.

1:41:21The drive-through to me is the major issue.

1:41:25It creates problems for the neighbors across the street,

1:41:28potential issues for children playing in the playground

1:41:32directly adjacent to it and creates the opportunity

1:41:38for more vehicles to impact vulnerable pedestrians

1:41:44because the pedestrians are required to cross

1:41:47where cars have to drive in order to access

1:41:51that drive-through.

1:41:56Thank you.

1:41:58Okay, thank you, Member Fitzpatrick.

1:42:01Any other questions for the delegate?

1:42:05Okay, seeing none.

1:42:07So again, thank you so much for your time this afternoon.

1:42:10Appreciate your comments and you are free

1:42:13to continue listening in or to continue on

1:42:18with your day at this point.

1:42:21Take care.

1:42:24Okay, thank you.

1:42:25Secretary Treasurer, are there any other delegations?

1:42:29Chair, I can confirm there are no other delegate requests.

1:42:31Okay, thank you.

1:42:33Anyone in the chamber who would like to come forward

1:42:35and speak to this application?

1:42:38Okay, seeing none.

1:42:40So I'm just gonna make one final call.

1:42:42Final call for delegations.

1:42:45Okay, I think we're safe here.

1:42:48I think at this point then,

1:42:49I'm gonna go back to the applicant

1:42:51and ask if they would like to add any comments

1:42:53in response to the delegation's concerns.

1:43:00All we can do is have these professional studies completed

1:43:04and be guided by them.

1:43:06And I drive through use as a permitted use on the property.

1:43:12Really becomes an issue of whether the site plan

1:43:18will be approved by the city of Guelph

1:43:21and they'll be guided by the studies again

1:43:24that the city has asked for.

1:43:27That's an objective way to look at it, I think.

1:43:30Thank you.

1:43:32City staff, any final comments?

1:43:37That to you, Madam Chair.

1:43:39No final comments from city staff,

1:43:42but as indicated in our comments,

1:43:44we are recommending approval of this application.

1:43:49Yes, thank you.

1:43:51Okay, so before we move into a motion, yes, okay.

1:43:54Member Ross, please go ahead.

1:43:57I can either ask this question after the motion is made

1:44:00or it's a follow up to what the delegate has talked about.

1:44:05And it's a question to either staff or the applicant.

1:44:10I think go ahead,

1:44:11because I think we do wanna have full information

1:44:14before we go to a motion.

1:44:16So that would be my preference at this point.

1:44:19Okay, through you, Madam Chair.

1:44:21In terms of the traffic study,

1:44:23just so that I understand what is being,

1:44:26what the expectation will be,

1:44:30will the traffic study include

1:44:33pedestrian vehicular interaction?

1:44:37And will it include the other uses on the site?

1:44:43Yes, well, the traffic study will be done

1:44:45for the entire property,

1:44:47including the existing plaza plus the drive-through.

1:44:51And yes, they do have regard to the pedestrian traffic

1:44:54as part of their traffic study, impact study.

1:44:58That's why it's called a traffic impact study.

1:45:01Trying to determine where the impacts are.

1:45:04Thank you.

1:45:06But I do think it's important for all of us

1:45:10to understand that the pedestrian,

1:45:12the impact on pedestrians will be reviewed

1:45:14and considered in your submission.

1:45:17And when staff is reviewing the traffic report,

1:45:23pharmacies tend to have a wide range of clients

1:45:28who access that particular kind of business.

1:45:34And that's, there's a degree of sensitivity there

1:45:40to that age range that I'm assuming will be covered off

1:45:45in some way in the report, although I'm not certain.

1:45:48I'm making an assumption there.

1:45:50Could be that traffic studies don't at all

1:45:52consider the demographics of who uses a pharmacy

1:45:58and its proximity to a major traffic generator

1:46:04of cars like a drive-through.

1:46:10All I can say is that they will look

1:46:13at the traffic generation, the circulation on the site,

1:46:18as long as they'll also look at the pedestrian traffic

1:46:21and the linkages between the sidewalk and the buildings

1:46:25and the barrier free spaces as well.

1:46:34Okay, thank you, member Ross.

