Committee of Adjustment

6:43Good afternoon, Guelph. I'd like to call to order the September 11th, 2025 hearing of the Guelph Committee of Adjustment.

6:51This hearing is being held in a hybrid format with attendees appearing in person or remotely and is being live-streamed and recorded.

7:00Please be advised that public hearings form part of the public record and the words, names, or images of those participating will be recorded and posted online.

7:10Before I outline the hearing format, if you are watching online and wish to speak to an application that's listed on the agenda and have not yet submitted a request in advance of the hearing,

7:20please call the number displayed on the screen now, which is 519-822-1260, extension 2524, and you will receive instructions on how to participate.

7:32For those attending the hearing in person, you will also be given a chance to address the committee. A final call for delegations will be made when each application is called.

7:42The agenda for this hearing has been posted online at guelph.ca forward slash c-o-f-a. I will remind all committee members and staff participating in the hearing to please mute your microphones when not in use.

7:55Applicants will be unmuted when their application is called.

7:59I'd also like to share the hearing format we will use to navigate through each application.

8:04Each application will be called by the secretary treasurer and the call in number for those wishing to speak to an application will be displayed on the screen.

8:13Afterwards, the applicant will be given an opportunity to add anything further to their application to a maximum of 10 minutes.

8:21You will hear a chime when there is 30 seconds left and another when the 10 minutes has elapsed.

8:27If you are an applicant and have nothing further to add, then you can simply say so.

8:32Following this, for some files, staff may provide a brief presentation. The committee will then be able to ask questions of the applicant or staff.

8:42After that, we will hear from members of the public who wish to comment on the application.

8:47Please note that all comments should be addressed through the chair. Please avoid repeating concerns already stated by others and focus on adding new information.

8:57Comments are limited to 10 minutes or less. You will hear a chime when there is 30 seconds left and another when the 10 minutes has elapsed.

9:06For delegates that have advised staff in advance of the hearing that they wish to display a presentation, your presentation will be displayed on the screen and a remote is available at the podium for delegates in person to advance their slides.

9:19Any members of the public who have submitted a request to speak prior to the hearing will be the first invited to provide comments.

9:27For those watching the hearing online, if you wish to speak to an application and have not submitted a request in advance of the hearing, please call the call in number displayed on the screen now.

9:38For those attending the hearing in person, you will be given a chance to come forward to the podium and address the committee.

9:44Once all comments from the public have been heard, the applicant or staff will be given the opportunity to respond to comments.

9:51Finally, the chair will turn to the committee for a motion and deliberation as well as a vote on the application.

9:58When the committee is making a decision on an application, the chair will be asking the secretary treasurer to conduct the vote by roll call.

10:06The secretary treasurer will call each of the members' names and each member will respond if they are in favor or opposed to the motion and the chair will announce the result of the vote.

10:16If you wish to receive a copy of the decision on an application, you must submit a written request.

10:23A written request can be made by contacting staff using the contact information shown on the screen.

10:29To receive a copy of the decision, please email cofa at gwaulf.ca with your name and the file number you are interested in.

10:39Please note that owners and applicants automatically receive a copy of the decision.

10:45All right, so our first order of business this evening will be the territorial acknowledgement which I will provide today.

10:52As we gather, let us take time to reflect on our privilege to live and work in Guelph, a city built over rich and indigenous histories.

11:01We are guests here and we should reflect upon the responsibility to care for this land, the people who live here today, and the generations to come.

11:09If our actions today can move us towards reconciliation, we should take pause and make those decisions with intention and gratitude.

11:17This place we call Guelph has served as traditional lands and a place of refuge for many peoples over time, but more specifically, the Atta Wanderang and the Haudenosaunee.

11:28This land is held as the treaty lands and territory with the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation.

11:34Guelph lies directly adjacent to the Haldeman Tract and is part of a long established traditional hunting ground for the six nations of the Grand River.

11:42Many First Nations, Inuit, and Métis people who have come from across Turtle Island call Guelph home today.

11:49All right, committee members, we need to cover off matters of pecuniary interest.

11:58So are there any disclosures of pecuniary interest and if so, can you please raise your hand?

12:06Seeing none, I think we can move on to requests for withdrawal or deferral.

12:10Madam Secretary Treasurer, do we have any deferral requests today?

12:15Thanks, Chair Goodfellow. I can confirm that we don't have any deferral requests that applicants are in agreement with tonight, so I'll turn it back over to you.

12:23Okay, wonderful.

12:25So before we call the first applicant, I will note that we have a change in order of our agenda this evening.

12:33We are going to put the Crawley Avenue file first and so we are going to be starting a little out of order, but then we will resume the regularly scheduled program here as soon as we address that file.

12:47So, Madam Secretary Treasurer, if you could call the first applicant, please.

12:52Thank you, Chair. The first application this evening is file B-57-25 consent to create one new industrial lot with one retained industrial lot and easement for servicing at 384 Crawley Road.

13:07So if you wish to speak to this application, please call the number shown on the screen. That number is 519-822-1260 extension 2524 and when you call in staff will give you instructions on how you can delegate remotely by phone.

13:22I'll also note for the committee in those attending that revised list of revised conditions has been circulated today to committee members and the applicant.

13:33And there's various changes proposed to the conditions as well. Staff does have a presentation for this file after the applicant provides their remarks.

13:45Wonderful. Thank you. So is the applicant present this afternoon? Okay, great. If you want to come forward to the podium.

13:52Good afternoon, Chair.

14:07Can I ask you to state your name and your relationship to the application, please?

14:11Thank you, Chair, members of committee, staff and the public. My name is David Folletta and I am a registered professional planner with Bousfields.

14:20Thank you. And was the sign posted as per the Planning Act requirements? It was. Okay, great.

14:27Then I think you get to go ahead and take your 10 minutes. So please.

14:31Thank you. I'll be very brief. We do have a brief presentation. I'd like to just start by letting you know that we are in full support of the staff recommendation.

14:42We're also in support of the revised conditions that were recently circulated to this committee as well as staff.

14:48I'll just take you briefly through a presentation to make sure you understand what the application is about since you're going to be making a decision on it and also be available to answer any questions.

14:58So I'm going to try and use this.

15:03There we go.

15:08So again, my name is David Folletta and I'm a registered professional planner with Bousfields and we're the planning consultant to the owner who is industrial equities, Guelph Corporation for the lands located at 384 Crawley Road.

15:21So just wanted to briefly walk you through the history of the subject site as it relates to some of the previous applications.

15:30We've been working with city staff for a long time to get this these lands ready for development.

15:36That includes some of the site specific policies that were established through official plan amendment 80.

15:43We also initiated a site plan application back in November of 2022.

15:49And you may recall that this committee also approved a minor variance in June of 2023 to that was related to that previous site plan application.

15:59And then finally, in July of 2023, the site plan application was filed and conditionally approved in February of 2025.

16:07There was a lot of detailed review.

16:09That site plan is now being revised and part of this application is to revise that proposal.

16:16You will have recalled the operators for the ultimate user of that development is accompanied by the name of New Cold.

16:24They are now shrinking the size of that development and this is helping to facilitate that proposal.

16:33Next, I'd like to just kind of briefly walk you through Crawley, sorry, Southgate Drive and specifically how it's evolved over time.

16:41So what you have on your screen is sort of a time lapse air photo that starts back in 2000 and it shows Southgate Drive being extended generally every few years as development proceeds south from Clear Drive,

16:58which is sort of Clear Drive is the east west road, which is at the top of the point of Crawley Road on your screen today.

17:05So you'll see and notice how development was kind of progressing over time between 2000 and 2009 and then again between 2009 and 2024.

17:16So you see it starting to develop and the way it's developed is through the extension of Southgate Drive, you're getting development on both sides of the street.

17:24I just really wanted to kind of illustrate and outline for you that the proposal today is to continue that pattern of development.

17:31So to continue to extend the road.

17:33So now what we've got on the screen is what the proposal is.

17:37It outlines Southgate Drive where it is located today and the proposal is generally to sever a new 10.2 hectare parcel, which is the red parcel on your screen.

17:49That's about 25 acres, which will be developed by New Cold for the state of the art temperature controlled warehouse and logistics facility.

17:58We're also proposing to dedicate all of the widenings for the entire parcel.

18:02So along the parcels entire frontage on Crawley Road as well as Maltby Road and then of course the extension.

18:09So the design and construction of Southgate Drive.

18:11The one thing that was in our original proposal is to create a three meter wide servicing easement.

18:17Given staff's comments and their lack of support for that proposal, we've abandoned it.

18:24Really the intent of that was to not need to come back to this committee for a future approval or find a work with your staff to hopefully not need to create the easement.

18:34And if we do, we can come back at a later time when it's actually needed.

18:40And then in terms of our requested severance, we've done our analysis.

18:44You will have had the application materials before you.

18:48The submission basically concludes that in our opinion, the analysis of section 51-24 of the Planning Act, which is the criteria that you have to review against the application in our opinion has been satisfied.

19:04And as a result, we're recommending that it be approved.

19:07And similarly, we support staff's recommendation to approve it as well.

19:13And the last thing I want to sort of highlight for you is we included a functional servicing report that outlines generally how the road will be extended, where the services will go, and how we're going to deal with emergency access.

19:29So we've put a lot of thought into how this parcel will be created, and that information's with city staff.

19:36And we also acknowledge that a lot of the conditions have been created so that we can satisfy the criteria in 51-24, which includes the servicing, the extension of the road, as well as the protection of the public interest.

19:47So in our opinion, for all these reasons and more, we do think that the staff report as well as the revised conditions to appropriately address those.

19:58And we respectfully request that this committee approve the application as revised.

20:04And I'd be happy to answer any questions at this point.

20:06Wonderful. Thank you. I'm just going to ask you to stand by, actually, and we're going to go to city staff.

20:11I believe they have a presentation, and then we will do a selected round of comments and questions at that point. City staff?

20:18Great. Thank you, Chair.

20:19So I'm Crystal Wachee.

20:20I'm the general manager of Planning and Building Services.

20:22And although it's not typical for me to be here, as the consultant has noted, there's been a long history on this application of which I've been involved.

20:30So we just thought it'd be easiest if I came this evening.

20:33For the two items before you today, one is for the severance.

20:37We have worked with the applicant on the conditions, and as was indicated, they're satisfied with the conditions.

20:42And staff are satisfied, obviously, with the ones we put forward.

20:46It does meet the criterion, Section 51 of the Planning Act, Subsection 24 and 25 for conditions.

20:54So we are satisfied that we can move forward with this application and that we will be entering into a development agreement to ensure that the various conditions are fulfilled.

21:03Regarding the request for easement, as is before you in the staff report, we do not support it.

21:09We do believe it's premature at this time and as indicated by the applicant's consultant, we'll continue to work with them on future servicing of the retained lands as it moves forward, whether it be through a draft plan of subdivision and other process.

21:24So at this time, if I have any questions, I'm happy to answer them, Chair.

21:28Okay. Thank you. That was helpful.

21:32So at this point then I will open the door up here to questions for the applicant or city staff from the committee.

21:41Seeing none. Oh, I'm sorry.

21:48Member Smith, please go ahead.

21:51Thank you, Chair.

21:59I'm technologically challenged at this point.

22:02I just want to make sure that you can't hear me.

22:06Yes, we can hear you. Thank you.

22:08Okay. Thank you.

22:09This point is moved.

22:11Given that the request for the easement has been withdrawn, but I would like since this same.

22:20Or a similar request was made at our last meeting under part seven of the building code.

22:27And I just like some background from staff.

22:34I know it and pulling up 7.1.4.1 that there's there's a slight difference in what city staff are saying the definition of 7.1.1.

22:47Point 4.1.

22:50Pardon me. I'm quoting the wrong section. It's 7.1.2.4 section one.

22:58Regarding separate services and in staff's notes, they say that public services must be connected.

23:07However, my reading of the Ontario building code is that public services shall be connected separately.

23:14And I know that's a little bit nerdy, but I'd like a bit of an answer from staff.

23:23On the difference between why they're suggesting refusal of the easement based that their comments are a little bit different than the OBC.

23:39Thank you through the chair. So the Ontario building code does have that criteria and must and shall or our words that we would use interchangeable and our interpretation of that section of the code.

23:52We also at this point do not have the plans for what that would be. So at this point, we're uncertain member Smith as to whether where it connects. If it connects, we don't have that information available for us.

24:05And that's why we have indicated that it's premature.

24:08I appreciate that. And it's a, as I mentioned in my opening comment, it is a moot point. It's just that it's come up recently.

24:16And so you and I can agree to disagree about the difference between must and shall. I leave that to the lawyers, but thank you for comments.

24:30Unless there are other questions on the committee, I have a couple that I will add.

24:35So I guess to city staff.

24:40I wondered if you could just talk a little bit about the changes that were introduced in the most recent round of comments, just so that those of us who maybe didn't have a chance to dive deep into those today might have a bit more of an understanding of what has changed since the original set was issued.

25:00Certainly, man chair.

25:02So that some of the conditions were amended, for example, in the original conditions that are published in the agenda, we had a condition that they go through site plan approval.

25:11Site plan approval is required, regardless if it's a condition or not. So we did feel it was redundant not required for this.

25:19So I think that's a good point.

25:22I think that's a good point.

25:25I also amended the conditions to indicated that it could be included as a condition of a development agreement or prior to certificate approval.

25:34So many of the conditions were amended to add that it can either be in the development agreement or prior to certificate official that does satisfy the section of the planning act for conditions related to severances.

25:47And so it's a good point to review those plans.

25:50So that is what the intent of the wording changes were.

25:53So generally removal of some of the redundant conditions and to add that it could be in a development agreement or prior to certificate official.

26:02So it gives the applicant time if they want to complete them before the development agreement they can or it can be in the agreement itself.

26:11Thank you. That's very helpful.

26:13Thank you for the applicant.

26:15I did notice that there was some comment about the urgency around, you know, bringing this forward at this time.

26:23And it sounds like there's been a change in the scope of what will be developed at the site.

26:29I just wondered if you could comment a little bit on maybe why or what is kind of driving some of that urgency, maybe not around the business side, but at least so we can understand why now, why this should,

26:42I think we need to approve this set of conditions in this application here today.

26:47Yeah, no, thank you, Chair.

26:51What's driving the urgency is that there's a purchase and sale agreement.

26:57So that's what's driving it.

27:00Also, as I noted in the application history, development of this site for the new cold operation has been in place since 2022.

27:09So there's a lot of urgency to advance that.

27:12And I really want to thank staff for all of their hard work to helping to make that happen.

27:17And I specifically want to call out obviously Crystal Wauke, Terry Gaiman, and Michelle Thalen for all their hard work on working through these engineering issues to help us kind of ensure that the development happens relatively quickly.

27:31If you visited the site recently, you know that there's some pre-grading works that have happened.

27:36And part of the reason we want to get the severance moving along is so that the construction of the actual buildings can get going as well.

27:43And this severance will help do that.

27:46Okay, thank you. That's very helpful clarification.

27:49I think at this point then, unless there are any other questions for the applicant, no seeing none, I think then we're going to move on and check to see if we have any delegations.

27:59Madame Secretary Treasurer, do we have any delegations for this application?

28:04Madame Chair, I can confirm we don't have any delegation requests.

28:09Okay, great. Is there anyone here in the audience who would like to come forward and delegate on this application?

28:16Okay, seeing none, then I think we are good to move forward.

28:22Let's keep reading here.

28:27I think at this point then, unless there's anything further to add, by staff we can move into committee and look for a motion from the committee members.

28:39Member Meir.

28:42Yeah, I move motion to.

28:44In favor.

28:45Okay, we have a motion in favor. Do we have a seconder?

28:50Member Membranio.

28:52All right, is there any discussion on the motion?

28:55All right, seeing none, then Madame Secretary Treasurer, I believe we can call the vote.

29:03Committee members, please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the motion, which is to approve the application with the revised conditions.

29:13Chair Goodfellow.

29:14In favor.

29:15Member Fitzpatrick.

29:17In favor.

29:18Member Membranio.

29:19In favor.

29:20Member Meir.

29:21In favor.

29:22Member Ross.

29:23In favor.

29:24Member Smith.

29:25In favor.

29:26Member Spears.

29:27In favor.

29:28That's carried.

29:30Thank you. That has been approved. So then, yeah, the applicant, you were free to leave the meeting. So thank you very much.

29:39Okay, I believe we can call the next applicant, please.

29:46The next application is file a dash 76 slash 25 variances for reduced number of active entrances and reduced parking area setback at 1861 1871 and 1879 Gordon Street.