1:46:36Any other questions?

1:46:39And I apologize, but I've got one too.

1:46:42So actually before member Ross asked her question,

1:46:46I was sitting here mulling over who will be attracted

1:46:49to the new Burger King.

1:46:51And there is a very large high school just down the hill.

1:46:55I suspect that there will be quite a number of students

1:46:58who will be attracted to the Burger King

1:47:00over the lunchtime.

1:47:02So again, kind of as an extension of member Ross's question

1:47:05about who will be using the Rexall,

1:47:08will the potential users of the Burger King

1:47:13and the potential for large numbers of students

1:47:17being drawn up the hill,

1:47:19that will that also be accounted for

1:47:21in the traffic impact study?

1:47:24Yes, because I mean, if it's a traffic generator,

1:47:29it'll obviously look at both cars and pedestrians

1:47:32because if you look at in the downtown type of locations,

1:47:36most of the traffic is pedestrian.

1:47:38So their analysis is pedestrian traffic

1:47:40in and out of the site.

1:47:41So this will be a combination of both vehicle

1:47:44and pedestrian access to the site.

1:47:46Yeah, I've driven through there during lunchtime,

1:47:51particularly the Bullfrog Mall location

1:47:53and it is mayhem.

1:47:55So yeah, that's why, that's what prompted my question.

1:47:59Okay, I think at this point,

1:48:01I'm gonna do one final look around the room here.

1:48:04Any final questions from members?

1:48:08Okay, seeing none.

1:48:09Then I think at this point,

1:48:10I am looking for a motion from one of our members

1:48:14on this application.

1:48:16Member Ross.

1:48:18I move that the application be approved

1:48:21with conditions as identified by staff.

1:48:25Thank you, is there a seconder?

1:48:28A member Spears has seconded.

1:48:30Okay, opening the floor then to a discussion

1:48:34on the motion in front of us.

1:48:36Members, any thoughts or comments?

1:48:37Yes, member Smith.

1:48:40I'm not gonna be supporting this motion, Madam Chair.

1:48:44I believe that it fails three of the four tests.

1:48:47First of all, let me dispense with item C,

1:48:52which I believe is minor in nature

1:48:54and is supportable because of,

1:48:59as the applicant pointed out,

1:49:02there is approximately a two meter fall

1:49:05from the property to the sidewalk.

1:49:08So that in a sense addresses item C.

1:49:13However, I have some major concerns.

1:49:16First of all, I don't believe in item A

1:49:20that it is in fact minor in nature with this setback.

1:49:25First of all, the applicant is saying

1:49:28that it's a 2.81 meter setback

1:49:32where it's required to be 15 meters.

1:49:35And in fact, the bump out for the drive-through

1:49:41is actually closer to 11.65 meters

1:49:46away from the property line.

1:49:52Given the institutional and use next door

1:49:57and the sensitive nature of it

1:50:00and the location of the playground,

1:50:04putting a drive-through lane there

1:50:07while this may not be required in the zoning bylaw,

1:50:13having cars that close really defeats the purpose

1:50:18of having a setback in my opinion.

1:50:21Word up to me, I would conclude that 15 meters

1:50:26should be from the edge of the drive-through lane

1:50:31and not the bump out from the building.

1:50:33So just based on that, I think it's not minor in nature.

1:50:39Given the impact on the adjacency,

1:50:42I don't believe it's minor in nature.

1:50:45And again, and this relates to the topography,

1:50:51the two meters between the playground

1:50:57and the drive-through window,

1:50:58which are very close to one another in plan,

1:51:03that two meter falloff to me represents a danger

1:51:07based on, especially if we have another winter,

1:51:12like we've just concluded,

1:51:16that kind of surface and the traffic in here

1:51:20is going to be the potential for cars having an incident

1:51:28that might impact the playground below

1:51:31and could have really quite devastating consequences.

1:51:35Right now it's a little used part of the parking lot

1:51:40and doesn't have a lot of cars impacting that corner.

1:51:45So again, to reiterate,

1:51:48I don't believe that this is minor in nature.