30:10If you're interested in seeing or watching online, if you wish to speak to this application, you can do so by calling the number displayed on the screen.

30:17That number is 519-822-1260 extension 2524. And when you call in staff will give you instructions on how you can delegate remotely.

30:28Great.

30:29Is the applicant present?

30:32Yes.

30:33Hi, welcome.

30:35Can you state your name and relationship to the application, please?

30:39Hi, I'm Mariahs, a planner with Western Consulting here as the planning consultant on behalf of the owners, Madis Group.

30:46Thank you. Was the sign posted just for the planning act requirements?

30:50Yes.

30:51And have you received staff comments and are you in agreement with those comments?

30:56Yes, in agreement with the comments.

30:58Okay. That's great. Then I think you have 10 minutes here to address the committee. Thank you. Go ahead.

31:05Sure. Just have a presentation.

31:11Okay, I'll get started. Good afternoon, Madam chair and members of the committee. My name is Bethel Zacharias. I'm a planner with Western Consulting here this afternoon on behalf of the property owners, Madis Group in support of the minor variance application for 1861, 1871 and 1879 Gordon Street in the city of Guelph.

31:31Next slide, please.

31:34So the subject properties are located on the southwest corner of Gordon Street and Poppy Drive West and are currently occupied by three single detached dwellings.

31:42The properties have a combined area of approximately 0.455 hectares with a total frontage of 103.15 meters along Gordon Street.

31:51Surrounding uses include a commercial retail plaza to the north, residential developments to the west, and nursery along with a 13 story high rise building to the east.

32:00Next slide, please.

32:03The properties are designated high density residential in the city official plan and are zoned by density residential seven with parking adjustment and holding provision age 12 in the city's updated zoning bylaw.

32:16And just to note that holding provision is in place just to ensure that adequate municipal servicing is available prior to permitting any residential development.

32:26The underlying zoning permits the proposed retirement facility, the holding symbol just restricts development until municipal servicing is confirmed to the satisfaction of the city.

32:35Next slide, please.

32:39A nine story retirement residence is proposed for the site consisting of 159 suites and associated amenities.

32:46Parking is proposed to be located above grade at the rear of the building with a total of 53 parking spaces, including accessible stalls as well as landscape open space, taking up approximately 44.6% of the site contributing to the site's livability and visual character.

33:02And this application follows a pre consultation meeting held with staff on June 11 2025, which confirmed the requirement to be under both full zoning compliance prior to the submission of the site plan application.

33:15Next slide please.

33:17So as you could see on screen, the minor variance application seeks relief from two provisions of the zoning bylaw. The first being the active entrance requirement table 6.34.

33:29The zoning bylaw requires one active entrance for every 30 meters of street frontage when the building is within 15 meters of the street.

33:37And along Gordon Street, the building is approximately 75 meters long and located within six meters of the right of way, resulting in that requirement for two active entrances.

33:47So the variance seeks to reduce that required number to one along Gordon Street.

33:52And it's important to know that the active entrance is also proposed along Poppy Drive West ensuring overall pedestrian connectivity.

33:59And that second variance is regarding the setback from parking area to a habitable room window section 5.2.2 B.

34:08The zoning bylaw requires a three meter setback between surface parking areas and any wall containing a window of a habitable room.

34:16And so a setback of 1.325 meters is proposed along the rear of the building adjacent to that surface parking.

34:23And this area does not contain any habitable rooms instead it actually includes support functions such as staff offices, a kitchen, a moving room and other back of house facilities to support the retirement residents.

34:35These are not excess accessible to residents and don't require the same level of separation as habitable rooms.

34:43So in our professional opinion, both both requested variances meet the four tests under the planning act.

34:49The proposed retirement residents aligns with the high density residential designation in the official plan, which supports the intensification in the form of multi unit residential development.

35:00The reduced number of entrances still achieves that pedestrian connectivity and respects the operational requirements of a secured and safe retirement facility.

35:09And the reduced parking setback maintains livability while preserving a substantial buffer to the adjacent area.

35:15The zoning bylaw's intent for active entrances is to promote an engaging and walkable streetscape. This is still achieved through that single entrance on Gordon Street and additional entrance on Poppy Drive West.

35:26The parking setback relief is technical in nature and doesn't impact any residential occupied spaces, maintaining the intent of protecting amenity and privacy as well.

35:38The variances facilitate a modern well functioning retirement residents that meets the specific needs of future residents while balancing urban design and site functionality.

35:48The second entrance along Gordon Street would not serve a functional purpose for end users of this facility and could introduce unnecessary security concerns for those within the retirement residents.

36:01Both variances are modest in scale technical in nature and won't resolve in any adverse impacts to the surrounding properties or the public realm.

36:09Next slide please.

36:11So as mentioned, we've reviewed the staff report and understand that staff are in support of the requested variances.

36:18We agree with their analysis and recommendations.

36:21The proposed variances are both reasonable and appropriate to facilitate the important retirement residents and responds to community needs.

36:28We respectfully request that the committee approve the minor variance application and I'm available for any questions at this point.

36:35Thank you. That was very informative. Appreciate that. I'm just going to check in with city staff or do you folks have a presentation for this application? No. Okay. Great.

36:47Then I think at this point, do the committee members have any questions for the applicant? Yes. Member Meir will start with you and then member Ross.

36:55Yeah, I would like to chair request if I can talk to the staff on this just for my understanding that this building of nine story as I see is for seniors and that's an even assisted people.

37:13And the Gordon Street to me is a very busy street. In case of emergency, the exit of these people slow moving people, how it will be catered with the reduction of the entrances.

37:32Through the chair to member mere staff are confident that there are sufficient number of entrances overall in the building. The variance request is specifically for active entrances fronting on to Gordon Street.

37:48But there are several sliding doors on the sunken patio and service entrances as well as further emergency entrances facing towards the parking lot. So there should be no shortage of accesses for residents and staff to exit the facility if needed.

38:03In an emergency. Okay. Thank you. Member Ross.

38:08Through you, Madam chair to the applicant.

38:13I wonder if you could just so that I'm clear on where the entrances are proposed to be. If we could pull up that drawing and you could walk me through where those entrances are are going to be located.

38:29Yep. So the active entrances is right at the corner of Poppy Drive and Gordon Street. As mentioned by staff, there are another two entrances along Gordon Street.

38:47Those are intended to be more controlled accesses for specific in and out access and emergency uses. But the main access that is the full moves access is at Gordon and Poppy right at the corner at the top left of the screen.

39:04So then people would move from the parking lot to the active entrance off Poppy Drive at the corner. Is that correct?

39:16Correct.

39:18And the other two entrances.

39:21Who are who is intended to use those entrances.

39:25So those are more intended for specific controlled entrances like staff and any.

39:31Specific specific emergency exit in and out.

39:37Those aren't intended to be used for everyday resident.

39:42Use.

39:45And then again, just so I'm totally clear on the application there. There's no direct access or is there a direct access from the parking lot into the rear of the building.

39:57Yeah, there is a secondary active access from Poppy as well. And that gets you in from the rear of the building where the parking, the above ground parking is.

40:07Thank you.

40:09Thank you. And are there any other questions from committee members?

40:18Member Smith.

40:22Thank you, Madam chair.

40:24Through you to the applicant or city staff.

40:28First, I want to thank the applicant for anticipating one of my questions regarding the fenestration and that it isn't impacting a residential unit. So thank you for that.

40:41I just want to be clear that there are no building code issues as far as staff is concerned.

40:47In terms of active entrances, this is this is just a minor variance application based on zoning. Is that an official plan is am I correct in that assumption?

40:58Through the chair to member Smith, that is correct. There aren't any billing code variances or anything that are subject to this application.

41:10If there are any building code concerns, those will be fleshed out in detailed review once they go for a building permit in the future.

41:17Thank you chair. That's my question.

41:20Thank you. All right.

41:26Seeing no more questions at this point, I think we will go to delegations. Are there any delegates met Madam secretary treasure?

41:34Madam chair, I can confirm no delegation requests.

41:38Are there any delegates in the audience?

41:43Seeing none, then I think we are good to move into a discussion at the committee level of emotion.

41:52Is anybody ready to make a motion?

41:55Member Ross, I'll move to approve the application. There are no conditions I know from staff.

42:03Thank you. A seconder member fits Patrick.

42:08All right. Is there any discussion on the motion?

42:12Seeing none, I think we can move into the vote. Madam secretary treasure, can you call the vote please?

42:18Committee members, please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the motion, which is to approve the application.

42:26Chair Goodfellow.

42:27In favor.

42:28Member fits Patrick.

42:29In favor.

42:30Member Mambrenio.

42:31In favor.

42:32Member Meir.

42:33In favor.

42:34Member Ross.

42:35In favor.

42:36Member Smith.

42:37In favor.

42:38And member Spears.

42:40In favor.

42:41That's carried.

42:43Thank you. Then the application has been approved, so the applicant is free to leave the meeting. Thank you for your time.

42:53Thank you.

42:57Okay. I think we can move into the next application. Please.

43:03The next application is File B dash 61 slash 25.

43:10with one retained residential lot at 20 Highview Place.

43:16I'll note for those attending remotely,

43:18if you wish to speak to the application,

43:21you can call 519-822-1260 extension 2524

43:27and you can speak to staff will give instructions

43:30on how you can delegate remotely.

43:32I'll also note that comments were received

43:34after the comment deadline from Gord and Catherine Reed

43:37and Irene Neal with concerns about the application

43:40and those pieces of correspondence

43:42have been circulated to the committee members

43:45and the applicant.

43:49Thank you.

43:50Is the applicant present?

43:53Please come forward.

44:01Hi, can you state your name

44:03and relationship to the applicant please?

44:07I work with Van Hart and serving

44:09I'm the agent for this application.

44:11Thank you.

44:12Was the sign posted for the planning act requirements?

44:15Yes.

44:15Great.

44:16And have you received staff comments

44:18and are you in agreement with any conditions?

44:20Yes and yes.

44:21Okay, wonderful.

44:22Then you have 10 minutes to add anything

44:25further to your application.

44:27Amazing, thank you.

44:30Okay, so this application,

44:33there's this separate sketch up on the screen.

44:36It's a bit of a unique shape to lot

44:38and there's an existing house.

44:41The owner is here with me as well today, Yolanda is here

44:45and the house is in good condition

44:48and she didn't want to remove it or demolish it.

44:52I felt that would be wasteful.

44:54And so the intent here is to create a new lot.

45:02They would do that by building an addition

45:04onto the existing house and that addition

45:07then would share a party wall with the other side

45:10with the new lot.

45:14So that would be a semi-detached configuration.

45:20This proposal completely conforms with the R1,

45:26RL.1 zoning and there's no minor variance is proposed.

45:30Everything conforms to the zoning bylaw.

45:35Planning staff and engineering staff have reviewed

45:38this application and we consulted them with them

45:42ahead of time on this application as well

45:44and they have not raised any issues.

45:47They have required standard conditions

45:52such as a drainage plan, servicing plan,

45:56storm water management report.

45:58All those things will be done as part of

46:00satisfying the conditions if this application

46:03were to be approved.

46:07That also includes requiring a tree inventory

46:10and protection plan that will be done.

46:15There will be three legal parking spaces

46:17for the retained and two legal parking spaces

46:20for the severed parcel.

46:22So we believe there is adequate parking on the property

46:27for the proposed use.

46:34I guess as some context as well,

46:35the applicant previously applied for a building permit

46:38for a detached ADU at the back of this property

46:41and at that point removed some of the trees

46:43at the back of the property,

46:46which at that time did not require a tree cutting permit.

46:52That by-law was updated in April of this year, 2025.

46:58And so any future removals will have to be done

47:01in conformity with that by-law

47:02and with the tree inventory and protection plan.

47:08Overall, I think this application provides

47:12a good opportunity for new individuals

47:15and or families to live in an established neighborhood.

47:18The applicant has two kids that haven't been able

47:24to live in Guelph because of the cost of living in Guelph

47:27and intends to use this development as a way

47:30to have family back in the city of Guelph.

47:36It's an efficient use because it's using existing

47:39city servicing that's on the street.

47:41It minimizes urban sprawl.

47:43And so we agree with city staff's recommendation

47:47for approval and we kindly request

47:49that the committee approves this application.

47:53I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have.

47:57Thank you.

47:58That was very helpful information.

48:01I'm just going to check in with city staff

48:03before we open the floor to some questions.

48:05City staff, do you have anything to add to this application?

48:09No, okay, thank you.

48:11So committee members, are there questions

48:13for the applicant or city staff?

48:15Yeah, member Fitzpatrick.

48:17Through you, Madam Chair, to the applicant.

48:20So the initial building permit for the ADU has been withdrawn.

48:32Can you turn on your speaker?

48:34Okay, there you go.

48:35Sorry, I didn't realize I had to do that.

48:38Yeah, through you, Madam Chair,

48:39the building permit hasn't been removed at this time,

48:42but it's one of the conditions that building staff suggested.

48:47And so that's one of the conditions.

48:50Okay.

48:51And through you, Madam Chair, a follow-up question.

48:55So we're going to have three units in total on this,

49:00on the site and with the severed lot,

49:03or is there additional ADUs being planned as well?

49:11So the plans haven't been done for the addition,

49:16but the zoning by-law would allow six units in total.

49:18So three on each of the two parcels.

49:23Right now that would be three on the retained

49:26and the severed plan, severed has to be designed.

49:34Any other questions from committee members?

49:37Member Smith.

49:41Thank you, Madam Chair.

49:43Through you to the applicant, first of all,

49:48thank you for addressing the issue of the trees

49:52that were raised by one of the neighbors.

49:54And I just want to also thank you for proposing something

50:03that will retain the existing structure.

50:06I think we need to see more of that.

50:08But my question is somewhat of a tactical one,

50:12and I think it's for staff.

50:16We essentially have two semi-detached units.

50:22Am I reading the floor plan correctly?

50:31Through you, Chair to Member Smith, that's correct, yes.

50:35Okay, good.

50:36And I assume that any sort of technical building code issues

50:43will be addressed at time of permit,

50:45but I noticed that there's fenestration presently

50:49at the sort of bottom left corner

50:54where the existing building is planned to impact

50:58with one of the new semis.

51:01So I assume that would be picked up

51:03at the time of building permit.

51:05Am I correct in that assumption?

51:11Through you, Chair to Member Smith, yes,

51:13it will be picked up through the bill in permit review.

51:16Okay, thank you.

51:18And one final question for staff.

51:21There have been some comments raised

51:23about the intensification, et cetera.

51:27By right, if we weren't here talking about a variance,

51:31pardon me, a severance, a consent,

51:36that by right there could be,

51:40foreflex could be built on this site.

51:42Am I correct in that statement?

51:48Yeah, that's correct.

51:50For semi-detached though,

51:52they can only do max two additional ADUs.

51:55So if it wasn't a semi that they're proposing

51:58that you could do fore as of right.

52:00Okay, I just wanted to make that clear.

52:02Thank you for the information.

52:08Thank you, Member Smith.

52:10Any other questions for the applicant

52:13before we move to delegates?

52:14Okay, Member Spears.

52:16Yeah, through you, Madam Chair, to the delegate again.

52:17I just, I appreciate you saying

52:19that the plans aren't in place.

52:21We don't know what it's gonna look like.

52:24I'm just a little confused as the right word,

52:29there's a real mismatch in sizes between the two sides.

52:32So the new, the severed parcel will have a dwelling

52:36that's 140 square meters,

52:38and the retained will be 125 plus 93.

52:41So well over 200.

52:44I don't know if you can,

52:45maybe you can't speak to how that might lay out.

52:48And, because I think that I noticed

52:50there's an apartment already in the basement

52:52of the existing dwelling.

52:56If they can only be through units,

52:59sounds like a bit of a challenge.

53:05So through the chair to Member Spears.

53:10So sorry, your question is just,

53:12you're saying that the proposed,

53:14I guess addition on the retained parcel,

53:16you feel that that's too big?

53:17I don't know, I don't feel that it's too big.

53:19I just think that the two sides are,

53:21they're certainly not gonna be a mirror of each other.

53:24Just curious of how this thing might lay out.

53:28Yeah, we anticipate that the unit

53:30then on the retained side is gonna be a larger unit,

53:33more living space, and then smaller units

53:35on the severed sides, depending on how many units

53:38get developed on the severed side.

53:40The applicant has the opportunity to do one unit

53:43or up to three if this were approved.

53:48Okay, thanks, that covers it.

53:52Thank you, that actually answers one of my questions.

53:54So I appreciate that.

53:57Now we're gonna move into delegates.

53:59Madam Secretary Treasurer,

54:01have we received any delegation requests?

54:04Madam Chair, we do have some delegation requests.

54:07The first is Maria Case.

54:26Good afternoon, can you please state your name?

54:28My name is Maria Case,

54:30and I live next door to the proposed site.

54:35And this is Stuart Ren, and he lives next door with me.

54:39He's my partner.

54:40And I'll just note that you have a maximum of 10 minutes

54:43to address the committee.

54:44So let's please go ahead.

54:46Good afternoon, everyone.

54:47I would like to thank Madam Goodfellow

54:50and members of the committee and city staff

54:54for this opportunity to provide feedback

54:56on the application for a severance at 25 U Place.

55:00Stuart and I are at 22 High View Place,

55:03which abuts the property of the application.

55:05So if you're looking at it,

55:07we are on the right hand side.

55:09The lot.

55:10Lot 33.

55:12Infill housing projects are useful solutions

55:14to housing in our city.

55:15And there are many examples of infill projects

55:18that are very beautiful and complementary

55:20to the existing neighborhoods,

55:21due to the shape and the size of the property in question.

55:24It looks to be a good candidate for an infill project.

55:28The issue we have is what is being proposed.

55:31In today's agenda, you will find a letter

55:33by Van Harton surveying the company we learned

55:37who have put the proposal together.

55:41And they have made what I believe is a telling comment

55:43on this proposal.

55:45They write, the proposal is unique.

55:49However, it is logical given the unique property shape

55:52and also maintains the existing dwelling

55:55that was recently renovated and in great condition.

55:59As a side note to the condition of the existing dwelling

56:02in our neighborhood, there have been several demolitions

56:05of perfectly good houses in great shape,

56:08but were redeveloped anyway.

56:11The letter continues to make a case

56:13for this unconventional residential project

56:16that could set a very difficult precedence

56:19for homeowners in the RL1 zoning areas in the future.

56:24My understanding of what is being built

56:26is what was described.

56:29They aren't requesting for a severance immediately.

56:32They are asking for an addition,

56:34a large addition on the existing property.

56:37So it's now about 1,000 square feet

56:42and they want it to become,

56:43the addition is 1,350 square feet

56:47after which a parcel of land will be severed

56:50and then this semi-detached will magically come into play.

56:56And so the connection will be the original dwelling

57:01on an attached dwelling or an addition,

57:08and then a semi-detached.

57:11It just seems like a very unusual proposal

57:14where I've seen in our neighborhood,

57:16they get rid of the original building

57:18and put up two that sort of match each other.

57:21They look alike.

57:23They're not all sort of mismatched

57:25as what seems to be proposed.

57:28Some histories are not so clear,

57:31some history.

57:33It was evident that something was going on at 25U

57:36because many trees were cut down last summer in July.

57:40After this, the proponent put a large outline,

57:45a rectangle at the very back,

57:46and I believe that was the original submission

57:51through the Guelph permitting,

57:53which was rejected early in the year,

57:55then it was resubmitted and they,

57:58it looks like on April 30th, 2025, an ADU was approved.

58:06So when I received this notice,

58:12it was very different,

58:13a very different proposal than an ADU.

58:16And as we know, it was a future severance

58:20of 8.2 meter lot frontage

58:22and then the underlying complex unique plan.

58:27I find it very perplexing

58:29why there is a need to have three structures

58:31linked the way they're proposing it,

58:33because I believe, if I'm reading the city bylaws correctly,

58:37that if they sever it at nine meters,

58:40they could build a full detached building.

58:44And then I believe there's probably still enough room

58:47on the remaining lot or the original lot

58:49to build some kind of addition.

58:51So it's not this linked structure.

58:54There could be the original structure with an addition

58:57and then a separate detached building.

59:03I would like to call your attention to the houses

59:05in the neighborhood.

59:06In that segment of High View, there are six bungalows.

59:13They're all single family dwellings

59:16with the exception of 20 High View, the one in question,

59:19which has a basement ADU already that we've heard about.

59:23And that basement ADU, I think was only occupied

59:27for a few weeks by somebody's friend.

59:30So there is room for one of the children to live there

59:33if need be already.

59:37Anyway, most of the houses in the adjoining neighborhood

59:41are either bungalows or one and a half story houses,

59:45several two story houses.

59:47Most are single family dwellings of dwellings

59:49in the configuration being proposed.

59:52There are none.

59:54I will reiterate that a severance

59:56for a detached dwelling with an addition

59:59and then a separate detached building

1:00:04would be a lot for our little neighborhood.

1:00:08But it probably would be less of a sort of a disappointment,

1:00:14I suppose, than having this linked structure

1:00:20that is being proposed.

1:00:23The original dwelling already has an AU

1:00:26and the current bylaws permit,

1:00:29we heard today three units per property.

1:00:33So it looks like there is a potential

1:00:37for six totaled units on that property.

1:00:40I don't know if that's the plans,

1:00:43but considering what is being proposed,

1:00:45we have an insight on the applicants aspirations.

1:00:48Parking will be very contentious in the neighborhood.

1:00:51It would be a huge departure from the six existing

1:00:55bungalow structure, more than doubling the number

1:00:59or at least doubling the number of dwellings.

1:01:04And it would, I believe, have an effect

1:01:06on the entire neighborhood.

1:01:08Many neighbors have expressed concern

1:01:09and they might speak today

1:01:11or they might have written to the committee.

1:01:14The changes proposed could add more traffic issues.

1:01:19Some properties could mean less sunlight, privacy,

1:01:23and how will it affect our taxes and our property values?

1:01:28For our property, we have enjoyed relatively,

1:01:32a relative privacy.

1:01:33Last year, a lot of the trees were covered

1:01:35down, our fence was broken, it wasn't fixed.

1:01:38We don't have a fancy fence, but it wasn't fixed.

1:01:41So what we would like to propose

1:01:44is if this project goes through,

1:01:47we are asking the committee to consider

1:01:50that if a development is approved at 25-View Place

1:01:55that whoever develops the property

1:01:57be required to build a privacy fence

1:01:59between our properties at their expense.

1:02:03And earlier, I said that I did wanna elaborate

1:02:10on something that maybe I didn't mention.

1:02:12There had been a rumor in the neighborhood that,

1:02:15and I brought this up with the applicant

1:02:18and also with the city,

1:02:19that there might be buried in the side yard

1:02:23on an old oil tank that the former person

1:02:28used to dump his oil in.

1:02:30And it could pose a tentative problem.

1:02:35And I'm hoping that if any projects take place,

1:02:39even though it's a rumor that an assessment

1:02:41of the environmental issues

1:02:45that might be on that property could be conducted

1:02:52before any construction begins,

1:02:54because I would like to remind the committee,

1:02:56our warehouses are above an aquifer.

1:03:00And if there is any contaminant

1:03:02and it gets broken into, if something gets dug,

1:03:05it could be a problem for my property,

1:03:08for the aquifer, for the existing property.

1:03:12Finally, we understand infill projects are necessary

1:03:15and useful and would be okay next door.

1:03:17It would be ideal if the plan was less unique

1:03:20and more in harmony, what is already here.

1:03:23Thank you for your time.

1:03:27Thank you, thank you for your comments.

1:03:30I'm gonna ask if the committee has any questions

1:03:32for this delegate.

1:03:33Yes, member Ross.

1:03:36Through you, Madam Chair, I have a question to staff

1:03:40as a result of the delegates' comments, if I may.

1:03:44I wondered if you could walk us through the height

1:03:50of what you anticipate happening

1:03:53on the semi-detached severed lands.

1:03:56Thank you.

1:04:00Through you, Chair, to member Ross.

1:04:03Well, the height isn't explicitly listed on the plans,

1:04:09they are permitted as a right up to three stories.

1:04:14Thank you.

1:04:15I just, I note in your comments under subsection one

1:04:19under building form scale height and setbacks

1:04:23that the semi-detached unit would have a similar form

1:04:27to the existing single story.

1:04:29So I just needed some clarification

1:04:31on your thoughts around that.

1:04:36Right, so we would interpret it typically

1:04:39semi-detached or two to three stories tall,

1:04:43which is still in line with the zoning requirements

1:04:46in the maximum height for the RL1 zone,

1:04:49which is what the neighborhood is all zone does.

1:04:52And then just so I'm very clear,

1:04:54the addition to the existing structure,

1:04:58is there a proposal for that?

1:05:00Or is that all to come?

1:05:07I think the applicant can better answer your question

1:05:10for that one.

1:05:19Is the applicant still here?

1:05:24The question was the height anticipated

1:05:28for the addition to the existing structure.

1:05:39Through you, Madam Chair.

1:05:40At this point, the building plans

1:05:41haven't been finalized.

1:05:43The applicants had some initial discussions

1:05:45with a designer, but the intent is to be in line

1:05:49with the zoning bylaw for this.

1:05:52Thank you for that clarification.

1:05:56Thank you, Member Ross.

1:05:58Any other questions for the delegate or staff

1:06:00related to the delegates' comments?

1:06:04Okay.

1:06:07Yes, through you, Madam Chair.

1:06:09City to city staff here.

1:06:12Opine a little bit on what would happen

1:06:15if in the process of excavation on this property,

1:06:19something that the delegate mentioned was uncovered.

1:06:24What would happen?

1:06:31To the, through the chair to Member Spears,

1:06:34I was just trying to look this up.

1:06:36I recall this on a similar,

1:06:38well, a similar, on a severance that we did a few years ago

1:06:41where there was an oil tank under a garage.

1:06:44And it was dealt with through the building code, I believe.

1:06:49I don't know exactly what was required through that.

1:06:54If it was some sort of record or site condition or what,

1:06:57so our cleanup, I was going to try to look at that right now,

1:07:00but it would be dealt with during the building permit.

1:07:05Okay, thanks very much.

1:07:09And I believe Member Smith may have

1:07:11a couple of questions as well.

1:07:13Member Smith.

1:07:15Thank you, Chair.

1:07:17I was going to ask City staff based on the applicant,

1:07:22or pardon me, the delegates comments,

1:07:24a similar question to Member Spears.

1:07:26If that is, is that a condition we could add

1:07:30about identifying any potential former oil storage tanks?

1:07:43Through the chair to Member Smith,

1:07:47that condition, that would be normally covered

1:07:51under the SSQ environmental condition.

1:07:54So should there be an environment oil tank,

1:07:59then it'll have to be dealt with through environmental process

1:08:03and or the building code as well.

1:08:07Thank you for that.

1:08:09Another question that arises from the delegation

1:08:14and that is the issue of the destroyed fence.

1:08:18I'm wondering about the recommendation that,

1:08:25by the delegate that we could add the condition

1:08:28that privacy fence encapsulates the property,

1:08:34is what staff's opinion on that if I may, through the chair.

1:08:43Through the chair, that is a condition

1:08:44that the committee could choose to add to the application.

1:08:49Staff would leave that up to the discretion of the committee,

1:08:52whether or not such a condition for a privacy fence

1:08:54should be included or not.

1:08:58Thank you.

1:08:58And lastly, to circle back to the delegate,

1:09:03I'd like to ask the delegate,

1:09:07you understand that this is a severance application,

1:09:11it's not a building permit application.

1:09:14And were we not talking about a severance

1:09:17that by right the property owner could build a three-story,

1:09:23four-unit building,

1:09:27and it would just have to go through building code

1:09:30and building permit process.

1:09:33Are you aware of that?

1:09:35Well, my understanding,

1:09:37this is the comment that I wanted to make

1:09:40about the severance process.

1:09:43And also the design,

1:09:45this sort of linked structure that they're proposing.

1:09:51I guess my comment is, or one of my comments,

1:09:54why instead of making it 8.2 meters as a lot frontage,

1:10:00why didn't they just request nine meters of a lot frontage?

1:10:05Then they could build an entire detached building,

1:10:09three stories high,

1:10:11probably could have four units in it,

1:10:15and leave the existing house alone

1:10:20or put a smaller addition on it.

1:10:23Why?

1:10:24It already has two units,

1:10:26so that should be fairly satisfactory.

1:10:29We're squeezing two extra units in.

1:10:30So if they put an addition on the original house,

1:10:35which might be smaller than what is being shown

1:10:38in the design in the sketch here,

1:10:41there could still be a bit of space

1:10:43between the two properties

1:10:46that would kind of be more in alignment

1:10:48with what the entire neighborhood looks like

1:10:52so that she could build a three-story house

1:10:55and then maybe have a small addition on her existing house,

1:10:58and they don't have to be attached.

1:11:00I don't understand why they need to be attached.

1:11:02She can have it all, but they don't have to be linked,

1:11:06and I don't understand why it's imperative

1:11:09that they be linked.

1:11:11Or even that it's in this progression of build,

1:11:14build, firewall, build, done, whatever,

1:11:19and then we're left with windows looking

1:11:21over the whole entire neighborhood.

1:11:23Yeah, and actually, I think we're kind of getting

1:11:25into kind of redesign here by committee,

1:11:28and probably want to stay away from that a bit,

1:11:30but I do appreciate your comments

1:11:32in response to Member Smith's question,

1:11:34because I do think, yeah, there are quite a number

1:11:36of ways this site could have been developed,

1:11:39and I think what we're being asked tonight

1:11:41to review is the application in front of us,

1:11:43but I do appreciate the thought

1:11:44that you've clearly put into how this might be more compatible

1:11:48with the neighborhood and in your view,

1:11:50so thank you very much for your comments.

1:11:53Thank you.

1:11:53Thank you.

1:11:54Thank you.

1:11:56I think at this point then,

1:11:57are there other delegations, Madame Secretary Tresher?

1:12:02Madame Chair, we do have another registered delegate

1:12:05and the next delegate is Heather Grusen.

1:12:09That individual is appearing via video.

1:12:12Okay, is the delegate available to appear on video?

1:12:17Yes, here we go.

1:12:19Good afternoon, could you please state your name?

1:12:21Thank you, my name is Heather Grusen,

1:12:24and I am a neighbor just around the corner.

1:12:28Oh, did my video go off?

1:12:29No, we can see you actually, yeah,

1:12:31can you hear me over there for us?

1:12:33Let me neighbor just around the corner.

1:12:35Okay, wonderful, and I'm just gonna remind you

1:12:37that you have 10 minutes to address the committee,

1:12:39so please go ahead.

1:12:41Thank you very much.

1:12:42Good afternoon, Chair and Council members,

1:12:44and thank you for the opportunity to speak.

1:12:46I'm here to express serious concerns

1:12:49about the proposed severance

1:12:50and subsequent development at 20 Highby Place,

1:12:53and I urge the committee to carefully reconsider

1:12:56both the scale and the impact of what's being proposed.

1:12:59I do have a petition currently with 16 signatures

1:13:03for neighbors who frequent the street Highby Place

1:13:07and are opposed to the severance,

1:13:08which I can submit to the city.

1:13:12First and foremost,

1:13:14I urgently wanna highlight the safety concerns.

1:13:16This property sits directly across from a small park

1:13:19that is regularly used by children's, toddlers,

1:13:22families, neighbors.

1:13:24It's a place for unstructured play,

1:13:26community interaction, and safe outdoor activity.

1:13:30The development proposal plans to retain

1:13:31the existing house, as you know,

1:13:33with the two additional buildings

1:13:36for a total of buildings on what currently is one lot

1:13:40that will house up to eight parking spots.

1:13:43I know initially we were told that it was three and two,

1:13:46but I have learned that the way that the application is

1:13:50is that that actually allows for eight parking spots

1:13:54on that retained and new property

1:13:58should the severance be accepted.

1:14:02Since I think I'm still a little bit confused

1:14:05about the number of units,

1:14:07because currently if the property is maintained,

1:14:10she could have four units.

1:14:12And it sounds like if she severs, it could be,

1:14:17I've heard six units, I've heard seven units,

1:14:19and I think I was told eight units at one point.

1:14:21So I'd like clarification on the total number of units

1:14:26on the property, if possible.

1:14:29Maybe we can get to that later,

1:14:30because I just wanna make sure that I go through all my points.

1:14:33All of those parking spots will feed

1:14:35into a very small residential street.

1:14:38It's just two blocks long.

1:14:40A former speaker already spoke about how few houses

1:14:43we have on the street,

1:14:44and they're all sort of small bungalows.

1:14:47And so those would feed all directly into the street,

1:14:51directly across from this little park.

1:14:56This is a level of density and activity on this street,

1:14:59on Hivea Place, that it's just not designed to handle.

1:15:02And I believe that some type of traffic assessment

1:15:05would need to happen.