1:51:53As for item B,

1:51:57again, I don't think item B is minor in nature

1:52:02on a couple of issues.

1:52:06First of all, the front elevation

1:52:10is not the active entrance.

1:52:14There is an entrance, but it's not the active entrance

1:52:18and I understand that the intent of the zoning bylaw

1:52:21is also in question here,

1:52:24because, and that is the request for the variants.

1:52:30Having that much less visibility, that much less glass,

1:52:37the intent of the zoning bylaw from my point of view

1:52:40is that this would encourage an active street escape.

1:52:44It does not.

1:52:45In fact, the effect is that approximately one third

1:52:49of the elevation is essentially a sign.

1:52:53And one can argue that, well,

1:52:55the logo of Burger King is relatively small.

1:52:59It's essentially an exercise in Sinatecure,

1:53:03where the architectural and exterior design,

1:53:07basically there is a new kind of siding

1:53:12that's nowhere else indicated on the elevation

1:53:15with the logo in front of it,

1:53:17essentially meaning that that one third becomes a sign.

1:53:21That is going to be a secondary exit

1:53:24and in removing the path as it is presently constituted,

1:53:32it's going to impact the children attending the high school,

1:53:37coming up Aramosa and coming in there

1:53:40as the delegate pointed out,

1:53:44that that's going to impact them

1:53:45because they're going to have to come up the hill

1:53:48and turn where cars are actively exiting

1:53:51and cross through a busy drive-through lane.

1:53:55I think it's not just, not minor in nature,

1:53:59but I believe that it's not in compliance

1:54:05with the intent of the zoning bylaw.

1:54:08Just a second.

1:54:15Yes, and in terms of the glazing reduction,

1:54:18this is a 22 and a half percent reduction

1:54:22and I don't think that number,

1:54:24I know I'm not supposed to necessarily use numbers,

1:54:27but in this particular case,

1:54:29and given the fact that it's approximately one third

1:54:32of the building is a sign as it's presented on Aramosa,

1:54:35I believe that 22% decrease in glazing

1:54:43could not be considered really desirable.

1:54:49Given the impact on the properties across Aramosa,

1:54:54was pointed out very well by the delegate

1:54:57and the impact notwithstanding staff's comments

1:55:02on the property behind,

1:55:04I believe that taken in total,

1:55:08that this is, it's not just not minor,

1:55:15it's not just that it doesn't include

1:55:18the intent of the zoning bylaw,

1:55:21but it's not a desirable land use.

1:55:23So for all of those reasons,

1:55:26three out of four of the four tests

1:55:31are not being met by this application

1:55:34and so I will not be supporting this proposal.

1:55:39Thank you.

1:55:41Thank you, Member Smith.

1:55:43Appreciate the detail

1:55:44with which you just walked through your concerns.

1:55:46I think that was very helpful.

1:55:49Member Ross, please go ahead.

1:55:51Through you, Madam Chair.

1:55:53Member Smith has raised some important issues

1:55:57related to the application

1:56:00and I mean, we were spending some time talking through

1:56:04the nature of the application,

1:56:07what it might mean for the community

1:56:08and the neighbors adjacent.

1:56:21This proposal is located in a mixed use corridor.

1:56:25The applicant has pointed out that it is a permitted use

1:56:31and we understand from the discussion so far

1:56:35that there is a comprehensive traffic study

1:56:38that will be completed by the applicant

1:56:41submitted by staff for their review

1:56:44as part of a site plan process.

1:56:47So for those reasons,

1:56:49I'll be supporting the application this evening.

1:56:55And thank you, Member Ross,

1:56:56for your detailed comments as well.

1:56:58I'm really appreciated.

1:57:00Any other comments?

1:57:06I actually will just include my comments here.

1:57:09I have similar concerns to Member Smith

1:57:12about the proximity to the institutional use

1:57:18and had a similar thought about how the distance is measured.

1:57:2312.81 from the building versus from the bump out

1:57:28versus from the edge of the traffic circle.

1:57:32I think some of my concerns have been addressed

1:57:35through the understanding now

1:57:36that there will be a more fulsome review

1:57:38of some of these items during site plan approval.