1:15:07I think the increased driveway access to and from

1:15:11the higher traffic volumes,

1:15:12and just like the daily movement of people going in

1:15:15and out of those driveways is really going to put

1:15:18children at risk, particularly considering like toddlers

1:15:22and kids are really impulsive and unpredictable.

1:15:24There is no sidewalk on that other side,

1:15:26directly across from the house.

1:15:28So there's no buffer between the park space

1:15:30and those driveways or in the road,

1:15:33where the driveways would be,

1:15:34where the cars would be coming to and from.

1:15:38On top of that, the proposal would cut

1:15:42on street parking at the moment.

1:15:45I think maybe two or two and a half spots of parking.

1:15:49And already that area of Hivea is used for parking.

1:15:55I think it's two hours at a time.

1:15:57And it would remove some of those spots.

1:16:00I think that rather than relieving pressure,

1:16:03it would end up creating new congestion and conflict.

1:16:08The other point that I wanted to make,

1:16:12it's sort of been mentioned.

1:16:13I think that I would really like to highlight it

1:16:16more specifically, not just trees,

1:16:18but the overall ecological impact,

1:16:20which I think has been under address so far.

1:16:24People have already mentioned that the owner

1:16:26has already removed most of the mature trees

1:16:28from the backyard.

1:16:30The plans as they stand don't include

1:16:35one of the large trees that's in the backyard.

1:16:37It's kind of right between the middle

1:16:39of the two new proposed semi-detached.

1:16:42And also the driveway of the western most semi-detached,

1:16:48it looks like there's a city tree

1:16:51right in the middle of that driveway at the front.

1:16:55And so, I mean, partly I'm a little confused by this.

1:16:58I know that we had neighbors who had to sell

1:17:01because the city refused to remove a city tree,

1:17:06which would not allow them to sever.

1:17:08And now there's a tree right in front

1:17:10of what is proposed to be a driveway.

1:17:15So I think in addition to the trees in general

1:17:20that we do need to focus on the fact

1:17:23that there is a climate emergency,

1:17:26Guelph and cities in general,

1:17:27but really Guelph is really working to protect our trees.

1:17:31The trees provide cooling, carbon capture,

1:17:34flood prevention, biodiversity support

1:17:36as well as mental health benefits.

1:17:38I think removing the mature trees,

1:17:40protected city trees as well as private trees

1:17:44for getting more buildings and more parking lots

1:17:47or more parking spaces is kind of a short-term decision.

1:17:53That undercuts our long-term goals around climate

1:17:57and around livability.

1:17:59I don't think that we can afford to sacrifice canopy cover

1:18:02or green space for more hard surface, especially now.

1:18:09A little bit about the scale was discussed,

1:18:12but I would like to address both scale and precedent.

1:18:17Exhibition Park where Hivee Place is located

1:18:20is a low-density residential neighborhood.

1:18:23The homes are modest, the lots are spacious,

1:18:25and the overall feel of the area

1:18:27is defined by quiet green character.

1:18:29This is not an area zoned or designed

1:18:31for high-intensity development or high-density development.

1:18:36I think that when you split the lot,

1:18:38you're turning something that could have had four units

1:18:41into something that could have more.

1:18:43You're essentially turning that lot

1:18:45into a high-density lot of land.

1:18:51I think severing and introducing many multiple units,

1:18:58eight private parking spaces will convert this low-density area

1:19:02into a high-density residential use.

1:19:04That's a fundamental change,

1:19:06and it sets a precedent for all of the other properties

1:19:10in our neighborhood.

1:19:11If everybody decided to do this,

1:19:13we're in a part of wealth that has large properties,

1:19:18that has large 65-foot or greater street frontage.

1:19:28So I think this would really change

1:19:29the whole character of the area.

1:19:31I do wanna be clear,

1:19:32I'm not disputing any current bylaws.

1:19:35We now allow for four units on a property like this.

1:19:39We do need housing, we do need affordable housing,

1:19:41and I think that using the lot as it is

1:19:44is the way to get that.

1:19:47If this proposal is approved,

1:19:49then I think we set a dangerous precedent

1:19:51where many individual lots are upzoned piecemeal,

1:19:55which will slowly erode the stability, safety,

1:19:57and identity of our neighborhood.

1:19:59And once we lose it, we cannot get it back.

1:20:03In conclusion, the proposal at 20 Highview Place

1:20:05is inappropriate for its location.

1:20:07It threatens the safety of children and pedestrians.

1:20:10It reduces the essential green infrastructure,

1:20:13already much of which has been reduced.

1:20:15It ignores the character

1:20:17and the zoning intentions of the neighborhood.

1:20:19I urge the committee to conduct a site visit

1:20:21to see these risks and impacts firsthand,

1:20:24to require a full ecological and tree protection assessment,

1:20:27consider the consequences of effectively creating

1:20:30a multi-unit high-density compound

1:20:31across from a public park,

1:20:33and reject this proposal in its current form.

1:20:36I do not think that we should trade

1:20:37long-term community safety and sustainability

1:20:39for short-term development pressure.

1:20:42We all want responsible, thoughtful growth,

1:20:44but this is not it.

1:20:46Thank you for your time.

1:20:49Thank you for those comments.

1:20:50I actually took quite a number of notes,

1:20:52and I believe that my colleagues or myself,

1:20:56we may have some questions to help get some clarification

1:20:59on some of the points you've raised.

1:21:01But I will first turn to my committee members

1:21:03and see if they have questions for this delegate.

1:21:10Yes, Member Smith.

1:21:15Thank you, Chair.

1:21:17To the delegate,

1:21:20I'm curious if you've ever heard the expression,

1:21:24the greenest house is the one that's already built.

1:21:28Yes, I don't know that I've heard it, but I like it.

1:21:32And we have seen a lot of these infill projects

1:21:36come to committee.

1:21:37Some we've approved, some we haven't.

1:21:40And to my knowledge, this is the first one

1:21:43that's actually preserving an existing structure.

1:21:49Does that mitigate any of your comments?

1:21:56No, because I'm thinking of the overall number of units

1:22:01across what is currently one property.

1:22:04Okay, thank you.

1:22:05And through the chair, a follow-up question.

1:22:12Are you aware that City Council debated this issue

1:22:15at quite length and made the zoning changes

1:22:19that allow for a number of the things

1:22:22that are spoken about?

1:22:32Yeah, I think that question was for the delegate.

1:22:34Oh, it was the delegate, yes, excuse me.

1:22:36Oh, sorry, I'm so sorry.

1:22:41In terms of the changes to the number of units

1:22:45allowed on one lot, is that,

1:22:47am I right in understanding that?

1:22:49Well, I guess my question is this,

1:22:51that we're a creature of City Council

1:22:55and we're tasked with approving or rejecting consent issues

1:23:01and this is a consent issue.

1:23:03And City Council in their wisdom have made changes

1:23:08to zoning that allow a number of these things by right.

1:23:12If we weren't talking about a severance,

1:23:18I respectfully submit that many of your comments

1:23:22would be moot.

1:23:25Chair, may I respond?

1:23:29Yes, please go ahead, thank you.

1:23:32Yeah, I am not disputing the number of units

1:23:35allowed on a single property.

1:23:37I think right now the RL.1 is allowed four units.

1:23:42But we are here because it is a severance

1:23:45which would raise the number of units

1:23:48on what is currently one property.

1:23:50And that is what I'm disputing.

1:23:52I'm disputing the severance.

1:23:54And yeah, I think I included all my points there,

1:23:59but if we did not have to meet on the severance,

1:24:04then we wouldn't be here to discuss the concerns

1:24:08over what severing would do to the neighborhood.

1:24:13Thank you, that concludes my question, Chair.

1:24:16Okay, I thank you, Member Smith.

1:24:19Any other questions from the committee members?

1:24:22Yes, Member Fitzpatrick.

1:24:24Through you, Madam Chair.

1:24:26And to the delegate.

1:24:28So am I hearing you correctly that you're not,

1:24:32you're suggesting we do not approve the severance here?

1:24:36And the previous delegate had suggested

1:24:38that the severance was okay,

1:24:40but just not in that configuration.

1:24:44Through Madam Chair.

1:24:46Yes, I am confirming that I do not want

1:24:48the severance approved.

1:24:53Subsequent question, please,

1:24:55through you, Madam Chair, to staff.

1:24:58Were there any discussions with the applicant

1:25:01in terms of where that severance line was going to be?

1:25:06Through you, Chair, to Member Fitzpatrick.

1:25:08Yes, we've actually had a lot of back and forth

1:25:11on and off with the property owner for the past,

1:25:13maybe two or three years.

1:25:15And we've probably looked at four or five different options

1:25:18at this point.

1:25:19So the current option you see before you

1:25:22is to meet all the minimum zoning requirements

1:25:26while providing opportunities for additional ADUs to be,

1:25:32or not ADUs, just the primary dwelling,

1:25:34the semi-touch dwellings to be constructed.

1:25:38Because the retained lot is a flag-shaped lot,

1:25:41the frontages being shown today make the most

1:25:43of the rear backyard that with their kind of maximizes

1:25:48what can be provided for the unit.

1:25:53So then in your opinion, is this the best possible outcome

1:25:58for the redevelopment of this site?

1:26:04If the property owner wished to do semi-touched building,

1:26:08then yes.

1:26:10Thank you.

1:26:14Thank you, Member Fitzpatrick.

1:26:17All right, I think then, if there are no further questions

1:26:20for the delegate or for staff related to this delegation,

1:26:24yes, I guess I see the delegate has their hand up.

1:26:28And at this point, you've had your opportunity to speak,

1:26:31but I think if you had a question, maybe I can allow it,

1:26:35but just perhaps one.

1:26:37Thank you.

1:26:38There was a comment on meeting all the minimum requirements,

1:26:41but it looked to me like the westernmost driveway

1:26:44did not meet the minimum requirements.

1:26:47So I would just like comments on that being it was 4.9 meters.

1:26:52Okay, thank you.

1:26:54Yes, we can bring that forward to city staff.

1:26:56So perhaps I'll do that now.

1:26:58City staff, if you could just comment on the driveway width

1:27:02being 4.9 versus 5.0.

1:27:05Sure, so through the chair to the delegate,

1:27:09the five meters is the maximum, right?

1:27:12So they're okay for the driveway width.

1:27:16And in terms of like parking,

1:27:19the providing three spaces on the left-hand side,

1:27:21and then five on the retained if they wanted to.

1:27:24So their meeting or exceeding the parking requirements

1:27:27if they had ADUs for each somebody touched building.

1:27:32Okay, thank you for that clarification.

1:27:34Because I think if I'm listening and hearing that correctly,

1:27:36the 5.0 is a maximum rather than a minimum,

1:27:40if I got that right.

1:27:41Okay, seeing nods.

1:27:43Good, that was helpful then.

1:27:44So thank you to the delegate for attending.

1:27:47We appreciated your comments.

1:27:49It sparked some good conversation on our side.

1:27:51So thank you very much for your time.

1:27:55Okay, Madam Secretary-Treasurer,

1:27:57do we have another delegate?

1:28:00Madam Chair, I can confirm

1:28:01we don't have any other registered delegates,

1:28:03although there may be some in the audience.

1:28:04Yes, so I will check now with the audience

1:28:07to see if there are any other delegations.

1:28:11Okay, seeing none, then I think we will give

1:28:14the applicant an opportunity perhaps to respond to some of the,

1:28:19sorry, sorry, I'm just gonna ask actually,

1:28:29I will allow one question,

1:28:31but you'll have to come up to the podium to do that.

1:28:35And I have to say this is a bit unusual,

1:28:37so I'm going off script here,

1:28:39but I know that you had some thoughts there,

1:28:41and I would appreciate hearing

1:28:42your any questions you might have.

1:28:44It's more of a comment on what Member Fitzpatrick mentioned.

1:28:50I would favor the development of an ADU on that property

1:28:56rather than a severance.

1:28:58I just wanted to make that clear,

1:29:00but in the case of a severance,

1:29:03I think it would be better if it was severed to make

1:29:09a house rather than, as I said before,

1:29:13this linked housing proposal.

1:29:15But I would favor the ADU as has already been approved,

1:29:20it's already been permitted by the city.

1:29:23Okay, thank you, that was a good addition.

1:29:26Thank you very much.

1:29:28All right, with that, the applicant,

1:29:31if you'd like to make some comments

1:29:33in response to what you've heard.

1:29:35Thank you, Madam Chair.

1:29:39Yes, listening to these comments,

1:29:43I understand, yes, that change can be difficult.

1:29:49I just want to point out that the building permit

1:29:51has been removed already or rescinded,

1:29:56that has been done already.

1:29:58In terms of some of the other delegates mentioned

1:30:02different proposals or configurations,

1:30:05as planning staff mentioned,

1:30:06we went over many different possibilities

1:30:09trying to figure out the best option for this,

1:30:13severing this into two single detachables

1:30:15and an option because of it would require

1:30:19a significant minor variance for a lot area,

1:30:21plus the extended back depth

1:30:27wasn't right down the middle.

1:30:28And so it resulted in this weird small piece

1:30:33in the backyard that planning staff didn't support.

1:30:35Also doing two single detach would actually allow

1:30:39eight units in total, four on each of the single detached.

1:30:43And that's not what we're intending.

1:30:47We decided there wasn't enough space for that

1:30:49and the zoning by-law went to allow that.

1:30:52So we didn't go with that proposal.

1:30:54We went through other configurations with planning staff

1:30:57and tried to come up with the best.

1:30:58And we think this is the best proposal.

1:31:02We also worked and tried to consider trees.

1:31:07Obviously do not like removing trees

1:31:09and appreciate the green that is in these neighborhoods.

1:31:12And the applicant will go ahead with,

1:31:17or if approved would either plant other trees

1:31:23or follow the by-law, the tree compensation by-law

1:31:26to compensate for those trees.

1:31:31I guess just also to respond in some of the comments

1:31:33about the park and the busyness of the street.

1:31:38I definitely can understand concerns residents have

1:31:42of just cars being around parks.

1:31:45But I guess I'd like to just highlight that

1:31:48residential use and parks are beside each other

1:31:50all over the city.

1:31:51That's a very, they're very compatible uses

1:31:54to have them side by side.

1:31:56And there's often roads to that are beside parks.

1:32:00And I can think of many examples in the city of Guelph

1:32:03that there's much busier roads beside a park.

1:32:07And I can understand concerns about the safety of that.

1:32:10That's a concern I have as well about car use in cities.

1:32:14Is that it's not good for people.

1:32:17But that's not unique to the site.

1:32:24Yeah, I just also wanted to respond.

1:32:25The one delegate was mentioning that this is high density.

1:32:29It's not, it's according to the zoning law,

1:32:31it's low density development and then courting

1:32:34and follows the low density requirements.

1:32:40I don't know if there's anything else I want to point out.

1:32:43I'm happy to try and answer any other questions

1:32:46that you guys may have.

1:32:48Okay, thank you.

1:32:50Committee members, do we have any follow on questions

1:32:53for the applicant?

1:32:55Sorry.

1:32:57No.

1:32:58Okay, I actually have a couple that have kind of come to mind.

1:33:01I think there are a couple of things

1:33:02we didn't quite clean up here with the roundup.

1:33:07On the traffic question,

1:33:08I think this is a question for city staff.

1:33:12I read in your comments

1:33:14that there were no concerns about traffic,

1:33:17but can you just kind of confirm for us

1:33:19that that has been reviewed as part of this process

1:33:22and kind of provide maybe a few more additional details

1:33:26on why you don't feel it's a concern?

1:33:31Through the chair, city staff have a traffic impact study

1:33:35guideline that outlines when TIS is required.

1:33:40This development was reviewed

1:33:42and it did not require TIS due to the number of units

1:33:45and the low traffic on the street.

1:33:49Okay, thank you.

1:33:50That's helpful.

1:33:51And I think another question about cars and vehicles here,

1:33:55perhaps for the applicant, can you just confirm?

1:33:58We've heard some different numbers here.

1:34:00Three and two, I also heard eight at one point.

1:34:03Can you just confirm how many parking spots

1:34:05are going to be available on each side of these two lots?

1:34:12Yeah, Madam Chair,

1:34:16the severed parcel has two legal parking spaces

1:34:19and the retained parcel has three legal parking spaces.

1:34:23Okay, thank you.

1:34:27I think that's it for my questions.

1:34:29Oh yeah, sorry.

1:34:30City staff, please go ahead.

1:34:32So the drawing for the proposed severance

1:34:35actually indicates that three legal parking spaces

1:34:38could be accommodated on the severed lot

1:34:41on the left-hand side.