1:57:43And so for that reason, I'm going to support it,

1:57:45but I did want to acknowledge that yes,

1:57:47I also had some of those concerns

1:57:49and the reason that I felt that perhaps

1:57:53those concerns have been elated at this point.

1:57:57Okay, any other final comments from anyone?

1:58:01Okay, all right.

1:58:03Then I think at this point,

1:58:06Secretary Treasurer, if you could call the vote please.

1:58:10Thank you, Chair.

1:58:12Just before that, if I could ask Member Ross

1:58:14to clarify their motion,

1:58:17you had said approve with conditions,

1:58:19but staff have not recommended any conditions

1:58:22for this application.

1:58:23And after that,

1:58:24if we could just get a seconder as well, please.

1:58:26I revise my motion.

1:58:31Thank you.

1:58:32And Chair, do you mind just asking for a seconder again?

1:58:35Yes, I missed that step.

1:58:36Okay, is there a seconder?

1:58:38Member Spears.

1:58:41Okay.

1:58:43Okay, thank you very much.

1:58:45Committee members, please indicate your vote

1:58:48by responding in favor or opposed to the motion,

1:58:51which is to approve the application.

1:58:55Chair, good fellow.

1:58:56In favor.

1:58:58Member Smith.

1:58:59Opposed.

1:59:01Member Fitzpatrick.

1:59:05In favor.

1:59:08Member Meir.

1:59:09In favor.

1:59:10Member Ross.

1:59:11In favor.

1:59:12And Member Spears.

1:59:13In favor.

1:59:15Thank you, that motion has carried, Chair.

1:59:17Okay, thank you to the applicant.

1:59:19Your application has been approved,

1:59:21and you can leave if you so choose.

1:59:25Thank you.

1:59:28Okay, I think we can move on

1:59:30to our second to last application.

1:59:32Secretary Treasurer,

1:59:33if you could call the next applicant, please.

1:59:37The next file is B-29-26116 Lemon Street.

1:59:45It is a consent to create one new lot

1:59:48with one retained lot.

1:59:50If you wish to speak to this application,

1:59:52please call the number 519-822-1260-extension-2524.

2:00:05When your call is received,

2:00:07staff will provide you with instructions

2:00:09on how you can delegate remotely by phone.

2:00:12This is the final opportunity

2:00:14to call in regarding this application.

2:00:19Thank you.

2:00:20Applicant, is that the podium?

2:00:21Can you please state your name

2:00:24and your relationship to the application?

2:00:26Yes, thank you, Chair.

2:00:28Matthew Mayer with Mayor Fields Planning and Development

2:00:32and the representative for the owner.

2:00:34Thank you, and was the sign posted

2:00:36for the Planning Act requirements?

2:00:38Yes, it was.

2:00:38Okay, and have you received staff comments

2:00:40and are you in agreement with the conditions as proposed?

2:00:43Yes, we've reviewed the report

2:00:45and received the conditions

2:00:46and agree with the findings.

2:00:49Okay, that's great.

2:00:51At this point, you have 10 minutes to address the committee.

2:00:54Sure, through you, Chair.

2:00:57I don't have much to add.

2:00:59Just again, if maybe if staff could bring up

2:01:03the severance plan and the concept site plan

2:01:08for context.

2:01:09So here's the draft severance sketch.

2:01:15Again, this is a proposal to sever

2:01:19the existing lot down the middle to two equal lots,

2:01:24463 square meters each.

2:01:29The proposal lots meet the zoning requirements in the bylaw

2:01:35and conform with the applicable policies

2:01:38under the city's official plan for intensification.

2:01:43Just lastly, in case it wasn't made clear in the report,

2:01:48just to reiterate that this consent application

2:01:56is the exact same as a previous application that was made

2:02:00that was approved by the committee in 2019.

2:02:04So that's decision B-4 slash 19.

2:02:10And so that approval lapsed.

2:02:14Again, it was a previous owner,

2:02:16so I'm not sure why they didn't move forward

2:02:19with clearing the conditions,

2:02:21but we're proposing the same consent for severance

2:02:26that was applied for then.