1:34:44That would be one space in the garage

1:34:46and two in the driveway

1:34:47and five legal spaces on the retained lot.

1:34:51So that would be four in the driveway

1:34:52and one in the garage.

1:34:54Thank you, so that is how we arrived at eight.

1:34:56Correct, yeah.

1:34:57Right, but as drawn, it's kind of intended for three and two,

1:35:01but by right, they could have five and three.

1:35:04Am I kind of understanding that correctly?

1:35:08Yeah, so what's intended, I guess that's up to the applicant,

1:35:11but we look at things from a zoning perspective

1:35:13in terms of how many legal parking spaces there are,

1:35:15and that's the number of legal spaces

1:35:17based on the minimum parking space size

1:35:20as defined in the zoning by-law.

1:35:22Okay, thank you, that's helpful,

1:35:24because I think that gets to what will happen,

1:35:26what kind of parking might get pushed out onto the street

1:35:29from a larger development versus what vehicles

1:35:33can be parked on the site.

1:35:34So I appreciate that clarification.

1:35:37Okay, yes, Member Fitzpatrick.

1:35:39Through you, Madam Chair and to staff,

1:35:42is there a precedent for,

1:35:45or are there conditions where the precedent would be

1:35:50to include privacy fences on severances

1:35:56and developments like this?

1:36:02Through the Chair and to Member Fitzpatrick,

1:36:04typically we consider fencing,

1:36:06dividing two properties to be a civil matter,

1:36:08and that usually wouldn't be part

1:36:11of a planning application like this.

1:36:12However, the committee has the right to include,

1:36:17conditions as an approval,

1:36:19as for a conditional approval of severance.

1:36:21So if that is something that would put the committee at ease,

1:36:24that is a condition that the committee could choose to apply.

1:36:30Okay, thank you, good to know.

1:36:32Yes? Subsequent, is there a precedent already,

1:36:35is there past examples of this where we've made this,

1:36:40and apologies for being ignorant on this

1:36:42as a new member to the committee?

1:36:48Through the Chair, back to Member Fitzpatrick,

1:36:50there aren't any applications in the past few years,

1:36:52at similar conditions, it's possible.

1:36:55In years past, that has been something that has been done,

1:36:58but certainly not in the past handful of years.

1:37:02Thank you.

1:37:04Thank you.

1:37:04And perhaps then a follow-up question,

1:37:06I see Member Smith as well,

1:37:07but I'm just going to ask my follow-up question,

1:37:09Member Smith, if that would be allowable.

1:37:13I guess it has been raised then

1:37:15that we might consider adding a condition.

1:37:17So the question is to the applicant,

1:37:20would the applicant be okay with adding a condition

1:37:28for a privacy fence, sorry, to be more explicit?

1:37:36Madam Chair, I think we prefer not to have that requirement.

1:37:47It may be something what we do as part of the development,

1:37:50just for future users.

1:37:54I don't know if, yeah,

1:37:57is it something that often gets done

1:37:58when a development is done in the grading,

1:38:00just to add a fence,

1:38:01but generally that is not something

1:38:03that we see that is required.

1:38:07Yeah.

1:38:09Okay, thank you.

1:38:10Now, Member Smith, did you have a question for this group?

1:38:17Asked and answered, thank you, Chair.

1:38:20Okay, thank you.

1:38:21I thought that might have been the question,

1:38:23so sorry to seal your thunder there,

1:38:24but yes, I thought it might have been a follow-on.

1:38:27Sorry, I have technical issues.

1:38:31All good.

1:38:34Then I think, are there any further questions

1:38:37for the delegate?

1:38:38Okay, I think at this point then,

1:38:41we are ready to move into committee.

1:38:45So, sorry, are you asking to delegate?

1:39:02I'm sorry, this is kind of out of order,

1:39:04I think at this point for this application.

1:39:06I'm just gonna confer with the Secretary Treasurer

1:39:09and just get her input on this

1:39:11because we've already passed delegations

1:39:13and we're now kind of into wrap up.

1:39:20Okay.

1:39:23Yes, I think if it's in response or a comment

1:39:26on the application that's in front of us,

1:39:28I would be willing to hear that.

1:39:30I think though, if it is perhaps in reference

1:39:35to some of city staff's comments,

1:39:37I think that's a little bit more challenging

1:39:39because this isn't intended to be a debate

1:39:41on what is in the zoning by-law

1:39:44and their interpretation in the comments

1:39:46that they've shared.

1:39:47This is more about looking and reviewing

1:39:50the applications that are before us.

1:39:51So, is it specific to the application?

1:39:58Okay, then I will allow it,

1:39:59but I am gonna ask you to keep your comment brief

1:40:03and additive to the discussion

1:40:05and not information that has already been covered

1:40:07by previous delegates.

1:40:09So, if you'd like to add something,

1:40:11then please come forward and I'll allow it.

1:40:22I'm Michelle Richter.

1:40:23I live at 23 Highview Place.

1:40:25And I just wanted to make a comment

1:40:26about the staff saying about the traffic

1:40:28as a low density traffic area.

1:40:30It is not low density

1:40:32and those additional parking spaces and cars will cause.

1:40:36We have the nursing home, a school,

1:40:39a new townhouse that's a section that's been put in there

1:40:42and two large apartments.

1:40:44So, we already have a very increase in traffic

1:40:46in that area.

1:40:48And I think that a traffic assessment should be completed

1:40:51before allowing more cars and more spaces

1:40:55because my neighbor has pictures of the amount of cars

1:41:01that parked from the nursing home on the street

1:41:03that the current residents are unable to get out

1:41:05of our driveways a lot of times

1:41:07because there's so many cars on the street.

1:41:09So, if she has that many additional dwellings,

1:41:12there will be a lot of other cars

1:41:14that will end up being on a two hour only parking street.

1:41:18So, that's what the comment that I wanted to make

1:41:20is not a low traffic area.

1:41:22It's quite a high traffic area.

1:41:24Okay.

1:41:25Thank you very much.

1:41:26Yes, thank you for keeping that brief.

1:41:28But I do appreciate that perspective.

1:41:29And I think then I will go back over to city staff

1:41:33to perhaps ask them to comment on that

1:41:36and whether the assessment

1:41:39for whether a traffic impact study is required,

1:41:41or if it's accounted for all of the additional uses

1:41:44of in that area,

1:41:48sounds like there's been some growth

1:41:49and development more recently.

1:41:56Through the chair to member good fellow.

1:42:01So, the committee can choose to put a condition

1:42:04on for a traffic study if they wish.

1:42:08However, it still staffs recommendation

1:42:10that traffic study is not recommended.

1:42:15Okay.

1:42:16Okay.

1:42:17Thank you for that clarification.

1:42:19And thank you for the additional comment.

1:42:23Okay.

1:42:23I think at this point, we're going to go to committee

1:42:28and I will look for a motion from my colleagues.

1:42:34Members Spears.

1:42:35I move that we accept this application

1:42:39as proposed with the conditions stated by city staff

1:42:44in the document so far with no additional conditions added.

1:42:49Okay. Thank you.

1:42:50Is there a seconder for that motion?

1:42:52Okay. Member Fitzpatrick has seconded that motion.

1:42:55So I am going to ask for discussion at this point

1:42:59to see if there could be some more discussion

1:43:02perhaps on what's before us.

1:43:09Member Fitzpatrick.

1:43:10One quick comment that we're here

1:43:13because of a severance, we're not here to discuss design.

1:43:16We're not here to discuss what something's going to look

1:43:18like that's covered by the building permits,

1:43:21that's covered by the other conditions

1:43:25that are already being asked for by staff.

1:43:28So I feel comfortable supporting this motion.

1:43:33Thank you.

1:43:34Other comments or discussion?

1:43:40No. Okay. Seeing none.

1:43:42I think I will just add from my perspective

1:43:45that I'm generally comfortable with this application,

1:43:48with the conditions as included.

1:43:51So yes, I will be supporting the motion

1:43:54when the vote is called.

1:43:56I think though at this point,

1:43:57unless there's any final comments,

1:43:59then I think we can go over to Madam Secretary Treasurer

1:44:02to call the vote.

1:44:06Thank you, Chair.

1:44:06Committee members, please indicate your vote

1:44:08by responding in favor or opposed to the motion,

1:44:11which is to approve the application

1:44:13with the recommended staff conditions.

1:44:15Chair Goodfellow.

1:44:16In favor.

1:44:17Member Fitzpatrick.

1:44:19In favor.

1:44:19Member Mambrenio.

1:44:21In favor.

1:44:22Member Meir.

1:44:23In favor.

1:44:24Member Ross.

1:44:25In favor.

1:44:25Member Smith.

1:44:27In favor.

1:44:28And Member Spears.

1:44:29In favor.

1:44:30That's carried, Chair.

1:44:32Great, your application has been approved.

1:44:34So thank you for your time this afternoon

1:44:36and you're free to leave the meeting.

1:44:41Okay.

1:44:42Madam Secretary Treasurer,

1:44:44if we could call the next application, please.

1:44:49The next application is file A-77-25,

1:44:54variance to permit reduced side yard setback

1:44:56for proposed exterior stairs at 17 Rickson Avenue.

1:45:01I'll note for those watching online,

1:45:02if you wish to speak to this application,

1:45:04you can do so by calling the number displayed on the screen,

1:45:06the numbers 519-822-1260, extension 2524.

1:45:12And when you call in,

1:45:13staff will give you instructions

1:45:15on how you can delegate remotely.

1:45:17I'll also note for the committee members

1:45:18that a revised cover letter,

1:45:20tree preservation plan and sketches

1:45:23were provided to the committee members as well.

1:45:28Thank you.

1:45:29Is the applicant present?

1:45:31Okay, please come forward.

1:45:40Good afternoon.

1:45:40Can you please state your name for the record?

1:45:46No, I think if it's green, it's on.

1:45:47There you go.

1:45:48Yes.

1:45:49It's hiding.

1:45:50Phil McFadden from Build Consulting Services

1:45:52on behalf of the owner.

1:45:53That's great.

1:45:54And can you confirm the sign was posted

1:45:57as per the planning act requirements?

1:45:59Yes.

1:46:00And have you received city staff's comments

1:46:02and are you in agreement with any conditions?

1:46:04I do note that this was recommended for deferral.

1:46:06So.

1:46:08We did receive comments from city staff.

1:46:10We are in agreement with the conditions,

1:46:12not entirely with the comments.

1:46:15Okay.

1:46:16Well, great.

1:46:17You have 10 minutes to present the application to us.

1:46:21Good afternoon committee.

1:46:22Through you, Madam Chair.

1:46:23Essentially, this is a property at 17 Rickson,

1:46:27adjacent to Rickson Park.

1:46:29It is a bungalow and the owner that just purchased the home

1:46:35will be living on the main floor of the dwelling

1:46:37and is intending to add a additional dwelling unit

1:46:41to the basement and accessory apartment,

1:46:43as well as maintaining some usership of that basement.

1:46:47Our application is to,

1:46:51for relief to the side yard setback from 6 meter,

1:46:540.6 meters to 0.35 as the application stated,

1:47:00for an exterior side entrance,

1:47:02basement entrance to the lower dwelling unit.

1:47:06Through the process, when we applied originally in July,

1:47:11there was some concern about mature trees in the park

1:47:15within range of the excavation for this stair system.

1:47:20We then met with our arborist and forestry and parks

1:47:26to sort of get a lay of the land

1:47:29and see what the potential impact could be.

1:47:32As mentioned, we did have a tree inventory

1:47:35and preservation plan prepared in advance,

1:47:38just to make sure we could go through

1:47:40the excavation process safely to add this stair system in.

1:47:45As it's close to its inside,

1:47:49of a sort of a two meter range to the closest point

1:47:52of the tree, so we have outlined procedures

1:47:56to excavate with the intent to maintain any large roots

1:48:01or to safely excavate during the process.

1:48:07The comments from staff are more in line with,

1:48:13the original intent was to create a 1.2

1:48:17or 1.22 meter wide assembly,

1:48:21which would have due to the angle of the property line

1:48:24reduced the setback to a 0.22 meter setback.

1:48:31However, we were a little late in the process,

1:48:35we were waiting on some final drawings from our engineer

1:48:40and we were able to have a reduced width assembly

1:48:44and a stair design laid out.

1:48:47If I could go to the next slide,

1:48:49possibly this is just fighting me here.

1:49:00So this is the stair assembly that you see here.

1:49:04With the layout of being a two foot 11 interior dimension,

1:49:10which would be the minimum size of a exterior entrance,

1:49:15while still providing the option for an interior connection

1:49:19between the apartment and the main residence,

1:49:23with that reduction, we were actually able to lay out

1:49:28with the engineers on this slide here.

1:49:31And again, this just came in early this morning,

1:49:33but with that reduction and keeping the design

1:49:37of an eight inch foundation wall,

1:49:39we can actually meet the intended 0.35 meter setback

1:49:45as originally applied for.

1:49:47And again, I believe staff's comments were more in line

1:49:49with seeing the intended width of the stairwell

1:49:53as it was proposed, it would have reduced that setback

1:49:57to 0.22 in their eyes, 0.22 meters based on the,

1:50:01again, the angular nature of that property line.

1:50:04So with this, this image wasn't available necessarily

1:50:08to staff at the time, as we were basing what we were asking

1:50:12for, hoping we could have that slightly wider stair constructed

1:50:16with that 0.35 meter reduced side yard setback.

1:50:20However, through reducing the size of the stair,

1:50:22we can still meet that 0.35 meter as originally applied for.

1:50:29And then again, just to show the work that's been done

1:50:33already with the tree inventory preservation plan,

1:50:36outlining the area in which we would be.

1:50:39So again, the reason for this is due to the width

1:50:42of the excavation itself for the stairwell,

1:50:44we do have to cross the property line by a foot or two

1:50:47into the park for safe excavation

1:50:50while they're pouring footings, et cetera.

1:50:52And then that area would be reinstated.

1:50:54So we've already had meetings with everybody to say

1:50:57we're gonna handle the majority of our excavation

1:51:00from the private side, but it does have to cross

1:51:02in one section.

1:51:04So through meeting with our arborist and forestry and parks,

1:51:07we wanna make sure that this whole area is protected

1:51:10during any construction activities,

1:51:12and it's not used as a staging site

1:51:14or anything to that effect.

1:51:16And then again, going back to the suggestion for deferral,

1:51:19I believe was more along the lines of the original

1:51:23application stating that we were looking for 0.35 meter

1:51:27side yard setback versus what staff felt was a 0.22 meter

1:51:31based on the width of the stair assembly as it was shown.

1:51:34So our intent or our request here is to seek approval

1:51:38as the original application stated for a 0.35 meter setback

1:51:43reduced from 0.6.

1:51:45And that our design of the stair itself

1:51:48would be modified to suit so that we can still maintain

1:51:51that setback, which we have shown here,

1:51:53we believe is possible and meeting with requirements

1:51:57and again, maintaining this stair access

1:52:00or adding this stair access to the basement,

1:52:02which the intent is entirely to create a nice,

1:52:08spacious, separate entrance or separate additional unit

1:52:13in this building.

1:52:14Well, again, the main floor is gonna be occupied

1:52:18by the homeowner.

1:52:19And just to get ahead of a couple of questions

1:52:22that may come up, we did go down the path of,

1:52:25could we remove or could we relocate the stair

1:52:27to the rear of the property?

1:52:28But the overall use of the property design

1:52:30of the apartment, et cetera, this is the best location.

1:52:33And actually one of the only locations

1:52:36for this exterior stair, which is why we are asking

1:52:39for the reduced side yard setback in the first place.

1:52:43So again, we're seeking approval

1:52:47in spite of the deferral suggestion by staff,

1:52:50but I believe we've shown that the 0.35 meter

1:52:54that we requested is attainable

1:52:56through the design of the stair itself.

1:52:58So if staff or committee have any questions,

1:53:00I'd be happy to ask or a response, sorry.

1:53:04Yes, thank you for that presentation.

1:53:05That answers a number of the questions I had.

1:53:07I do believe city staff may have some comments at this point.

1:53:11So I'll ask them to go ahead and then we'll turn it over

1:53:14to the committee to ask questions of both parties.

1:53:16So city staff, if you could go ahead please.

1:53:21Through you chair and to members of the committee,

1:53:23really just a brief clarification.

1:53:25The original intent of a deferral recommendation

1:53:28is so that a new notice accurately representing

1:53:31the 0.22 meter setback was so it can be circulated

1:53:35to inform the members of the public.