2:02:29That's it for me, thanks.

2:02:30Okay, thank you.

2:02:32City staff, any comments on this application?

2:02:36No, okay, no comments.

2:02:40Then I will open up the floor then to members

2:02:44to ask questions of either the applicant or city staff.

2:02:49Members, peers.

2:02:50Through you, Chair, to the applicant.

2:02:51Could you just touch a little bit

2:02:53on what the proposed uses will be for the new dwellings?

2:02:59Yes, of course, through you, Chair.

2:03:03The owner, it's a custom home builder,

2:03:07so they'd be proposing two single detached homes

2:03:12on the two lots.

2:03:13Now there was a concept site plan included in the submission.

2:03:18If it's handy, there it is.

2:03:21So again, this is just a concept site plan

2:03:25at this early stage,

2:03:28which would have to go through a building permit process

2:03:31and based on the conditions that staff

2:03:36have recommended, there'd be some other requirements,

2:03:41but yeah, just single family detached dwellings

2:03:46is what's envisioned here.

2:03:48For sale.

2:03:49For sale, yes, that's correct.

2:03:53Thank you.

2:03:55Thank you, members, peers.

2:03:56Any other questions?

2:04:01Okay, I think then I will ask Secretary Treasurer

2:04:06if there are any delegates.

2:04:09Chair, I can confirm that we have received

2:04:11no delegates requests and they're not online.

2:04:14Okay, thank you.

2:04:15Are there any in the chambers?

2:04:17Members are getting slim in here,

2:04:19so nobody's rushing the podium, so I think we are safe.

2:04:24I guess then at this point, we can move on

2:04:27to see if there is a motion from the committee.

2:04:34Member Meir.

2:04:35Yeah, I moved a motion for approval with conditions.

2:04:39Okay, thank you.

2:04:40Seconder, members, peers.

2:04:43Great, is there any discussion on the motion?

2:04:51I don't see any, just checking one more time.

2:04:54Any discussion here?

2:04:56No, okay.

2:04:57Then Secretary Treasurer, if you can call the vote please.

2:05:02Committee members, please indicate your vote

2:05:04by responding in favor or opposed to the motion,

2:05:08which is to approve this application with conditions.

2:05:12Chair, good fellow.

2:05:14In favor.

2:05:16Member Smith.

2:05:17In favor.

2:05:19Member Fitzpatrick.

2:05:21In favor.

2:05:23Member Meir.

2:05:24In favor.

2:05:25Member Ross.

2:05:26In favor.

2:05:27And member Spears.

2:05:28In favor.

2:05:29Chair, that motion has carried.

2:05:32Thank you, Secretary Treasurer.

2:05:33Yeah, to the applicant, your motion has been approved.

2:05:38Your application has been approved.

2:05:39You're free to leave or stay.

2:05:41Thank you, Chair and Committee members.

2:05:43Have a good night.

2:05:44Thank you.

2:05:47Okay, Secretary Treasurer,

2:05:48on to our last applicant, please.

2:05:53The next files are B-35 slash 26,

2:05:57B-36 slash 26,

2:06:00and B-37 slash 26 for 68, 70, and 72 Preston Street.

2:06:08It is a request for cancellation certificates

2:06:11for previous consent files,

2:06:13B-35 slash 24,

2:06:16B-36 slash 24,

2:06:19and B-37 slash 24.

2:06:22If you wish to speak to this application,

2:06:24please call the number shown on screen.

2:06:27The number is 519-822-1260 extension 2524.

2:06:37When your call is received,

2:06:38staff will provide you with instructions

2:06:40on how you can delegate remotely by phone.

2:06:43This is the final opportunity

2:06:44to call in regarding this application.

2:06:48Okay, thank you.

2:06:49I see the applicant is standing.

2:06:51Do you want to come forward to the podium, please?

2:07:01Welcome back.

2:07:03Can you please state your name

2:07:04and relationship to the application?

2:07:06Hello again, Justin Block,

2:07:09Robson Carpenter,

2:07:13sorry, acting as the applicant

2:07:15for the owner of the property.

2:07:18Oh, sorry, was the sign posted

2:07:20for the Planning Act requirements?