1:53:38If the applicant thinks he can meet the original 0.35 setback,

1:53:44then staff wouldn't have any issues of supporting it.

1:53:46And we've already included conditions for approval

1:53:49if committee would like to do that.

1:53:54Great, thank you.

1:53:55I appreciate that.

1:53:57Then I am going to turn to the committee members

1:53:59and see if we've got questions.

1:54:00Member Meir.

1:54:02Through Madam Chair for the staff,

1:54:06is there any weight limitation of the stairs

1:54:11or you can reduce to any size while in the basement?

1:54:15Yeah, through the chair to member Meir.

1:54:17I did see this revised plan before the meeting tonight

1:54:20and I had a plans reviewer check it for,

1:54:23and it does meet OVC requirements.

1:54:26So the minimum width as proposed now,

1:54:31will be able to achieve a building permit.

1:54:35Thank you.

1:54:37Okay, thank you.

1:54:38Other questions?

1:54:39Member Fitzpatrick.

1:54:40Through you, Madam Chair and to staff.

1:54:42So if I've understood and heard the presentations

1:54:46in the comments so far,

1:54:48you had a chance to look at the new documents.

1:54:52You're satisfied that through the building permit process

1:54:55that they can meet these requirements

1:54:58so that we don't have to unnecessarily delay this.

1:55:03Through the chair to member Fitzpatrick.

1:55:06Yes, that's correct.

1:55:07And they wouldn't be revising their application anymore

1:55:09to point to two.

1:55:10It would just be the same as originally proposed.

1:55:13Okay, thank you.

1:55:15Okay, thank you, member Fitzpatrick.

1:55:19Just checking.

1:55:20Yes, member Smith, please go ahead.

1:55:24Thank you, chair.

1:55:25I am having technical issues.

1:55:26So if I conch out my apologies in advance,

1:55:31my question, chair, through you is first to the applicant.

1:55:38Could you expand a little bit on why you can't comply

1:55:42that we're here today?

1:55:44For the reason we're here today?

1:55:46Why the area way could not be situated in the backyard?

1:55:52Through you, Madam Chair.

1:55:55The layout of the basement itself

1:55:58with the spatial requirements for the accessory unit

1:56:04as designed, we went through a couple of different iterations

1:56:08of how we could lay out with kitchen, bathroom, et cetera,

1:56:12making sure that the unit was fully functional

1:56:17and went different locations on the property.

1:56:21And this just is the most reasonable location

1:56:25to utilize the space as best as possible

1:56:28while maintaining a small amount

1:56:30for the owner retained in the basement as well.

1:56:33And then it allows the rear yard still to be functioning

1:56:37for the owner.

1:56:39As I said, he is a tenant or he's living in the home.

1:56:42It's not an AB rental situation.

1:56:45He's the tenant on the main floor.

1:56:46So being able to maintain use of the rear yard, et cetera,

1:56:51this again was the most functional location for the layout.

1:56:56And then access from the driveway as well

1:56:59if any on-street parking or parking in the driveway,

1:57:01direct access to the stairs and down to the basement.

1:57:04This was the most efficient use as well.

1:57:08Thank you for that.

1:57:10And follow up if I may chair.

1:57:14I assume then that the various plans

1:57:19and iterations of plans precluded the opposite side,

1:57:24if you will, the right-hand side

1:57:26as opposed to the left-hand side for this area way.

1:57:33Through you, Madam Chair, was that a question to myself?

1:57:36Yes, indeed, sorry.

1:57:37Okay, sorry.

1:57:39Yeah, on the right side of the property,

1:57:40just there's a 1.8-meter setback to the property line.

1:57:45On the right side, it would be more cumbersome

1:57:48to the neighbor on that side

1:57:50and impact their use more so on their side yard

1:57:55and access to the rear yard.

1:57:56This is more out of the way

1:57:58and not impacting again the neighboring property.

1:58:05Thank you.

1:58:06The chair, I have a couple of other follow-up questions.

1:58:11If I may, through you to city staff,

1:58:14is there a building permit that's active at this point?

1:58:21Through the chair to member Smith.

1:58:22No, I do not believe a building permit

1:58:24has been submitted yet.

1:58:27Thank you.

1:58:28And this is directed to the applicant through you, chair.

1:58:33Why there is a considerable,

1:58:35can you explain why there's considerable amount

1:58:38of construction and demolition going on at the present times?

1:58:45Is a building permit application in review right now

1:58:49for the main floor renovations?

1:58:52I believe there was some site action

1:58:54as the home was just purchased

1:58:56getting rid of some of the conditions that were,

1:59:00I'm not entirely clear on that,

1:59:01but again, there is a permit application

1:59:04in for the main floor renovations.

1:59:06The work in the basement is separate from that.

1:59:08And would require an amended permit

1:59:11once the other one is approved.

1:59:16Thank you for that.

1:59:17However, I'm a little confused

1:59:20because there are two clean packs in the front yard.

1:59:23Looks like about a 12 yard bin and a six yard bin.

1:59:26And it's full of masonry

1:59:29and there was active demolition going on at the time.

1:59:32So while I understand that there's a building permit

1:59:35that's been applied for,

1:59:37I'm a little concerned that prior to us approving this

1:59:41that there'd be building activity going on.

1:59:44I know it's not up to us to be the building inspectors,

1:59:47but it concerns me about the veracity of an application

1:59:51when the rules are being flouted.

2:00:01Through you Madam Chair.

2:00:02It's not, I'm not really clear on the actions on site

2:00:06nor is it my place.

2:00:07I'm here for a minor variance application

2:00:10for the stairs, which would be part of a building permit

2:00:13application for basement finishes and accessory unit.

2:00:17To my knowledge, there was a plant material

2:00:21and a bunch of things that were being removed from site.

2:00:23I don't know if there was excessive masonry on the exterior.

2:00:26I have no idea what I can't comment on that.

2:00:32Right, and through you Chair, to the applicant,

2:00:36I don't want to put you in a difficult position

2:00:38that's outside of your scope.

2:00:43This is something that I believe just

2:00:49from the owner's point of view,

2:00:52makes me question whether or not,

2:00:56and it's up to city staff and building department

2:01:01to make sure that the areaway is constructed

2:01:06as per the plans that you've outlined.

2:01:12I'm just hesitant to approve something

2:01:15and then we're gonna be back here in a couple of months

2:01:18when an areaway is constructed outside of the scope

2:01:22of what's being asked for.

2:01:24So I'll leave it at that, Chair.

2:01:28I'd like to respond if I could.

2:01:29Yes, go ahead.

2:01:30Through you Chair, again, any works that are done

2:01:34on behalf of the permit or this application

2:01:36have to be inspected by building officials

2:01:38and have to meet the plans.

2:01:40So the comment of what is built matching

2:01:43what's applied for it,

2:01:44it has to match regardless of what's happening on site

2:01:49right now and again, I can't speak to any,

2:01:52there's no construction being completed on site

2:01:54that I'm aware of, especially in regards to anything

2:01:58we're here to discuss today as way of minor variance.

2:02:01And again, we still have to apply

2:02:03for the finishes permit for that basement,

2:02:05which is in conjunction with the stair

2:02:08and minor side yard setback reduction

2:02:10that we're requesting.

2:02:16Okay, thank you.

2:02:20Maybe though I will just ask before we move on

2:02:23to delegates if the city staff have any comments

2:02:26related to perhaps some advanced activity

2:02:30that may or may not be happening at the site,

2:02:32do you have any concerns that we should be aware of

2:02:34as we're thinking through this?

2:02:37Yeah, to the chair, I will just amend my comment.

2:02:41The building permit is not in for the stairs yet.

2:02:43It is in for the interior renovations

2:02:47to the main floor and the basement.

2:02:53I can take this back to the building staff,

2:02:56but a bin could come in to perhaps just move

2:03:00some old cabinetry or such.

2:03:03I don't know what the works are,

2:03:06so I don't want to presume anything.

2:03:10Bins to remove items from the house can be placed

2:03:14on a property prior to a building permit being issued.

2:03:19Thank you.

2:03:20And some demolition work,

2:03:21that doesn't require a building permit

2:03:23can be completed as well.

2:03:25Okay, thank you.

2:03:28Yes.

2:03:30A note as well, through you Madam Chair,

2:03:31that the closing of the purchase of the home

2:03:33was very contentious and the previous owner

2:03:35dragged out closing dates.

2:03:37And I think some of that chaotic action

2:03:41is possibly in connection to that,

2:03:44to try and move through to staff's comment

2:03:49and the cabinet removal or things like that.

2:03:51I could picture that.

2:03:52And again, we were expecting the process

2:03:53to move a little quicker and it has been delayed.

2:03:56So that's my only additional comment.

2:03:58Yeah, and I feel like we are moving

2:04:00into speculation territory here.

2:04:02So maybe we'll kind of put a pin in it

2:04:04unless there's anything more material

2:04:07to what we're going to review.

2:04:08But I do appreciate the discussion

2:04:10in trying to understand what we're seeing

2:04:12when we visit the sites.

2:04:14I think at this point though,

2:04:15we will move over to delegations.

2:04:17So Madam Secretary-Treasurer,

2:04:19do we have any delegations?

2:04:23Chair, I can confirm no delegation requests.

2:04:26Okay, great.

2:04:27Is there anyone here in the audience

2:04:28who would like to come forward

2:04:29and delegate on this application?

2:04:32Okay, seeing none.

2:04:33Then I think we can move over to,

2:04:37actually I will stop before we go to committee.

2:04:40Any final comments from city staff

2:04:42before we move forward with a motion?

2:04:47Nope, okay, good.

2:04:49Well then I think we can move into committee.

2:04:52Member Fitzpatrick, do you have a motion?

2:04:54I will motion that we accept the application as submitted.

2:05:00With the conditions that the staff are recommending.

2:05:05Okay, that's great, that's very clear.

2:05:09Do we have a seconder?

2:05:10Member Mir will second.

2:05:11Yeah.

2:05:12Okay, that's great.

2:05:13So we have a motion before us.

2:05:15Is there any discussion before we move to a vote?

2:05:17Yeah.

2:05:18Yes, Member Spears.

2:05:20I think that I witnessed the same thing

2:05:21that Chair Smith did,

2:05:24which was a bin in the driveway.

2:05:26I saw one not two.

2:05:27And a really big pile of brick and block.

2:05:31It wasn't cabinets.

2:05:32That was serious construction materials.

2:05:35Something's going on there.

2:05:36And I will support this because staff supports it,

2:05:40but I'm very in comfort with the situation.

2:05:42And I would encourage staff to follow up

2:05:44and make sure that this is really on the up and up

2:05:48because it doesn't look like it.

2:05:51And I'll leave it at that.

2:05:53Okay, thank you, Member Spears.

2:05:54I also saw similar.

2:05:57Two bins when I was there.

2:05:58So yeah, definitely some work happening.

2:06:03Any, yes, Member Smith, please go ahead.

2:06:07Thank you.

2:06:08And maybe you can hear construction next door.

2:06:11I will be reluctantly supporting this,

2:06:14but I wanna echo the other comments by my call.

2:06:20Okay, thank you for that comment.

2:06:23And I think we are good to move into a vote.

2:06:25So, Madam Secretary Treasurer.

2:06:30Thank you, Chair, committee members,

2:06:32please indicate your vote by responding in favor

2:06:34or opposed to the motion.

2:06:36And I'll just clarify too,

2:06:37that we do have the three potential conditions on screen

2:06:40there for the committee members to consider.

2:06:43I understand that the motion put on the floor

2:06:45is for approval with the staff recommended conditions.

2:06:50Chair Goodfellow.

2:06:52In favor.

2:06:53Member Fitzpatrick.

2:06:55In favor.

2:06:56Member Membranio.

2:06:58In favor.

2:06:58Member Meir.

2:07:00In favor.

2:07:00Member Ross.

2:07:01In favor.

2:07:02Member Smith.

2:07:03In favor.

2:07:05And Member Spears.

2:07:06In favor.

2:07:07That's carried, Chair.

2:07:09Okay, your application has been approved.

2:07:11Thanks for your time this afternoon.

2:07:14Okay, Madam Secretary Treasurer,

2:07:16we can call the next application, please.

2:07:20The next application is file A-75-25,

2:07:23variances for increased projection and front yard setback

2:07:27for proposed cover front porch and stairs,

2:07:29reduced front yard setback for existing dwelling

2:07:32and reduced driveway sightline triangle dimensions

2:07:35at 18 McTag Street.

2:07:36For those watching online,

2:07:38if you wish to speak to this application,

2:07:39you can do so by calling the number displayed on the screen,

2:07:42that number's 519-822-1260 extension 2524,

2:07:48when you call in staff will give you instructions.

2:07:52Okay, thank you.

2:07:52I see someone at the podium here.

2:07:54Can you state your name and relationship to the applicant?

2:07:58Try, yeah, there we go.

2:08:00Lloyd Grunamark attacks applicants agent.

2:08:04Thank you, and was the sign posted

2:08:06for the Planning Act requirements?

2:08:08It was.

2:08:08And have you received staff comments

2:08:10and are you in agreement with conditions as recommended?

2:08:13We have received the comments.

2:08:16It's kind of a two-part question.

2:08:18We've received the comments and agreed with the comments,

2:08:22just seeking some clarification,

2:08:24perhaps on details of the recommended condition.

2:08:29Okay, well, hopefully we can get to that,

2:08:31although sometimes that is outside of the purview

2:08:34of this committee or this discussion,

2:08:36but yes, be interested in your presentation then.

2:08:39You have 10 minutes, thank you.

2:08:40Okay, thanks.

2:08:42So, yeah, we had a number of discussions

2:08:47with staff coming to this.

2:08:49I'm sure committee's been to see the site.

2:08:51You're familiar with it.

2:08:52It's MacTag Street, pretty compact little street.

2:08:55Everything is kind of at its own scale, historically.

2:08:59So, no questions or concerns with planning staff,

2:09:04building staff, engineering staff's review and comments.

2:09:07We appreciate the fact that there's been some latitude

2:09:10on such things as the site line triangle.

2:09:13Again, all of this is sort of in response

2:09:16to somewhat unique circumstances

2:09:19because of the age and type of neighborhood that it is,

2:09:22that everything, the side yard, front yards,

2:09:24all those setbacks existing are quite a bit different

2:09:28than we find in the current zoning regulations.

2:09:30So, we appreciate the flexibility and latitude on that

2:09:34from staff that reviewed it,

2:09:35and quite happy to accept those comments.

2:09:39The question that we have,

2:09:42and it's specific to the condition that's been recommended

2:09:47about the tree inventory protection plan.

2:09:51So, we received that as part of the comments,

2:09:53I think probably last Friday.

2:09:56On behalf of the owners,

2:09:57I reached out to our brists who we work with

2:10:00on a regular basis, who are doing these all the time.

2:10:02And we did receive a proposal to carry out

2:10:05the inventory protection plan

2:10:08as outlined in the condition with comments.

2:10:12I was a little surprised to see it

2:10:14or striking resemblance to the last few

2:10:16that we've had for much bigger multi-residential developments.

2:10:19And the explanation was that it's kind of the standard

2:10:24caliber and extent of report

2:10:28that the city gets when they ask for this condition.

2:10:31And so, I reached out to staff admittedly just today

2:10:36when I got that answer from the consultants.

2:10:38And my answer was, well, this is a standard condition

2:10:43that we would impose,

2:10:44staff wouldn't be keen on waiving that condition.

2:10:48So, what I would like to ask,

2:10:51I suppose in this context of the committee and staff,

2:10:54is if there's a way to perhaps just modify

2:10:58the wording of the condition that would allow us

2:11:01on behalf of the owners to speak with the city staff.

2:11:04In particular, we were appointed to the forestry department

2:11:07because what we're talking about here

2:11:10is a city tree in particular,

2:11:11the one that you see directly in front of ATM-McTag.

2:11:15And to see if we might be able to,

2:11:18through discussion with that department,

2:11:20specifically about the city tree,

2:11:23arrive at a more scoped, precise requirement

2:11:27in terms of tree inventory protection plan

2:11:29reporting specific to this circumstance.

2:11:34The owners have no intention of removing

2:11:37or even talking about removing the tree.

2:11:38No one on McTag will talk about removing a tree,

2:11:41I can assure you.

2:11:43And we understand the standard requirements

2:11:45for tree protection on site during construction,

2:11:48the signage, the surrounding, the fencing, all that,

2:11:51would be part of the work as it goes.

2:11:53We would expect to probably use

2:11:56a more contemporary modified footing foundation system

2:12:01that instead of conventional footings,

2:12:03uses helical piles to minimize any impact to existing routes.

2:12:07So all of that's in the plan as it is.

2:12:11I guess what we're just hoping for

2:12:13is that there might be an opportunity to reduce

2:12:17and kind of focus a little more appropriately,

2:12:20if I can say that with respect to the staff

2:12:23asking for this condition,

2:12:24more appropriately respond to the question

2:12:27of tree inventory protection plans

2:12:30sufficient for forestry department approval

2:12:33to move forward with it.

2:12:34And I'm not exactly sure how that would be done

2:12:37other than maybe just adding a word or two to the condition

2:12:39if the committee were willing to consider that.

2:12:43I think that's the presentation.

2:12:45Thank you.

2:12:48I'm gonna ask if city staff has a presentation.

2:12:52I don't think you were planning to give a presentation,

2:12:54but perhaps because the question has been posed

2:12:57as part of the applicant's presentation,

2:12:59if you would like to add a couple comments at this point

2:13:02before the committee asks some questions of both parties.

2:13:09Through you, Madam Chair, I don't have a presentation,

2:13:11but I did speak with landscape planning staff

2:13:14who provided comments to Mr. Grinnum prior to the hearing.

2:13:20So the wording of the condition specifically says

2:13:22that the plan be prepared to the general satisfaction

2:13:26of the manager of parks and forestry staff.

2:13:29And so in our interpretation of that wording,

2:13:33if the applicant has a meeting with forestry staff

2:13:39and they go on site and see the site and deem a tip

2:13:43not to be necessary, then that can be considered

2:13:45to satisfy the requirements of the condition

2:13:49as long as forestry and park staff are satisfied

2:13:51that the condition is met, then that's all that matters.

2:13:55So I don't think it would require

2:13:58that a treatment or an preservation plan be required

2:14:00if forestry staff don't think that it's necessary.

2:14:04So I think there is flexibility already built

2:14:06into the language of the condition.

2:14:09Okay, okay, that's helpful.

2:14:10Thank you.

2:14:13I'm going to pause here and see what questions

2:14:17the committee members may have.

2:14:20Yeah, members, peers.

2:14:21Yes, to the applicant through you, manager.

2:14:24Looking at the proposed porch here,

2:14:27from what I'm reading, it's a little bit narrower

2:14:29than the existing porch, is that correct?

2:14:34Come on, oh, there we go.

2:14:36Less wide, perhaps, as opposed to the proposed porch.

2:14:40No, the proposal is to remove the existing porch

2:14:44and replace it with something that is, in fact, a bit wider

2:14:47and approaches the street by a few more inches as well.

2:14:51It's not our clearest drawing in history, I'm afraid.

2:14:56The existing porch is the dashed line

2:14:59inside the larger shaded area.

2:15:01So the shaded area is the extent

2:15:04of the proposed replacement porch for the existing one.

2:15:09I'm tempted to get into details,

2:15:12but I know it's not my area of expertise.

2:15:15I'm simply curious about if one removed the existing porch

2:15:19and didn't take out the foundation that's there

2:15:21or the pillars or whatever's there

2:15:23and simply planted new posts,

2:15:25the helical piles that you're describing,

2:15:28it seems to me that that would really minimize

2:15:30any damage you do to the ground at all.

2:15:35In truth, we're not exactly sure

2:15:37what's there for the existing foundations.

2:15:39My suspicion is there's not very much.

2:15:43That's usually what we find.

2:15:45So the expectation we would probably put in

2:15:47for new helical piles across the front.

2:15:50But again, the intent, I think you're familiar with those,

2:15:53they're very low intrusion,

2:15:56they basically just a corkscrew into the ground.

2:15:58But that's the idea.

2:15:59I don't know, we wouldn't rule out the possibility

2:16:03that the existing foundation could come into play

2:16:06and obviously it ended in the tree,

2:16:07we have a relationship now that we wouldn't disturb.

2:16:10But I would hesitate to speculate

2:16:13on whether or not we could count on that.

2:16:15So my assumption would be that probably four new piles

2:16:20across the front would be the safest solution

2:16:23if that answers question.

2:16:25I think that it does.

2:16:26And a follow up, having just heard what city staff said,

2:16:30your body language said you weren't particularly comfortable

2:16:33with that in the last 30 seconds,

2:16:35have you become more comfortable with that?

2:16:38Oh, sorry, I think my body language was,

2:16:40that was more flexibility than I was anticipating.

2:16:45No, I think as Eric's mentioned,

2:16:48if that staff's understanding of that sort of inherent

2:16:52flexibility in the condition as it's worded

2:16:55and presented to the committee,

2:16:56I think we're comfortable with that.

2:16:57I'm happy to work with staff to dial it in as best we can.

2:17:01Great, thanks, that was my question.

2:17:04Good questions, thank you, member Spears.

2:17:06Any other questions for the applicant or city staff?

2:17:11Okay, seeing none, I'm just going to check

2:17:14if we have any delegations.

2:17:15Madam Secretary Treasurer.

2:17:18Chair, I can confirm no registered delegates.

2:17:21Okay, thank you.

2:17:21Is there anyone here in the audience

2:17:23who would like to come forward and delegate?

2:17:25Okay, seeing none, then I think we can move over

2:17:30to the committee and see if there is a motion

2:17:32that someone would like to introduce.

2:17:35Oh, okay, member Smith.

2:17:39Thank you, Madam Chair.

2:17:41I would like to move that we accept this application

2:17:45with the recommended staff conventions.

2:17:49Great, thank you.

2:17:49Is there a seconder?

2:17:51Member Spears?

2:17:55All right, is there any discussion on the motion?

2:18:01Seeing none, I will turn it over

2:18:03to Madam Secretary Treasurer for the vote, please.

2:18:07Thank you, Chair, committee members,

2:18:09please indicate your vote by responding in favor

2:18:11or opposed to the motion,

2:18:12which is to approve the application

2:18:14with the recommended condition.

2:18:16Chair Goodfellow?

2:18:17In favor.

2:18:18Member Fitzpatrick?

2:18:19In favor.

2:18:20Member Mambrainio?

2:18:21In favor.

2:18:22Member Meir?

2:18:23In favor.

2:18:24Member Ross?

2:18:26In favor.

2:18:27Member Smith?

2:18:28In favor.

2:18:29And Member Spears?

2:18:30In favor.

2:18:31Let's carry chair.

2:18:33Wonderful, your application has been approved,

2:18:35so you are free to leave the meeting.

2:18:37Thanks so much for your time.

2:18:38Thank you very much.

2:18:41Okay, I think we have one final application

2:18:44to review this evening,

2:18:46so Madam Secretary Treasurer,

2:18:48if you could call the final application.

2:18:51Thank you, Chair.

2:18:52The last application we have this evening

2:18:54is file B-62-25,

2:18:57consent for technical severance

2:18:58to reestablish original lot lines

2:19:00at 51 and 53 and 55 Manitoba Street.

2:19:04I'll note for those attending remotely,

2:19:06if you wish to speak to this application,

2:19:08you can do so by calling the number displayed on the screen.

2:19:11That number is 519-822-1260, extension 2524.

2:19:16And when you call in,

2:19:17staff will give you instructions

2:19:18on how you can delegate remotely.

2:19:20I'll also note for the committee members

2:19:23that staff are recommending a few changes

2:19:25to the recommended conditions.

2:19:27There was five conditions proposed

2:19:29with the staff comments.

2:19:31Condition number one requiring a development agreement.

2:19:35Staff have reviewed and development agreement

2:19:38isn't required in this situation,

2:19:40so we are recommending that condition number one

2:19:43no longer be required.

2:19:46Also in line with that,

2:19:47condition number two is requiring certain fees to be paid,

2:19:51including the administration fee

2:19:53that we usually apply with consent applications.

2:19:57As the committee may recall,

2:19:59back in December of last year,

2:20:01the applicant did come forward

2:20:03asking for a waiver in the application fees,

2:20:06and at that time, the committee did waive the requirement

2:20:08for the administration fee.

2:20:10So staff is recommending that condition two

2:20:14is no longer needed as well.

2:20:15So condition one and two,

2:20:17we are recommending no longer be required.

2:20:20Thank you for that helpful information

2:20:23as we move forward with this.

2:20:27Okay, so yes, we have the applicant with us.

2:20:29If you could state your name and relationship

2:20:31to the application, please.

2:20:33Good afternoon, my name is Jasmine Bangu,

2:20:36and I'm an articling student with Smith-Hallariet Law in Guam,

2:20:40and I'm here on behalf of our client

2:20:43with regards to the subject properties.

2:20:46Thank you.

2:20:47Can you confirm that the sign was posted

2:20:50per the Planning Act?

2:20:51Yes, I can.

2:20:52Great, and have you received staff comments

2:20:54and are you in agreement with them?

2:20:56Yes, we have received the comments

2:20:59in agreement with most of the conditions.

2:21:02Just one that I would like to speak to now

2:21:04that I've heard the first condition has been adjusted.

2:21:10Okay, great.

2:21:11Well, we will look forward to your presentation.

2:21:13You have 10 minutes.

2:21:15Thank you.

2:21:17I'll just start off by saying,

2:21:19thank you everybody and to city staff.

2:21:22I did initially plan to discuss condition one,

2:21:27but I will no longer be doing that.

2:21:30And so I just want to confirm

2:21:33that we do accept conditions one, two, and five

2:21:38as being appropriately applied in this matter,

2:21:40so I will not be speaking to those

2:21:42and request that the committee accept those.

2:21:48The condition that I will be speaking to

2:21:50is condition number four,

2:21:52which is that prior to the issuance

2:21:55of the certificate of official,

2:21:57a reference plan be prepared,

2:21:59deposited and filed with the secretary treasurer,

2:22:02which shall indicate the boundaries of the severed parcel

2:22:05and easements right of way and building locations.

2:22:09And so staff comments,

2:22:15so I just want to make sure we're on the right image.

2:22:18I'm doing this correctly.

2:22:28Sorry.

2:22:34Okay, I will just leave this for now.

2:22:38I was, oh, there we go.

2:22:39That's the right one.

2:22:40Thank you.

2:22:41I just wanted to refer to this block map

2:22:44and specifically to pin 0219,

2:22:47which is on the right hand side.

2:22:49That is 55 Manitoba Street and pin 0220,

2:22:54which is 51 and 53 Manitoba Street.

2:22:58And so I just wanted to point out

2:23:01that the proposed severed and retained properties

2:23:05have distinct legal descriptions,

2:23:07which you can actually see

2:23:08from the parcel register documents

2:23:10that accompany this application.

2:23:13And from the perspective of the land registry office,

2:23:16and in our legal opinion,

2:23:19the lots remain separately parceled

2:23:21as they have been for decades,

2:23:23notwithstanding an error that occurred in 2006

2:23:27that resulted in a common law merger of the two properties.

2:23:31So in terms of a reference plan,

2:23:34a reference plan should only be necessary

2:23:36when an existing lot with a single pin

2:23:38is being split into one or more subdivisions.

2:23:42And in the matter at hand,

2:23:43that is there is no land being subdivided.

2:23:45There are no physical changes being made to the land

2:23:48as it exists today.

2:23:50And in this matter,

2:23:51the lot and the dwellings already exists.

2:23:54While it has merged in common law,

2:23:57nothing has changed on the ground

2:23:58and nothing has changed with the land registry.

2:24:03What we are doing here

2:24:04is severing off the entire pin 455 Manitoba Street,

2:24:08which is zero to one nine.

2:24:11And that today is capable of being legally described.

2:24:16And I just wanted to reiterate

2:24:17that although the properties have merged in common law,

2:24:20they remain separate in the land registry system

2:24:22and retain separate legal descriptions and pin numbers.

2:24:26So essentially the land as it exists today

2:24:29could be conveyed,

2:24:31but for of course it would contraven the planning act

2:24:34under a butting lands legislation.

2:24:37And I just wanted to add finally

2:24:40that in our covering letter submitted

2:24:42with the applications which was mentioned earlier

2:24:44to sever the lots,

2:24:45we requested that the committee waive any condition proposed

2:24:48by city staff requiring that the preparation,

2:24:51requiring a preparation of a reference plan.

2:24:55There was no reasonable basis for our client

2:24:56to prepare such a plan in this particular matter.

2:24:59Requiring a plan would also impose unnecessary

2:25:03and redundant expense on our client

2:25:05given that they both have their own legal pins

2:25:08and descriptions.

2:25:09And the cost would be upwards of $2,000

2:25:13and would likely, it would serve no purpose

2:25:15and is unreasonable in this particular matter.

2:25:20So I'd just like to end by saying

2:25:23the proposed severance would simply unwind

2:25:25a common law merger separating the properties

2:25:28known as 51 and 53 Manitoba Street,

2:25:31as you can see on the left-hand side,

2:25:33from the single detached dwelling known as 55 Manitoba Street.

2:25:38And so by applying to the committee of adjustments,

2:25:40we've, our clients have taken the most expeditious

2:25:43and cost-effective approach to unwind

2:25:45the 2006 common law merger.

2:25:48It was a mistake and it should never have happened.

2:25:52And so this approach remains the most cost-effective approach

2:25:55where there are no conditions imposed on our clients

2:25:57say for the routine procedural,

2:25:59procedural committee of adjustment conditions,

2:26:02which include now two, three and five

2:26:07per staff city comments with number one being removed.

2:26:11And to that end, I would request that condition

2:26:14for not be imposed while the other conditions we accept.

2:26:22Thank you.

2:26:22Thank you for your presentation.

2:26:25I think we don't have staff presentation for this one.

2:26:28So I think we're gonna move into questions from the committee.

2:26:31So committee members,

2:26:33do we have questions for the applicant or city staff?

2:26:36Member Spears.

2:26:38This is just pure curiosity to the applicant.

2:26:42We're very used to seeing severances

2:26:44that have to do with semi-detached buildings.

2:26:46This is a semi-detached building that isn't severed.

2:26:50I guess it never was,

2:26:52which means that it couldn't be sold as separate properties.

2:26:55Was there ever any thought to,

2:26:57or is it even possible to sever that property?

2:27:0151 to 53.

2:27:04No, I do not speak to what the client intends to do

2:27:08with the 51 and 53, but this particular matter,

2:27:12we are just severing 51 and 53 together off of 55.

2:27:17I cannot speak to what the clients would do in the future.

2:27:20All right, thank you.

2:27:22Thanks, Member Spears.

2:27:23Member Smith, any other question?

2:27:26I do, thank you, Chair.

2:27:28Through you to staff,

2:27:31based on the comments made by the proponents represented,

2:27:38would staff be in support of accepting the conditions

2:27:43except for condition number four?

2:27:53Yes, I think actually the secretary,

2:27:55treasurer maybe have some comments on that question.

2:28:02Through you, Madam Chair,

2:28:03to address Member Smith's comments there,

2:28:07staff is still recommending that the condition

2:28:09for the reference plan be required.

2:28:12We do understand that this is a technical severance.

2:28:15There was an unfortunate merger.

2:28:18As you've, as a committee seen with many of our applications,

2:28:21a reference plan is a standard condition

2:28:23for all of our severance applications.

2:28:26It's the most, a reference plans ultimately

2:28:28the most accurate way to describe the property.

2:28:31We do understand that there's as in numbers

2:28:35for the existing legal descriptions.

2:28:38Those are registrable legal descriptions

2:28:41that the solicitors can use,

2:28:44but those as in numbers usually have like

2:28:46meet and bounce descriptions.

2:28:49Those are a little bit more complex.

2:28:51And as staff, we have no way of verifying that reference plans

2:28:56are also very useful tools when it comes to future sales

2:29:00of the property.

2:29:02So I'll leave it up to the committee

2:29:03if they wish to ultimately leave that condition in,

2:29:07but at this point staff is still recommending

2:29:09that a reference plan still be required.

2:29:13I understand that it would cause additional costs

2:29:17for the applicant, but the committee

2:29:18has also considered previous requests

2:29:21from the applicant to waive fees in that instance.

2:29:25And we still feel that that reference plan

2:29:27is a valuable tool there.

2:29:33Thank you, Madam Secretary Treasurer.

2:29:36Through you chair to the applicant,

2:29:39may I ask for a little follow up

2:29:46on our secretary treasurer's comments?

2:29:54Yes, through you Madam Chair to member Smith.

2:30:00I would just like to reiterate again

2:30:02that this mistake of a common law merger

2:30:06occurred in 2006, it was only discovered last year.

2:30:11And so I would like to refer you back to the map if possible.

2:30:20It doesn't seem to work for me.

2:30:22Thank you.