2:07:23There was a sign posted for the consent applications,

2:07:26but there were no signage for the cancellations.

2:07:29Okay, and I'm getting a nod from the secretary treasurer

2:07:32that is what is supposed to happen, so that's great.

2:07:36And did you receive staff comments

2:07:37and are you in agreement with recommended conditions?

2:07:41Received and agreed, yeah.

2:07:42Okay, that's wonderful.

2:07:43So as before, you have 10 minutes to address the committee.

2:07:47Sure, thank you.

2:07:49So this is a request for cancellation

2:07:52of previous consent certificates.

2:07:54Now this request comes from

2:07:58current consent applications that B80,

2:08:0325 and B81, 25,

2:08:06which this committee heard on March 18th, 2026

2:08:09and issued approval with conditions.

2:08:11And one of those conditions is

2:08:15the cancellation of existing

2:08:21certificates, consent certificates.

2:08:24This property went through a previous severance application

2:08:27in 2023, 2024 that was completed.

2:08:32Our client changed their development plan

2:08:34and applied for a new severance, which was B80, B81.

2:08:41And this request today is for the cancellation

2:08:44of the existing already completed severances,

2:08:49which were based on applications B36, 24 and B37, 24.

2:08:57Okay, thank you.

2:08:59City staff, any comments?

2:09:01Dad, okay.

2:09:04Members, questions for the applicant or city staff?

2:09:10Seeing none, any questions online?

2:09:14Nope, okay, that's great.

2:09:18Secretary Treasurer, do we have any delegations

2:09:20on this application?

2:09:22Chair, I can confirm we have no delegations.

2:09:24Okay, checking council chambers,

2:09:28there are no other members left.

2:09:31So doesn't look like we have any other delegations

2:09:35in person either.

2:09:37At this point, I think then I will look for a motion

2:09:40from a member of the committee.

2:09:44Ah, member Fitzpatrick.

2:09:48A motion that we approve this application with conditions.

2:09:55And member Smith, looks like he is seconding that motion.

2:10:00Okay, any discussion on the motion before us?

2:10:05Seeing none, I will ask the secretary,

2:10:07Treasurer to call the vote please.

2:10:10Committee members, please indicate your vote

2:10:13by responding in favor or opposed to the motion,

2:10:17which is to approve this application with conditions.

2:10:21Chair, good fellow?

2:10:22In favor.

2:10:23Member Smith?

2:10:24In favor.

2:10:26Member Fitzpatrick?

2:10:28In favor.

2:10:30Member Meir?

2:10:31In favor.

2:10:32Member Ross?

2:10:33In favor.

2:10:34And member Spears?

2:10:35In favor.

2:10:36Thank you, chair, that motion has carried.

2:10:38Thank you, secretary Treasurer.

2:10:40So yes, to the applicant, your motion

2:10:43or your application has been approved

2:10:45and you're free to leave.

2:10:47Thank you, Madam Chair.

2:10:48Have a good night, everyone.

2:10:49Yes, thank you, you as well.

2:10:54Okay, I think that gets us to the end of our applications.

2:11:01At this point, I will ask if the secretary,

2:11:03Treasurer has any staff announcements.

2:11:07Thank you, chair.

2:11:08I have one announcement.

2:11:10The Ontario Land Tribunal has issued a decision

2:11:13regarding the appeal of minor variance file

2:11:16A-83-25462 Victoria Road South.

2:11:22The tribunal allowed the appeal

2:11:24and authorized the minor variance.

2:11:26A copy of the tribunal's decision

2:11:29has been forwarded to committee members.

2:11:31That is the only announcement I have, chair.

2:11:34Okay, thank you, secretary Treasurer.

2:11:37At this point, I think we are ready to adjourn,

2:11:39so I will look for a member to move.

2:11:41Member, then adjournment.

2:11:43Let's do it, John.

2:11:43Okay, and a seconder, member Spears.

2:11:47All of those in favor of adjourning, please raise your hands.

2:11:51Okay, we are adjourned.

2:11:54Thank you so much.

2:11:55Have a good evening.