2:30:24That considering that the land registry

2:30:28and in our legal opinion, the properties

2:30:33are legally described individually

2:30:36and were never consolidated into one pin.

2:30:40They remain separately parcelized and therefore

2:30:43and have been for decades not withstanding the error

2:30:46that happened in 2006.

2:30:48And so I would again reemphasize that a reference plan

2:30:52should only be necessary when an existing lot

2:30:54with a single pin is being split into one

2:30:58or more lots of subdivisions.

2:31:01And that is not happening.

2:31:02There is nothing changing on the ground

2:31:04and in the land registry, these are still separately described

2:31:09and should not require a reference plan.

2:31:12In terms of any future development, again,

2:31:15I cannot speak to that.

2:31:18And this matter at hand is only dealing

2:31:20with the severance of 55 Manitoba Street from 51 and 53.

2:31:27Thank you, a little bit to consider.

2:31:32And actually unless there are other,

2:31:35yes, okay, Member Fitzpatrick,

2:31:36you may ask the question that I'm about to ask.

2:31:38Through you chair to the delegate.

2:31:42So what you're asking for here is relief

2:31:44on the cost of a reference plan.

2:31:49Through Madam Chair to Member Fitzpatrick,

2:31:53we are asking that no reference plan is required at all.

2:31:58So staff has made a strong argument

2:32:04for the reasons why they require this

2:32:06but these severances, the severance is being requested

2:32:11because of an error on somebody's part back in 2006.

2:32:15So I'm assuming that was a law form,

2:32:18whether it was yours or somebody else's,

2:32:21that if that error was made there,

2:32:24there should be some errors in emissions,

2:32:26insurance covering some of this cost for the client.

2:32:32I cannot speak to whether there is insurance

2:32:35in terms of that error since it occurred in 2006.

2:32:39It was only discovered last year.

2:32:42And to your other point,

2:32:44a lawyer, an estate lawyer actually dealt with this in 2006

2:32:48and we are simply just correcting the mistake that was made.

2:32:55Okay, thank you.

2:32:57Thank you. Good question.

2:33:00Little different than the question I had.

2:33:01So if I may, I think I have a question for city staff

2:33:07or and perhaps it's the secretary treasurer,

2:33:10but I have a very limited understanding

2:33:12of what meets and bounds are,

2:33:14but I do understand that it can be complicated

2:33:16to try and interpret.

2:33:18It seems relevant here to understand that a little better

2:33:22versus what I think is being described

2:33:25with the reference plan.

2:33:26So could someone from city staff just comment

2:33:30on the difference between what could be used to,

2:33:36I guess, transact the property as it currently stands

2:33:39versus what information would be available

2:33:41with a reference plan.

2:33:45So please go ahead.

2:33:47To chair, good fellow.

2:33:49And I don't propose to be an expert

2:33:51on reference plans at all.

2:33:52And I'm not a solicitor for sure,

2:33:55but I have chatted with our legal staff.

2:33:57There is a parcel that's noted on, you'll see on the drawing,

2:34:01there's the parcel at the rear there, 0278.

2:34:05That is also, and the applicant can speak to this as well.

2:34:11I believe owned by the applicant

2:34:14that they will probably need to get a reference plan

2:34:16for that parcel at the back as well.

2:34:19That's not necessarily mean necessitates

2:34:22that a reference plan is needed for this property.

2:34:25We've outlined the different advantages

2:34:27of having that reference plan.

2:34:28Meets and bounds are typically that old way

2:34:32of describing property dimensions

2:34:35that tend to be, as you said, quite complex.

2:34:39I will acknowledge that there,

2:34:40as long as the solicitor can give us

2:34:42a registrable legal description for the certificate,

2:34:46we can provide that certificate.

2:34:47However, we still feel that a reference plan

2:34:52is a benefit to that property.

2:34:55Again, it's up to the committee if they wanna include

2:34:57that condition or not.

2:35:01If the committee doesn't want to include

2:35:03that reference plan condition,

2:35:04I would, staff would request that we have a condition

2:35:09that the solicitor, the applicant solicitor,

2:35:11provide a registrable legal description

2:35:13for the certificate of official

2:35:14to the satisfaction of the city solicitor,

2:35:16just to ensure that we do have something

2:35:19that we can use for that certificate of official,

2:35:24because we usually do get that description

2:35:25off the reference plan.

2:35:27But there's many ways of attacking this,

2:35:30but we still, staff still feel that

2:35:34having an up-to-date reference plan also is an advantage,

2:35:38perhaps to the applicant when it comes

2:35:39to a future sale of the property as well.

2:35:42We understand there's additional costs with that,

2:35:45but this wasn't a mistake on behalf of the city's behalf here,

2:35:50and it's an unfortunate situation,

2:35:52but reference plans do cost money,

2:35:54but they also provide other benefits there.

2:35:57Thank you, that's helpful.

2:35:58And actually, I do have a second question, if I may.

2:36:03The, oh shoot.

2:36:10Oh, I'm sorry, yes.

2:36:11The second condition,

2:36:12because I think in your preamble at the beginning,

2:36:17I understood that condition number one could be removed,

2:36:21and also condition number two.

2:36:23Can you just confirm that we're talking about

2:36:25potentially removing both one and two,

2:36:28and then we have a question mark around condition number four?

2:36:34To the chair, I can confirm.

2:36:35So condition one in the original comments

2:36:38was the development agreement condition,

2:36:40that's not required.

2:36:42So condition one can be removed.

2:36:44Condition two is about requiring fees,

2:36:47and as I alluded to before,

2:36:50the committee's already waived the administration fee,

2:36:53so condition two isn't required as well.

2:36:55That would leave conditions three, four, and five,

2:36:59and the one that we've been talking about recently

2:37:01is the reference plan condition number four.

2:37:04Thank you, that's a helpful clarification.

2:37:08Okay, are there any other questions

2:37:10from the committee members

2:37:11to either the applicant or city staff?

2:37:15Okay, seeing none,

2:37:16I think we will check to see

2:37:18if there are any delegations that have been requested.

2:37:22Madam Secretary Treasurer.

2:37:24Chair, we actually do have a delegation request.

2:37:27We're just bringing them in,

2:37:28if you can just give us a few moments.

2:37:30Great, thank you.

2:37:32Chair, we're just bringing in the delegate.

2:38:23I'll just take a few more moments to get that call through.

2:38:28Thank you.

2:38:32I think we can be patient here for another few minutes.

2:38:35Moments.

2:38:36Madam Chair, we're still trying to get that delegate in.

2:39:31I understand the caller is a relative of the applicant.

2:39:36I'm not sure if the applicant can speak anymore to this.

2:39:40Barbara Pickley.

2:39:45To Madam Chair,

2:39:49I do believe that Barbara wanted to be here in person,

2:39:52and perhaps she wasn't able to be here,

2:39:53so she may have some additional comments.

2:39:57I will just add that we are...

2:40:00There was a mistake made in 2006,

2:40:05and I believe the intention,

2:40:08and I could be incorrect here,

2:40:10but the intention is to keep the properties within the family,

2:40:14and Barbara may want to speak to that,

2:40:17although I'm not entirely sure.

2:40:19I have not spoken with her directly myself.

2:40:23I'm happy to wait to see whether she can call in.

2:40:30Oh, good.

2:40:32I think we can wait, yes.

2:40:33I'm just looking at my committee members.

2:40:35Yep, we can wait if she would like to continue trying to call in.

2:40:41Chair, we have made a couple of call-outs.

2:40:44We're just waiting for that call to pick up.

2:40:46So if you want to give us one more minute,

2:40:48and then if we aren't able to reach that delegate,

2:40:52we'll go ahead.

2:40:54Okay, thank you.

2:40:55Appreciate the effort you're going to to make sure

2:40:58that they have a voice in these proceedings,

2:41:00so we can be patient on our side.

2:42:11Madam Chair, we do have the delegate in via phone.

2:42:16Wonderful.

2:42:17Can the delegate hear me?

2:42:18Hi.

2:42:19Yes, hello, sorry.

2:42:22It's okay.

2:42:23Sorry, both the technical difficulties.

2:42:26How are you?

2:42:27We're too made it in.

2:42:28Can you state your name please for the record?

2:42:31Yes, it's Barbara Pakoli,

2:42:33and I'm Yolanda Pakoli's daughter.

2:42:36Wonderful, you have 10 minutes to make comments

2:42:40to the committee, so please go ahead.

2:42:42I just want to make one comment, Jasmine, you were amazing,

2:42:47but the law firm that made the error

2:42:50is no longer in existence.

2:42:52We do have the delegate in via phone.

2:42:57Can you hear me?

2:42:59Yes, yes, we can hear you,

2:43:00so we seem to have some over.

2:43:02The law firm that made the error is no longer in existence,

2:43:06and the lawyer is deceased.

2:43:08So we have no way of recovering the costs,

2:43:11and we've already went to Van Harten

2:43:16and had to go through this process,

2:43:20and we feel that there was no reason

2:43:22why we should have had to go through the process.

2:43:25So that's just some background information

2:43:27that I wanted to give.

2:43:32Hey, thank you, we appreciate that additional information,

2:43:36and it sounds like it was kind of a challenging time, so.

2:43:41Yes, we appreciate that you were able to get

2:43:43into the conversation today to add that.

2:43:47I guess, do the committee members

2:43:48have any questions for this delegate?

2:43:53No, okay, seeing none.

2:43:56Oh, Member Smith, please go ahead.

2:43:59Thank you, Chair, and given the time we've taken

2:44:03to get the delegate in, I thought it might be appropriate

2:44:08to ask what are the plans for this?

2:44:13Why we need to, why we're here,

2:44:17why we're talking about severing this?

2:44:24Because there are two separate properties,

2:44:27and they were two separate properties

2:44:30when they were purchased,

2:44:31and my mother wants to give the properties

2:44:37to her grandchildren.

2:44:42Thank you, appreciate the background.

2:44:46You're welcome.

2:44:50Okay, so thank you.

2:44:52I think then we'll just check and see

2:44:56if there's any other delegations here in the audience

2:45:00who may wish to speak to this application.

2:45:02No, I think we are kind of winding down in the room.

2:45:07Then I guess we're gonna go into committee,

2:45:10and I will defer over to the committee members

2:45:14if they have a motion.

2:45:15I see Member Fitzpatrick maybe.

2:45:18No, okay, go ahead.

2:45:19Just one quick question for staff.

2:45:21Yeah, so please go ahead.

2:45:23Through you, Madam Chair.

2:45:24So with this application, there was a survey,

2:45:29a building location survey provided by Van Hartens

2:45:33that it's dated this year.

2:45:36Now in my business, when I see one of these with an offer

2:45:39and whatnot, we're really grateful to see that

2:45:41because we don't generally see a lot of them.

2:45:45Would staff find that acceptable knowing that

2:45:50the lots are already legally,

2:45:52they've got their own separate legal addresses

2:45:56and descriptions and pin numbers?

2:45:59And the solicitor for the applicant

2:46:04is prepared to provide that description to the city.

2:46:10Would that be sufficient?

2:46:15Through the chair to Member Fitzpatrick,

2:46:18the site sketch that was provided with the application

2:46:22is just that it's not a reference plan,

2:46:24so we can't obtain any legal descriptions

2:46:27from the site, the separate sketch there.

2:46:33Staff still recommending that the reference plan

2:46:36be prepared.

2:46:37If the committee doesn't want to include that condition,

2:46:39we would recommend that a condition be imposed

2:46:44that the solicitor provide a registrable legal description

2:46:51for the certificate of official

2:46:52to the satisfaction of the city solicitor.

2:46:59Okay, thank you.

2:47:02Okay, so I think I will go back to the committee

2:47:04and see it, Member Smith, please go ahead.

2:47:08Thank you, Chair.

2:47:09Through you to city staff,

2:47:13I think it may be the secretary-treasurer again.

2:47:17I wonder about breaking this apart.

2:47:21If we had two motions,

2:47:23one motion would be clean,

2:47:27that we accept conditions,

2:47:31I guess it's three, five, and six,

2:47:35and that we would then have a second motion

2:47:38whether or not condition four would be appropriate.

2:47:42Is that something we could do?

2:47:49Through the chair to Member Smith,

2:47:51you could split out those motions.

2:47:54I'll just confirm there is no conditions six.

2:47:56So the only conditions that we're recommending here

2:47:59at this point are conditions three, four, and five.

2:48:05I mean, ultimately, if the committee would like

2:48:07the cleanest way option is to include all those conditions

2:48:10and if that motion fails,

2:48:11there could be an alternative motion put on the floor

2:48:16for the other conditions there too.

2:48:19Thank you for that.

2:48:21And through the chair to Secretary-Treasurer,

2:48:26I guess I was speaking of a hypothetical condition number six,

2:48:30which would be as the secretary-treasurer has outlined,

2:48:34that a legal description would be provided

2:48:39that to the satisfaction of city staff.

2:48:47Through the chair to Member Smith,

2:48:49I appreciate that clarification there

2:48:51for condition number six.

2:48:55I think if the committee wants to proceed,

2:48:59they can see which motion they'd like to place on the floor.

2:49:02Probably easiest is to have it all in one motion,

2:49:05whatever the mover would like

2:49:07and see what the ultimate outcome of that vote is.

2:49:12Thank you, Madam Secretary-Treasurer.

2:49:15Chair, I would like to move

2:49:18that we accept this application

2:49:24without conditions numbers two, one, two and four,

2:49:31and add the additional conditioners

2:49:33outlined by the secretary-treasurer

2:49:35that a legal description be provided

2:49:39to the satisfaction of the city.

2:49:44Okay, thank you, Member Smith.

2:49:46Is there a seconder?

2:49:47Okay, Member Fitzpatrick has seconded,

2:49:49so now we can have discussion on the motion in front of us.

2:49:52So I'll open the floor and Member Spears.

2:49:57I will certainly support this

2:49:58because I think I don't want us to be prescriptive

2:50:03about what's in the best interests legally

2:50:06for the owner of this property.

2:50:09If their legal counsel thinks that they're fine without it,

2:50:12I think they could do that.

2:50:15They should make their own decision.

2:50:17And if it works against them later on,

2:50:20well, that's out of our hands, but it's up to them.

2:50:24Okay, thank you.

2:50:25And then support.

2:50:27Member Ross.

2:50:29I'm also going to support the motion

2:50:33and we've heard the applicant talk about

2:50:42a new registered plan not being required.

2:50:45Our secretary, Treasurer, has gone through the benefits

2:50:48to the owner of having a new plan drawn up.

2:50:53The applicant, as I understand it,

2:50:55is choosing to waive that advantage.

2:50:59So given that discussion and information,

2:51:05I'm prepared to support it as it was moved by Member Smith.

2:51:12That's great.

2:51:13Thank you for that comment.

2:51:15Any other final comments?

2:51:19All right, seeing none,

2:51:20I think then we can move into a vote.

2:51:22So Madame Secretary Treasurer.

2:51:26Thank you, Chair.

2:51:26So committee members, please indicate your vote

2:51:28by responding in favor opposed to the motion.

2:51:31And I know there's been lots of changes here,

2:51:33so I'll outline that too.

2:51:35So that would be approving condition three,

2:51:39requiring a written undertaking from the solicitor

2:51:42and condition five,

2:51:44requiring the draft transfer documents

2:51:46as well as a new condition

2:51:49requiring the registrable legal description

2:51:52for the certificate of official.

2:51:56Chair Goodfellow.

2:51:57In favor.

2:51:58Member Fitzpatrick.

2:51:59In favor.

2:52:01Member Membraniel.

2:52:02In favor.

2:52:03Member Meir.

2:52:04In favor.

2:52:05Member Ross.

2:52:05In favor.

2:52:06Member Smith.

2:52:07In favor.

2:52:08And Member Spears.

2:52:10In favor.

2:52:11That's Kerry Chair.

2:52:12Great, thank you.

2:52:14So to the applicant,

2:52:15your application has been approved.

2:52:16Thanks so much for your time this evening.

2:52:18Thank you.

2:52:20Okay.

2:52:22So that brings us to the end of the applications

2:52:24for this meeting.

2:52:26I have confirmed with the Secretary Treasurer

2:52:28there are no staff announcements this evening.

2:52:30So I think at this point,

2:52:32we can ask for a committee member to move for adjournment.

2:52:35Do I have...

2:52:38Member Spears with enthusiasm.

2:52:40Do we have a seconder?

2:52:42Member Fitzpatrick.

2:52:45All of those in favor, please raise your hands.

2:52:48All right, we are adjourned.

2:52:50Thanks so much for your time this evening.

2:52:53Thank you, Chair.